31e législature, 2e session

L075 - Thu 1 Jun 1978 / Jeu 1er jun 1978

The House met at 2 p.m.




Hon. Mr. Grossman: Later today I will be introducing the Condominium Act, 1978. I wish to take this opportunity to outline some of the thinking that resulted in the new act in its proposed form.

The Condominium Act, as it currently stands, was originally enacted as an instrument to create a property interest in the ownership of space and to govern the conveyancing of these interests. It does not adequately deal with the many issues which have, over the past few years, caused great difficulty to purchasers and owners of condominium units.

The honourable members, Mr. Speaker, I think are familiar with the history of the development of this new legislation. Therefore I need not document the events leading up to today’s statement except I should, of course, pause to acknowledge the contribution made by my friend Darwin Kealey and his excellent associates in developing the report of the condominium study group.

An hon. member: We appreciate what he is doing too.

Ms. Gigantes: He is my friend too.

Mr. McClellan: Where is Darwin Kealey?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would like to emphasize at this time, however, that my proposal to you today is, in part, the result of the co-operative efforts of the Ministries of Housing, Revenue, and TEIGA.

In drafting the Condominium Act, 1978, we examined the recommendations of the condominium study group and divided them into those legislative items which fall to this ministry and those which require further discussion and consideration because other jurisdictions are involved.

We have, of course, dealt with security deposits and construction deficiencies already, through the Ontario new home warranties program. In addition, the amendment to the Condominium Act passed in December 1977, giving arrears of common expenses payments priority over most other liens, has greatly decreased problems of condominium corporations in this area.

I should also pause to acknowledge the contribution made by the other members of the House in assisting the speedy passage of that legislation last full.

Because consumer protection for current owners of condominiums is one of our priorities, we wanted to enact legislation immediately with the following goals: --

Mr. McClellan: It has been for a long time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- to ensure more information for the buyer at the pre-purchase stage; to safeguard consumer moneys through the pre-title stage; to eliminate the costly burden of correcting construction deficiencies; to ensure top condominium management in order to enhance the efficiency of the dollars spent on management;

-- to remove some of the day-to-day irritations of condominium living by giving boards broader powers to formulate and enforce rules;

-- to ensure that condominium corporations have adequate coverage to avoid any gaps;

-- to upgrade financial administration by requiring audited statements and reserve funds, among other things;

-- to create an environment wherein boards of directors may with greater flexibility manage the day-to-day affairs of condominium corporations, at the same time making them more accountable; and

-- to create a mechanism for resolution of disputes among owners and between owners and condominium corporations as an alternative to the court system.

These factors form the basis of my ministry’s proposals; that is, a two-part package composed of a Condominium Act and a new administrative concept which I will discuss presently. The act has been amended with two main objectives in mind:

1. Providing more protection to consumers, and

2. Improving the processes by which condominium corporations and owners manage their affairs.

Purchaser protection has been provided by tighter standards of disclosure between sellers and purchasers; allowing time for purchasers to become informed of their responsibilities; and clarifying purchasers’ rights during the interim occupancy period.

To improve the processes we have clarified the financial and operational responsibilities of the corporation; overhauled the processes by which corporations set bylaws, rules and regulations governing the operation of the condominium; defined the responsibilities of owners and rights of corporations with regard to arrears; created an alternative mechanism to settle disputes quickly; and obligated condominium corporations to obtain and maintain adequate insurance coverage on the entire property, notwithstanding the responsibility for repairs.

The Ministries of Housing and Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, the municipalities and the building code branch of my ministry all have a role to play in the revisions to the front-end processes. We have had submissions about the efficacy of the process from virtually every sector. Because of the great divergence of opinion, the planning and approval stages require careful thought. It is essential that we move cautiously in these areas and explore fully the ramifications on municipalities.

Mr. McClellan: You can tell it is private members’ day.

Mr. Makarchuk: What are you going to do for rent controls?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The members opposite have been complaining about the delays in condominiums; let them sit there and listen to what we propose to do.

Mr. Cassidy: People have died in the process of waiting for you.

Mr. Warner: You are taking time away from the private members’ hour. You could have made the statement tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the members opposite are not interested in condominiums, perhaps others are.

We will be further reviewing processes by which condominium projects are approved and registered to reduce the time and costs of developments; municipal planning standards and provision of services to improve the amenity of condominium living and lower operating costs; and building codes as they apply to condominium construction as part of our continuing review of the building code.

The report also recommends that the private sector review and overhaul some of its practices to make them more responsive to condominium problems. To this end, officials of my ministry will be meeting over the next several months with mortgage lenders and condominium insurers to review their practices.

That brings us to the second part of my proposal, the administrative concept. While the resolution of the front-end and private sector practices will clear up many of the problems, it is clear that an ongoing organization is required to inform and educate the public about condominium matters; assist in the resolution of disputes between condominium corporations and unit owners and among unit owners; ensure that condominium corporations are fully cognizant of financial, operating management practices; and assist in the formulation and conduct of courses for property management.

To meet these needs, the ministry has considered the recommendation in the study group’s report to establish an organization within the ministry, under the stewardship of a registrar of condominiums. However, we have opted for an alternative: establishing an organization external to the ministry, comprising the various participants in condominium developments.

We did so for the following reasons: This government is committed to less, rather than more, intervention and regulation of the marketplace. The powers of persuasion of those directly involved in condominiums will be more effective in dealing with the everyday difficulties faced by condominium owners than the direct intervention of a remote government organization. And many owners have already organized local groups and regional associations, and these organizations have proved efficient in dealing with difficulties.

To this end we propose to establish Condominium Ontario as a non-profit, provincially chartered corporation without share capital.

To accomplish this the ministry will provide an interest-free, startup loan, assist in the incorporation of Condominium Ontario, appoint a chairman and executive director and establish a group within the ministry to provide assistance during the startup period.

Ultimately the corporation will operate on the use-pay principle --

Mr. Breithaupt: Who do you have in mind?

Mr. Warner: I wonder if Darwin will get that one.

Mr. McClellan: Is it your make-work program?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- with every condominium owner paying a small annual assessment to finance the operation. The chairman will initially be appointed by the government. In addition, the composition of the board will be 50 per cent condominium owners chosen regionally and 50 per cent representation --

Mr. McClellan: Is this Darwin’s summer job?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- drawn from the private sector such as builders, developers, property managers, lenders, insurers.

Mr. Sargent: Are you going to sell any beer there?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- the legal and accounting professions and government. The administration of the corporation, under the guidance of an executive director, will provide legal, financial, technical, and informational services.

In general terms, we have two principal objectives in mind; we want to enhance the lifestyle of present and future condominium owners, and we want to enhance the marketability of condominiums as a viable alternative to other forms of residential ownership.

By treating the new act as a form of consumer protection legislation, I think we can accomplish our first objective and I am confident the second will follow naturally.

I would hope for the co-operation of the honourable members of the House in assuring speedy passage of the Condominium Act, 1978, to ensure protection of the 100,000 condominium owners throughout the province.


Hon. Mr. Snow: Recently there was discussion in this House regarding what was referred to as an audit of UTDC and to avoid any misunderstanding, I tabled the UTDC-ICTS project, phase three, interim audit for the period January 1, 1976, to March 31, 1977. That document made reference to the minutes of the post-audit review and I was requested by the leader of the official opposition to table those minutes. I agreed to do so and I am tabling them today.

In the question of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith), he mentioned a final audit. I should make it clear that the audit staff of my ministry does not carry out an audit of the books of UTDC per se, as it is a corporation and it has its own outside auditors.

My audit staff is only involved in the limited role of ensuring that invoices, which we receive under the loan agreement between TEIGA and UTDC with respect to phase three of the ICTS program, reflect only charges which are properly payable thereunder. If my staff are of the opinion that a charge is not proper, it is only a rejection of the item as chargeable under the financing agreement and not an indication that the expenditure by UTDC was in any way improper.

Since this subject was discussed in the House, the provincial auditor has pointed out that is is not customary for the working papers of an auditor, which these documents are, to be made public. In fact, the Audit Act, which was passed in December, specifically prohibits the laying of the provincial auditor’s working papers before this assembly or any committee of the assembly. There are sound reasons for this as an auditor, like a lawyer, must feel completely free to make frank and often subjective comments to his clients. On reflection, I have concluded that I should not establish a practice of tabling such reports in the future as a matter of routine.

In his question, the Leader of the Opposition also referred to the monitoring role which my ministry plays under the financing agreement. I am today tabling copies of the ICTS agreements. The agreement between my ministry and UTDC requires that the information which is provided to my staff in their monitoring role is to be kept strictly confidential and I would be in breach of that agreement if I were to make it available. There are corresponding secrecy provisions in the contracts between UTDC and its subcontractors.

UTDC is a business in a highly competitive industry engaged in the development of new products and concepts, the value of which would be in jeopardy if information made available to my ministry were made public.



Hon. Mr. McKeough: Later today I will be pleased to introduce the Road Access Act for first reading. It is modelled on a private member’s bill introduced last fall by my colleague, the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Maeck), who sought to prevent the arbitrary closing of private roads, especially in cottage country where owners or tenants are totally dependent on these roads for access to their property.

At the time, the bill received the support of all three parties, whose spokesmen agreed that such arbitrary closures are a problem in many parts of the province. Copies of the original bill and the second reading debate are included in the compendium to this bill. For some time, the government has been studying a related problem, the arbitrary closing of roads which are maintained by a municipality, but which are not registered as municipal property on the titles of the owners whose lands they cross.

The private member’s bill proposed what seemed to us to be a reasonable method of preventing the arbitrary closure of both types of roads, which are referred to in this bill as access roads and common roads. We know, for example, of a recent case in the township of Georgian Bay in Muskoka where a property owner challenged municipal ownership of a district road, despite the fact the road can he proved to have been in existence three years before the patent was issued for the land in 1913. Unfortunately, the road was not included in the patent, presumably because it was assumed in 1913 that no sane settler would want to close such a road.

Today’s legislation will, therefore, prevent with certain exceptions any person from constructing or placing a barrier or other obstacle over an access or common road unless, one, the person has applied to a county or district court judge for an been granted an order closing the road and, two the person has given 90 days’ notice of the application to all affected parties. I believe this new legislation not only will help prevent such road closings, but will also provide a method of arbitrating such disputes in the courts.


Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will be pleased also later today to introduce An Act to provide for the Licensing of Business by Municipalities. The purpose of this hill is fourfold: to give local municipalities a general power to license, to eliminate archaic provisions in the existing legislation, to provide for a hearing when a licence is refused or revoked; and to transfer the power of police commissions to pass licensing bylaws to elected councils.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that similar legislation was introduced in the last session of the Legislature. That bill, Bill 119, was allowed to die on the order paper because it was our intention to receive the views of as many municipalities and businesses as possible before proceeding to enactment. We now have had their reaction. I am happy to say that almost 100 municipalities replied and that, in general, the response was very favourable.

However, most municipalities objected to the fact that the legislation contained no provision for the collection of fees from businesses being licensed. There were three common arguments against the no-fee provision: that licences would not be taken seriously without a fee; that since some benefit accrues to the licence holder, he should pay at least part of the cost of administration, and that customers residing beyond the municipal boundaries who use the service would be paying no part of the cost of protection being provided by the licensing municipality.

We argued that if licensing is for the purpose of protecting the general public from unsafe and unfair business practices, the cost should be covered by general revenues. We also feel that the no-fee provision will encourage municipalities to deregulate and to license businesses only when it is in the interest of the general public to do so. However, this new bill does contain a provision for fees, a compromise that I hope will be satisfactory to all.

The new legislation provides for a maximum fee of $5, but if an inspection is required prior to the issuance of the licence, the municipality will be able to charge up to $25. Such nominal fees will ensure that municipalities do not simply use licensing as a means of raising revenues, nor will they represent a significant threat to existing municipal revenues. In fact, at this moment only about one tenth of one per cent of total local revenue is derived from licensing fees. It is our opinion the proposed fee limits will discourage unnecessary regulations.

The only other objection raised with any frequency was the elimination of county licensing. The Association of Counties and Regions of Ontario and the municipal liaison committee have objected to the fact that counties will no longer be able to license restaurants and auctioneers. Since only two out of 26 counties currently license restaurants and county regulation of auctioneers is very minimal, we have decided to hold to the original uniform proposal that local municipalities, and not counties, be given licensing responsibilities.

Other provisions in this bill are the repeal of the Bread Sales Act, the Public Halls Act, and section 19 of the Milk Act, which are no longer necessary. We also stipulate that a municipality cannot require an examination of tradesmen applying for a licence who have a certification under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen’s Qualification Act.

There is also a provision in the act that enables municipalities to delegate the hearing process to one or more hearing officers, one of whom must be a councillor. The decision as to whether a licence will or will not be issued will remain with council. And of course, as promised, this bill contains a sunset provision giving municipal licensing bylaws a lifetime of five years.

One thing I would like to clarify, because I think there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding in this regard, is that some provisions remain unchanged from the present. The legislation governing nude establishments is that which was enacted earlier this session as an amendment to the Municipal Act. Also, the provisions for licensing taxis are the same as those in the Municipal Act. The provisions for licensing circuses, transient traders, and trailers remain in the Municipal Act, unchanged except for the fact that police commissions will no longer have the power to pass bylaws for these purposes, because they are, in reality, taxation rather than licensing.


Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Ontario Youth Employment Program, now in its second year, has proved to be a most effective job-creating program for young people.

Mr. Laughren: You need a third hand to pat yourself on the back.

Mr. Foulds: That is about the only effective thing you’ve done.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In 1977-78 this program created 21,500 private-sector jobs at a cost of about $10 million. This year the duration of the program has been expanded from 16 to 25 weeks and the subsidy increased from $1 per hour to $1.25.

In the 1978 budget it was estimated that 30,000 jobs would be created this year at a cost of $17.2 million. In fact, participation by employers has been stronger than anticipated. As of today, over 15,000 applications representing potentially more than 38,000 jobs have been received. Most of these have been approved and funds committed. In addition, thousands of application forms mailed out have not yet been returned.

If OYEP remained an open-ended program, I believe we may see an influx of another 11,000 requests, for a total of 26,000 employer participants, representing potentially 67,000 jobs across a broad spectrum of economic activity. For example, students will gain experience in the following areas: tourist consulting; farming; sales; clerical; computer programming; construction; drafting; truck driving; landscaping, and apprenticing to various trades. On a fully funded basis, the potential cost of OYEP for 1978-79 is almost $55 million.

Mr. Sargent: Point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Stong: This is what you call a filibuster.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: However, based on the experience of last year, there will be some slippage; that is, some jobs will not in fact materialize, will not be filled, or will be filled only for a short period of time.

Mr. Conway: Who’s going to give the weather?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In spite of this, we estimate that the cost of OYEP would reach $38.5 million if left open-ended, for a budget overrun of $23 million. The government cannot afford this large an increase in spending. We have carefully re-examined our priorities and reluctantly concluded that we must immediately place a lid on OYEP funding. Applications from employers postmarked after midnight today will not be processed. All requests for funds currently in the government’s hands or mailed to us today will be scrutinized and, if approved, funds will be committed.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s the way to get out of it.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s a disgrace.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This news will be a disappointment to would-be employers and students alike. OYEP is opening up meaningful job opportunities, making a substantial dent in youth unemployment and redirecting some of our young people from the edge of the welfare precipice.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you read the phone book while you are at it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is providing on-the-job training and experience which is essential to the eventual gaining of permanent jobs. Nevertheless, priorities involve hard and difficult choices and all government programs are under continual performance review. Resources are not available within the current budget to finance a substantial cost overrun. As it is, the program will now cost around $20 million, or $4 million to $5 million over the budget.

Mrs. Campbell: Twenty-five minutes out of question time.



Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of the Environment. In the light of yesterday’s announcement that the Maple landfill applications have been refused, will the minister tell this House whether he now has any policy whatsoever to deal with the Metro waste disposal problem and with waste disposal problems throughout the province?

I would specifically ask him to attend to the fact that he announced in this House that in his view 10 per cent of Metro’s garbage was being recycled and then, by personal note to me, he thought that would be closer to 7.5 per cent. Does the minister not agree that in point of fact the correct figure is 0.76 per cent?

Hon. Mr. McCague: In regard to the 0.76, I won’t agree or disagree with that

Mr. Deans: Keep your options open.

Hon. Mr. McCague: At the time you mentioned 10 per cent, my information was that it was 7.5 per cent. But I will check that out again and if there’s any difference in that I will let the member know.

I understand Metro is now working at some proposals from private enterprise to dispose of some of their waste. I don’t have any announcements to make on that. I haven’t had any announcements from Metro, but that is my understanding.

Mrs. Campbell: You have no concern anyway.

Mr. S. Smith: Would the minister confirm that in the year 1977 the total tonnage of recycling in Metro Toronto was approximately 15,000 tons out of a total load of almost two million tons? Those are the figures I have and would he be good enough to check those? Secondly, what is Metro planning to do, as far as the minister knows, and what leadership is the province giving in a situation --

Mrs. Campbell: None.

Mr. S. Smith: -- where landfill sites seem to be its only way of thinking about these things? Even landfill sites are now very difficult to come by. Metro is fed up being sent around the province on a wild goose chase to try to send garbage here or there or somewhere else. What provincial policy exists to deal with the enormous problem of Metro’s solid waste?

Mrs. Campbell: None.

Mr. Foulds: Try sending it to the moon.

Mr. Kerrio: They’re looking for a big hole in the ground.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I will try to confirm the two figures the leader would like confirmed.

As I said earlier, Metro has some proposals before it, I think. We have a committee of three working with a committee of three from Metro on not only liquid industrial waste but on the whole problem of waste management. I’m convinced they’ll come up with a solution.

I don’t have any information the member doesn’t have.

Mrs. Campbell: Metro will have to care.

Ms. Bryden: Since private enterprise doesn’t seem to have been able to submit applications for landfill and waste disposal operations that are acceptable to the Environmental Assessment Board, could I ask the minister if he is reconsidering his position that the province should not get into this business?

Hon. Mr. McCague: No.

Mr. Gaunt: Since the waste disposal problems in this province are, obviously, very quickly coming to a head -- a crisis, if you will -- has the minister made a determination with respect to the resource recovery plant which was attached to the approval of the Maple landfill site? Has he determined whether that plant will be built, now that the Maple site has been turned down?


Hon. Mr. McCague: I’m not sure to which plant the honourable member is referring.

Mr. Gaunt: It’s the plant that was going to be built if the second adjoining landfill site had been approved -- the Crawford Industries plant.

Hon. Mr. McCague: No, Mr. Speaker, there has not been a determination made on that.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Will there be a determination made on it shortly?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Certainly we can make a determination. It may be yes or no.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary to the original question that was asked -- there are really two parts to it: How is it that we have reached this point in time when the minister has less than a month to the final date with respect to the Beare Road site and we don’t have a policy? There’s no government policy with respect to waste disposal for Metro Toronto. How is it we reached that position and when would the minister expect that there should be a government policy regarding waste disposal for Metro Toronto and other large urban centres in this province?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think Metro and all other large municipalities are quite capable of solving their own problems. It is not the intention of this government at this time to get into that.


Mr. S. Smith: In the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Baetz) and of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I’d like to ask a question of the Treasurer if I might, both in his capacity as the minister responsible for finding the money for these things and also, I think, as a former Minister of Energy. Would he care to inform this House of what the government’s original intention was when it proceeded with the building of the heavy water plant at the Bruce site? Was the heavy water there intended basically for the use of reactors that would be located in Ontario, in Canada outside of Ontario, or for export? Can the minister either recall that or does he have some way of telling us what government policy was when the plans were made to build those heavy water makers?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I assume the member is referring to the story which appeared in today’s Globe and Mail -- or yesterday’s, whenever it was. I think perhaps it might be better if the Minister of Energy answered the question. He will be here, I believe, Monday and probably would give the Leader of the Opposition a full report.

My quick answer was that the four heavy water plants -- one, of course, was cancelled -- were necessary for Ontario’s needs at that time. The experience in Nova Scotia hail led us to believe that we would have to look alter our own needs. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited felt that production of nuclear plants would go ahead more quickly in the rest of the country, and therefore again Ontario would be required to look after its own needs.

The other point that should be made is that -- and I can’t give the member the percentages -- at both Bruce and Pickering the loss of heavy water, I think, has been much less than was ever anticipated. Therefore the replacement need of heavy water has been much less than was estimated. I’ve forgotten the exact figures, but I think it was estimated that there would be a 10 or 15 per cent loss or something, and the loss factor has been virtually nil.

But I shouldn’t be answering all this. I’m sure the Minister of Energy will be glad to give the Leader of the Opposition a full reply.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Since the original intention was that these heavy water plants serve the Ontario needs, and since these needs have contracted apparently, due in part, the minister says, to the success in keeping the heavy water that’s there -- the failure to lose it at the rate expected -- but in part presumably for other reasons as well, would the minister undertake cither to draw my attention to -- if it’s already been tabled -- or to table the original prediction on which the original decision to go ahead with these very expensive enterprises was made? If we could have those original predictions, I am sure it would be of enormous assistance to us in judging just how far off those predictions are and the reasons for the predictions being off.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am sure the Minister of Energy would be glad to supply those background papers.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the minister was Minister of Energy at the time, I believe, when some of these agreements were concluded, can he explain why Ontario Hydro and, through Hydro, the Ontario government entered into agreements related to the production of heavy water which prevented Ontario from having any access to export markets for heavy water and why there was also no provisions for a buy-back of any excess heavy water such as is contained in the contracts which the federal government concluded over the La Prade project in Quebec?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not sure that the suppositions of the member’s questions are correct, and I would prefer to leave that question to the present Minister of Energy.

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to ask a final supplementary -- for myself, that is; there may be others.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final one on this subject.

Mr. S. Smith: The final one for me.

Mr. Cassidy: You were hornswoggled.

Mr. Kerrio: Just listen; you’ll learn, Mike.

Mr. S. Smith: Could the Treasurer tell us when it first reached his ears as Treasurer that there might be a very serious problem of oversupply in the Ontario market, even from the three Bruce plants that we are speaking of, and can he tell us what decisions he has taken with regard to the news that he has had? Did he approach the federal government at that point to try to arrange a different deal or did he make a decision regarding the question of going ahead with Bruce D? When did he first find out about the oversupply problem and what did he do about it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The responsibility would be that of the Minister of Energy and, I think correctly, it is not up to me to do anything about it.

To answer the question, I think I probably learned about it subsequent to the decision of the government of Canada and the government of Quebec to proceed with the La Prade heavy water plant, whenever that was -- in February or March of this year, I believe. I had some discussion about that with ministers of the Quebec government, but not in a knowledgeable way or with respect to our concerns or related to our problems.

I think the answer to the Leader of the Opposition’s question is that I learned about it in a vague way perhaps two or three months ago. Certainly, when the recommendation came forward from the Hydro board a month ago with respect to the various options which had been discussed here with respect to generating facilities, that question also was raised more formally at that time.

I apologize for answering at such length as I have, because these answers really should be coming from the Minister of Energy.


Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General arising out of what has been happening in Kitchener and the charges that have been laid against the Kitchener-Waterloo Record’s publisher, its news editor and a working reporter on that paper. In view of the implications for freedom of the press, is the minister concerned about the charges that the Kitchener police have laid against those three gentlemen on the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, and what action does the government intend to take about that particular case?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am concerned, Mr. Speaker. The charges have not been laid as yet. My latest information as of about noon today was that the chief would be attending before the local justice of the peace there to determine what charges, if any, would be laid. I would assume that the local crown attorney, of course, would also be involved in the event that there are any charges laid against the three sources that the honourable member has mentioned.

As far as the restriction imposed by the chief is concerned, I have had an opportunity to speak to Chief Brown as well as the chairman of the local police commission, and that restriction will be lifted tomorrow.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: We understand in fact that the information has been laid but the charges have not yet been processed owing to the absence today of the justice of the peace. If the charges are proceeded with to that stage, will the government intervene to ensure that they are not prosecuted, since the actions of the police in closing their headquarters to Record reporters would indicate that the clear intention of these legal actions is to intimidate the Kitchener-Waterloo Record and to prevent it from carrying out its job of reporting fully and objectively on the work of the police and on the administration of justice in the Kitchener-Waterloo region?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Is the honourable member suggesting if charges are laid by the chief of police and those charges are processed and accepted by the JP that I should interfere?

Mr. Breithaupt: Following the questions that were asked last week, is the Solicitor General now able to table the letter from the Waterloo Regional Police Commission which requested the general investigation at this time? More important, and the second part of my question, does the chief of a police force or a police commission have the authority to bar any or all news media persons, or indeed any member of the public, from the headquarters or from other premises of the police force? If there is that authority, precisely what is that authority?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I will table the letter referred to by the honourable member. I would expect to do that tomorrow. According to my information -- and I asked for the precise information that the honourable member has requested of me of the law officers within my ministry -- apparently, there is a legal right as far as the chief is concerned in restricting people attending within the police headquarters.

I understand the police building in that area is provided by the region. The region provides the police headquarters. There seems to be a legal right on the chief of police to refuse reporters access to the building. This is the legal information that has been handed to me. Whether or not it is wise or proper is another question entirely.

Mr. Breithaupt: Will the minister provide details of that authority?

Mr. Cassidy: The answer to the minister’s question is yes.

I would like to ask this: Since the chief of police has indicated to the press that the charges would not have been laid if the pictures in question had not appeared in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, would the minister, who has now intervened in order to get the police headquarters reopened to the press, also intervene to ensure that these charges are not proceeded with, in view of the fact that far from being frivolous, they are an attempt to interfere with the basic fundamental democratic freedom of the press to report, because they are a means of seeking to intimidate the Kitchener-Waterloo Record from reporting fully on what happens in the police headquarters?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: My information is that one of the charges being contemplated by the chief is the question of receiving stolen property. That type of charge is not in the same vein as the honourable member’s question. It doesn’t in itself involve freedom of the press.

Mr. Cassidy: He wouldn’t have laid them, if they hadn’t run the pictures.

Mr. Warner: The picture was returned.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is not strictly the same type of charge. As to interfering with the charges, that is something I will discuss with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) in the light of any decision that may be made by the local justice of the peace.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: In response to the question of the leader of the NDP pertaining to consulting with the Attorney General, would the Solicitor General undertake to review the propriety in this case of two matters, as I see it, from the press reports? First of all, as raised by the leader of the NDP, is the fact that the chief of police suggested that the charge would be possession. Yet he did not seem as concerned about possession as publishing. That is one of the problems.

The second problem is that the chief apparently, according to the police report, seemed to suggest that if the photographs were returned, no charges would be laid. That leads one to the conclusion that there is some type of threat at that point to the local media and that in itself may be an offence under the Criminal Code.


Hon. Mr. Kerr: That is right. If there is any question regarding publishing as implied by the honourable member then, of course in my opinion, no charge should be laid.

Mr. Cassidy: There definitely is.

Ms. Gigantes: Don’t be so vague.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: But if it is a question of possession, again I would say, that would be up to the local justice of the peace.

Mr. Foulds: Are you going to suspend Syd Brown?


Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I draw his attention to a number of warnings, including a speech by the incoming president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, about impending shortages of skilled labour in industrial areas, as in Ontario.

Can the minister tell us whether his ministry has taken into account the identified shortages of skilled labour in our manufacturing sector, as well as patterns of unemployment in the province; and whether they are also taking into account the patterns of issuing of employment visas to foreign workers to come into Canada on a temporary basis in the designing of a new employer centred training program?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: To the first part of the question the answer is yes. I will be making a statement in the House on Tuesday of next week with reference to industrial training and changes we hope will benefit the system.

With regard to the second question, if I heard it correctly, I think it really is more appropriately addressed to the federal government than to ourselves. We are simply saying that it is not an area for us to make a decision on.

Mr. Renwick: Oh no, under the BNA Act there is split jurisdiction over immigration.

Mr. Wildman: It should give you an indication of what grades you should be training.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that since the beginning of 1976 there have been 14,763 employment visas granted for workers to come into Ontario from other countries on a temporary basis and that those 14,763 workers have come here because of the lack of skilled labour in the province? Can the minister assure us that the pilot projects in the new program will train Ontario workers to fill those jobs?

Hon. B. Stephenson: What are you going to do, deport them?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We are aware of the statistics, a great number of statistics, on that particular subject. I don’t think we can solve all of the problems. We are hoping to make a major step of some significance. But I would say, as a word of caution in that regard, any apprenticeship program would take some time for it to develop its full potential. I think all of us will recognize that.

We have some areas that we think we can improve immediately, but it is an ongoing program that will take some time to develop to its full.

Mr. McClellan: Another 35 years perhaps.

Mr. Warner: In the fullness of time.

Mr. Worton: Thirty-three years.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Can the minister explain why the number of these employment visas, which allow workers to come in on a temporary basis because of the shortage of people to fill the jobs in Ontario, has continued to be very high, and yet there has not been action by Ontario to make sure that those shortages are met from within our own manpower and womenpower in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am still convinced that part of that question should be addressed to the federal government.

Mr. McClellan: You have jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Secondly, all of the figures that the member quotes do not relate to skilled trades training. Some of them are production jobs. Other areas of employment, yes, but not necessarily directly related, as he would indicate, to skills in an apprenticeship program.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Such as university teachers.

Mr. Foulds: Why are the visas granted?

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question, with reference to the second part of my leader’s question and the minister’s response with respect to the federal government; is the minister not aware that under the constitution there is a shared jurisdiction in matters related to immigration? If not, would he read a little Tory history and consult with the late George Drew about the airlift to Canada?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The latter part may be more difficult.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think it would be more than correct to say that in the area of trade training, and these policies that relate to the federal government, we have an excellent relationship.

Mr. McClellan: With George Drew?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is too bad that the member didn’t have a better one in his youth, he would have been better trained.



Mr. Bradley: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Is the minister aware of tests which took place in a private laboratory in Toronto which revealed that in nine out of 10 beef livers tested, traces of diethylstilbestrol, known as DES were found in beef originating in both the United States and Canada; and that this synthetic hormone used to increase feed efficiency was present in 3.72 parts per million in one US sample, and 1.94 parts per million in one Canadian sample? If the minister is aware of this, does he intend to undertake an immediate investigation in conjunction with the federal Minister of Agriculture?

Hon. W. Newman: I’m not aware of that particular instance but I can tell the member that I do know the drug and know it very well. It’s a growth hormone used for better gains on beef. Of course, it does come completely under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada, and we work with them very closely.

What does the member call the drug? The farmers call it stilbestrol, I believe. That’s the common terminology.

Certainly, the health of animals branch in Ottawa works very closely with our veterinary services branch regarding any of these particular drugs that are approved or not approved. There’s a whole list of allowable drugs that is cleared by the health of animals branch through the CDA people in Ottawa.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary question: Since DES was banned in Canada as an agent for promoting growth in cattle, I believe in 1973, because of tests that showed that it is a cancer-causing agent in women; and since cattle raised in the United States are supposed to be certified as not having had DES introduced to their systems within 21 days of slaughter, does the minister not find it alarming that these test results on beef purchased in four stores in Toronto have shown such high levels of DES? Really, I think we have reached a very alarming state in this country.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Bradley: Surely the minister should be bringing this to the attention of the federal Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. W. Newman: As a matter of fact, I will be going to Ottawa on Monday. I will be glad to bring it up with the federal Minister of Agriculture, but I’m quite sure that his people are aware of it at this point in time. Certainly, if he wants to use that as a non-tariff barrier to protect our beef producers, that would suit me fine.

Mr. Kerrio: You can’t assume that. Come on.

Mr. McClellan: What a nothing minister. A nothing minister.

Mr. MacDonald: When the minister ascertains the facts with regard to this, would he give information to the House dealing specifically with the fact that in Ontario, where presumably this is not being used at all, and there can’t be any mix of cattle coming in from the United States, yet one finds levels of DES in meat purchased locally?

Hon. W. Newman: I would like to point out that there are two levels of jurisdiction as far as meat inspection is concerned. In order to make it very clear, our veterinary services branch inspects meat in the provincially-licensed slaughterhouses across this province. We have, even with restraints, moved staff from other parts of the ministry so that we could put more inspectors on, to ensure that all animals that go through provincially-licensed slaughterhouses are inspected before and after kill by the appropriate veterinary people under our jurisdiction. All other plants that kill and move beef on an interprovincial basis come under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada and their veterinary inspectors. I assume this is the meat we’re talking about.

I’m quite prepared to look into it, and quite prepared to report back to the House in detail on it, because we do work very closely together.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary again to the minister: Is it not true that this substance can legally be used in animals in the province for certain -- I don’t know if one would say medicinal purposes, but for purposes other than producing growth in the animals?

Hon. W. Newman: I’m not exactly sure, but I believe that is true, that it can be used for therapeutic purposes.

Mr. Riddell: I think the answer is no.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister aware that DES is normally measured in microscopic parts per billion, and that in this case high levels of DES were found in parts per million, that is, 10,000 times higher than the normal measurement applied, and in cattle which was Canadian, not imported? Does he not think, therefore, that he can act with some sense of urgency on it, putting it to the federal people that this kind of thing has to be terminated immediately?

Ms. Gigantes: Is your wife eating beef?

Hon. W. Newman: As I said, if anything like that is reported to me at any time, I act on it immediately.

Mr. Foulds: As the minister did with finding out about discount practices?

Hon. W. Newman: Discounts too. We’ve had cases where we have acted and when we have found out anything we have contacted the appropriate federal people. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen that article that was in the paper.

Mr. Lewis: It is a study.

Hon. W. Newman: I haven’t seen it as yet. I’ve been busy with other matters, but I will certainly make sure I do, and I’m sure my people are aware of it right now and are following up on it.

Mr. McClellan: Has anyone in your ministry seen it?

Mr. Foulds: Don’t they read anything?


Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning his statement in the House on amendments to the Condominium Act which will establish an organization known as Condominium Ontario.

Why has the minister not allocated a majority of positions on the board to condominium owners rather than 50 per cent? Has the minister not learned anything from his experience with the HUDAC home warranty plan in which developers and other vested interests manage to suppress the interests of the consumer?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes of course we have learned something from the experience with the HUDAC home warranty plan and that is that it is a very major success. It’s treating consumers very well. It has worked better, I think, than the members of this assembly anticipated and I might say, outside of the petition that was filed here the other day, to all those members of the House who think that it isn’t working well, it’s mainly confined to the third party, and I haven’t been flooded -- indeed, I haven’t even got a trickle of letters from members of the third party pointing out the specifics where the HUDAC new home warranty has not worked.

Mr. Breaugh: The minister got a trickle the other day.

Mr. M. Davidson: You should listen to some of the debates in the House, Larry.

Mr. McClellan: If the minister was in the House for debates he might find out.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In fact, it’s one of the major successes of this government. The reasons that we opted for something called Condominium Ontario are well set out in the statement I made, and if the member feels that more than 50 per cent of the board should go to condominium unit owners then I should tell him that the basics of the scheme set out by me today have been discussed in quite some detail with representatives of all parties who are involved in condominium construction. So before they jump to try and get on the bandwagon on one side or the other, I should tell members that the condominium federation we’ve met with on, I think, three or four occasions, myself included, I think they’ll find they are quite supportive of not only the concept but the distribution of places on that board.

Mr. Philip: A supplementary: Of course, the minister does know that he’s had plenty of representations about HUDAC from this member, but unfortunately nothing seems to happen with it.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Philip: Can the minister tell the House what he means by his statement that every condominium owner will pay a small assessment for the operation of Condominium Ontario? How much will each condominium owner be charged? Does the minister not feel that this is just one more form of taxation on condominium owners, who are already overtaxed in comparison to other forms of home owners?

Mr. Ashe: Let everybody else pay.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, we can’t say the member is not being consistent, because every time we have a problem out there he wants another big government bureaucracy paid for out of the consolidated revenue of the province.

Mr. Warner: Don’t say that. Just try answering the question.

Mr. Laughren: Sid Handleman got through to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Frankly, we make no apologies for the fact that some of our major success programs are those which have been funded on a user-pay principle. One of them is, of course, the HUDAC new home warranty program --

Ms. Gigantes: It’s another form of taxation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and we think it’s worked so well that we can now extend it to this concept. I make no apologies for the fact that those who will be the major beneficiaries will, in one way or another --

Ms. Gigantes: Just another tax.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- pay for this new administrative process which is so badly needed by those very people.

With regard to the amount, it specifically will be left to Condominium Ontario, the private board -- and as I have indicated, 50 per cent of the board will be comprised of condominium unit owners themselves -- to determine what kind of fee will be necessary per unit per year in order to fund the operation.

In discussions with the federation, the figures we have been tossing around, in view of the fact there are some 100,000 units, is something in the area of anywhere from $5 to $10.

Mr. McClellan: For what?

Ms. Gigantes: Another million bucks on their backs.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That $5 to $10 per unit per year may well vary in the situation in which, for example, the Etobicoke Regional Condominium Association may want to provide a better or more extensive service in Etobicoke. So over and above what they may pay into Condominium Ontario per year, they may want to add a dollar or two --


Ms. Gigantes: Oh, more taxes.

Mr. Warner: Half a million a year.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- in order to have more accessible services to their own people. But in accordance with our philosophy we think those are decisions which should be made by the condominium unit owners themselves as to whether they want that additional service and coverage and not made by Queen’s Park.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: With respect to the minister’s statement that he wants to enact legislation immediately and that he hopes for speedy passage of the Condominium Act amendments, since this bill could not possibly receive second reading in the House before Tuesday, June 13, under the ordinary schedule, and since the House is expected to adjourn 10 days later for the summer --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Recess.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- to recess, correct -- is it the minister’s intention to have this matter dealt with by any form of hearings or opportunity for further public input over the summer months and be dealt with when the House returns, in fact, at the committee stage, or just what are his intentions?

It would appear that while the press release calls for a much more positive and encouraging form than may be practical and may get wide publicity, in fact it may not be possible to deal with this legislation at any time in the next three weeks available to us.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I must say that I do hope to get the legislation passed before the House recesses.

Mr. Warner: You have got to be kidding. What happened to the public?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously, if it runs into any disagreement or, indeed, lengthy discussion without disagreement -- which I quite anticipate could happen; it is a rather lengthy act -- I should add that it is not an amendment to the current act, it is an entirely new act and will replace the old Condominium Act.

Mr. Warner: You want to exclude the public.

Mr. Breithaupt: You are bogged down with the Securities Act.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is quite conceivable that that will happen. At the moment I am inclined to get the legislation in place and to give it a try to see if we can get it through in time.

Ms. Gigantes: When are you ready for your next amendments?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I should pause here to make a couple of points. First, the Kealey study group had extensive public hearings and received -- I don’t know the figure -- I think 220-odd submissions.

Second, the report was distributed widely by us, including a copy to every municipality in the province. A copy was sent as well to each and every condominium --

Ms. Gigantes: At $2.50 a copy, another tax.

Mr. Warner: We have an act.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why don’t the members let me answer the question? -- to each and every condominium association in the province.

Mr. Breaugh: You don’t usually do that. We have to write it for you.

Mr. McClellan: Read your statement again.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In the last few months, our consultative process has included extensive meetings with condominium federations as well as meeting with HUDAC, UDI and so on.

Mr. Breaugh: And so on and so on.

Mr. McClellan: Et cetera, et cetera.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a result of that process, I must say that I think there has been rather extensive and lengthy consultation. It is because of that process that we have decided we will move forward with the consumer protection portion, which, to a large extent, has received rather unanimous support from all those people I have mentioned and, indeed, rather extensive support from various quarters in this assembly with regard to the basic concept.

In other words, what I am saying is, I think the members will find, when everyone has had an opportunity to read the act, there are fairly straightforward, rather essential gut changes being made to the day-to-day operations. The more far-reaching ones in terms of the planning process, the more complex ones, are ones that are not included in this package.

Mr. Ziemba: What are you saying?

Ms. Gigantes: Is that an answer to that question?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: So I would, in summation, urge the members of the assembly to read the act carefully and assess whether or not we really can get the legislation through next month. I don’t think it is an impossible task --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been answered. A new question.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: The minister is bogged down with the Securities Act --

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a bill that is going to be introduced later on this afternoon and there will be ample opportunity to discuss it.

Mr. Breithaupt: I hope so.


Mr. Cunningham: I have a question for the Minister of Labour in her capacity as the minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Is the minister aware, or have members of the public or members of the Ontario Guild of Piano Technicians been in contact with her or with her ministry with regard to the possibility of discrimination against people who are blind and involved in piano tuning?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had a letter from one of the blind piano tuners bringing to my attention some information which was distributed by an association of piano tuners in which there appeared to be some statements which I think could be construed as discriminatory. They have been brought to the attention of the human rights commission.

Mr. Cunningham: May I ask, through a supplementary question, whether or not the minister will involve herself, in her capacity as Minister of Labour, in this rather invidious practice to see that it is discontinued?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The matter is certainly one of discrimination based upon a specific problem suffered by a certain group of people and it is one which I have asked the human rights commission to review and to report to me about, and I shall most certainly do what I can to resolve the problem.

Mr. Mackenzie: How many years will we hear that?

Mr. Lupusella: Another 35 years.


Mr. Grande: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Communications, who was here a few minutes ago and has now disappeared, and I don’t know where.

In the absence of the minister, if he’s not in the wings, may I ask the Premier the question? The question is in regard to the disposition of the properties on the Spadina right of way, south of Eglinton Avenue.

Given the fact that the province and Metropolitan Toronto are losing $700,000 per year in interest, maintenance and taxes on these properties and given the fact that the Cedarvale Metropolitan Properties Tenants’ Association have carried out a survey which shows that 40 of those tenants are willing to buy these properties, has the Premier or the Minister of Transportation and Communications made a decision on the proposal of the Cedarvale Ratepayers and Residents’ Association and the borough of York council which suggests to him that the expropriated homes should be placed on the open market, given the fact that there are 40 willing buyers?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will try to get a particular answer from the minister for the member. I am once again going by memory, but my recollection is that those properties were ultimately to be transferred to the Metro Housing Corporation, which would have the responsibility for their administration. I don’t recall the question of whether or not those properties would become available for purchase being explored at the time; it may have been but I don’t recall it. I will get further particular information for the member and perhaps have it here tomorrow morning.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: You can try.

Mr. McClellan: May I ask the Premier whether he would not agree that to transfer the properties to Metro, as is planned, offers no guarantee that at some future date -- Metro is still, unlike the Premier, pro-expressway -- the properties may be brought back into use for expressway purposes and that my colleague from Oakwood’s suggestion is eminently sensible? Would he not agree?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, if the member for Oakwood was suggesting that if there are some pro-expressway enthusiasts selling those properties to individual owners would preclude then the possibility of Metropolitan Toronto again expropriating from those private owners, of course, the question is really quite irrelevant. I think what is relevant is who has control over the properties, the three-foot reserve --

Mr. McClellan: Whatever happened to that? Whatever happened to the three-foot reserve?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- not all of the land is covered by residential accommodation --

Mr. Warner: Whatever happened to the three-foot reserve?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and the ownership of that particular land. So while I appreciate the constructive suggestion, rather than a question, being put by the member, I really don’t see that as being an anti-expressway sort of legal solution that would not have complications that could be resolved if Metropolitan Toronto attempted to build the expressway in any event.


Mr. J. Reed: In the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Baetz), I shall once again call upon that repository of all knowledge, the Premier, to come into the breach. I wonder if he would be kind enough to find out -- I realize he may not have this information at his fingertips -- and report to the House --

Mr. Peterson: Ask it anyway.

Mr. J. Reed: -- if in fact Ontario Hydro is planning within the next year to abandon its energy conservation program in view of the recent announcement that the director of energy conservation, Mr. Wright, is being transferred to northeastern Ontario and that no replacement for him has been announced?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will endeavour to get that information for the honourable member. But I would be surprised if Ontario Hydro were abandoning its approach to the conservation of electrical energy. Certainly there would be no rationale for them doing so. It may be that they can alter administrative structures in order to accomplish the same objectives.

Mr. S. Smith: According to your minister, conservation costs money.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is no question that one has always to weigh the conservation ethic, or whatever terminology one may use. I know that all of us support it in some respects and don’t when it suits us in others. That is not unusual. I would only say that I would be very surprised if Ontario Hydro were going to suggest to the electrical consumers of the province that they now start to use far more electricity than is necessary. I will find out, but I will be surprised if they have that in mind.


Mr. Laughren: A question for the Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs on his statement today on the progress report on the Ontario Youth Employment Program -- although I don’t know how guillotining a program can be called progress.

In view of the fact that the Ontario Youth Employment Program was the only real job- creation program in the budget and in view of the fact that the large number of applications for the program by employers is an indication of the need for such a program and the success of the program, why is the minister at this time transferring the obligation for young people who cannot get jobs to the municipalities? Why is he further increasing the financial problems at the municipal level? That’s who will be picking up the tab for those people.


Mr. Laughren: Perhaps if the minister doesn’t understand, I could clarify: On page three of his statement the Treasurer says, “OYEP is opening up meaningful job opportunities, making a substantial dent in youth unemployment, and redirecting some of our young people from the edge of the welfare precipice.” Is he not saying, in effect, that the municipalities are going to be the ones who will pick up the tab, rather than the province through its Ontario Youth Employment Program?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: General welfare assistance, which is what the member is referring to, is a program shared by all three levels of government. I would say that the statement doesn’t refer specifically to the dollars-and-cents aspect of general welfare assistance; it refers more to the problems coming from lack of employment. There is no attempt in bringing to an end, unfortunately, a program which is too successful; but at some point you have to say no.

Mr. Foulds: At some point you have to say yes, too.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: I don’t understand -- perhaps the minister can explain it

-- does he not think it is somewhat unfair to cut off the program tonight without giving some notice to those people who may have applications in the mill so that they could be considered on their merits? Could the minister not give them a week at least, after his announcement, to make sure all the paperwork that is being processed now could come to his ministry for approval?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, for paperwork which is being processed now and that which is in the mail. But at some point you have to stop.


Mr. McKessock: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of his announcement this week pertaining to the pilot youth employment program and in view of the present controversy over kickbacks and rebates, why does the minister get involved in such a controversy?

Mr. Foulds: Why isn’t McGuigan asking this question?


Mr. McKessock: The announcement states that the farmer will have to pay a fee of $90 per day for five young people. At the end of the program farmers will be reimbursed $35 for each day they have used the service.

Hon. W. Newman: We developed this new program this year to help the farmers in this province. They are really like a flying squad of young people who will go out and help a farmer for a maximum of five days.

Mr. McKessock: That’s right.


Hon. W. Newman: I hope the member read the whole release. They are to help where the farmers have got problems -- seeding or harvesting or something else. They are sent out on an experimental basis in certain counties this year. We have a group of five who will go out and work for a farmer for a maximum of five days, if they get to know of a particular problem where somebody’s sick or something has to be done. It’s a whole new concept -- it’s what I call the flying squad -- a group of young people who have been organized through our ministry to go out and help individual farmers.


Hon. W. Newman: Don’t start talking about kickbacks over there. Their leader, for instance, takes a prompt payment discount with zero credit risk that doesn’t give volume discount. Do the members realize that?


An hon. member: Take it easy, Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Sweeney: You are stuttering Bill. Even you don’t understand that.

Mr. Kerrio: There’s a connection there somewhere.

Mr. McKessock: The members didn’t miss anything. The question is, why does the farmer have to pay more than the $55 right at the start, because he’s going to be reimbursed $35? Why charge him $90 and give him $35 back?

Hon. W. Newman: The whole purpose of the project is to make sure it works well. We are charging them so if there are problems, and there could be from time to time, we want that holdback in order to make sure the program works effectively.

Mr. Peterson: The Lord giveth and the government taketh away.


Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Can the minister confirm that there’s a proposal before cabinet from his ministry for the development in Ottawa of a French-language residential school for the learning disabled? Is the cabinet stalling on approval for the school?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is no.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: If the cabinet is not stalling, why was the minister able to announce the development of a site in Milton as an English-language residential school when there’s still no word from the government, aside from the minister’s response now, on the French-language school?

Hon. Mr. Wells: This matter is still before cabinet and it will be announced in due course.

It saddens me to have to tell the House, because I think it infringes on the privileges of all of us in this House, that a confidential cabinet document on this matter is in the hands of one of the members of the press gallery. I presume that’s where my friend is getting her information.

Mr. Cassidy: You sent it upstairs, eh?

Mr. Warner: The good old brown paper envelope.

Mr. Lewis: Why does it sadden you? It’s a free press.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Because I think it is leading to the very kinds of misunderstandings --

Mr. Cassidy: Are you going to charge him with possessing a stolen document?

Mr. Lewis: It came unannounced.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I’m not going to, but I think it’s an affront to each of the members. They could rightly say they each should have the document.

Mr. Lewis: We don’t consider it an affront.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If the member doesn’t I think he should.

Mr. Martel: I heard the minister sent it to him.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what the word is, the minister sent it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. We’ve taken the last minute and a half on irrelevant interjections that are out of order.


Mr. Sargent: A question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the dictatorial hiring and lay-off practices, which in many cases favour Quebec workers, of the pipefitters’ union carried out by union Local 527 of Kitchener, where non-union employees for years have had to pay monthly dues of $15 but have received no benefits from them and no receipts are issued by them? Will the minister have a look at this?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes. I am aware there are a certain number of qualified skilled tradesmen who are permit workers in the province of Ontario, although they are citizens of Ontario. I am also aware there are some workers from Quebec who happen to be members of the union, and as a result of the negotiated contract and the constitution of that union are permitted free access to those jobs within the province of Ontario. Yes, I will look into it, if you give me the specific number, which will, of course, be recorded in Hansard.

Mr. Sargent: Without getting into the Canadian bit on it, what steps can be taken to assure me or the House and to advise the Premier of what’s going on to give our citizens the same protection as the province of Quebec gives their people in the job field?

Hon. B. Stephenson: As this House is aware, this is a matter which has been of some concern to the government and to other members of the House for some time. We have been having a series of meetings in order to try to resolve the difficulties. We were promised by Mr. Levesque that there would be a solution which would reflect equity and reciprocity. We’re looking for that solution right at the moment.

I can tell the member there was a meeting yesterday of the officials of the Ministries of Labour of Ontario and Quebec in Montreal. I anticipated meeting Dr. Johnson on Monday of next week, but apparently, I will not be able to until Saturday of next week.


Mr. Lupusella: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. During the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment, I brought to the attention of the minister the issue of Wilkinson Foundry Facing and Supply Company Limited at 81 Florence Street, which is emitting disastrous coal dust in the surrounding residential area, causing health and environmental problems to the people in the immediate area.

On May 26, 1978, around 2 o’clock in the afternoon, the same company was responsible for yet another serious instance of pollution by an unknown polluting agent which is contained in this plastic bag. Will the minister report to this House the details of this particular emission of May 26, 1978, the sources of the problem and considering that the total residential area has been contaminated by an unknown element as shown in these photographs, will the minister analyse the chemical composition of it and report to the House?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Yes.

Mr. Lupusella: Supplementary: Considering that for too many years the residents have been pushed around from place to place seeking assistance and that no progress has been made to date and considering the health hazards involved, when will the minister undertake his responsibility by ensuring that this type of incident will not recur? Will he in this specific instance issue a court order against the company, forcing the company to close its operation until such time as the environmental regulations will be followed, for the sake of the workers and the people living in the community?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The industry mentioned by the honourable member is being monitored. I’m not personally aware of any health hazard. There is a nuisance to the people in the area.

Mr. Lupusella: There is. I will send the minister this sample.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I’ll be glad to look into it further and investigate the matter which he brings to my attention.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: How is it that when my colleague raised this with the minister carefully and at length in the estimates and he undertook to look into it, there is then another very serious dispersal of dust covering everything -- gardens, homes and cars -- to the depth that one can actually write on it, for instance, if it was on the side of the car? Why is not the ministry moving in on the industry with a rather more serious sense of urgency than was demonstrated in the estimates?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I don’t think that there’s any slackness on the part of my ministry. I’m not sure whether this occurrence that was mentioned as happening on May 26 was reported to my ministry or not. I will look into it and report back to the House.

Mr. Lupusella: That’s a shame. The minister should resign about this particular issue. I spoke for half an hour about this particular problem.

Hon. Mr. McCague: For two and a half hours.


Mr. Sweeney: I have a question for the Solicitor General to do with the investigation with respect to police brutality taking place in the Waterloo region. Can the minister explain why the Ontario Police Commission has broadened the scope of the investigation well beyond the original request? Can the minister explain why he refuses to meet with the regional chairman arid the chairman of the police commission to discuss the scope of the investigation?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: To answer the last part first, I have never refused to meet with the chairman of the local police commission. Because of recent events I am on the phone with that gentleman probably two or three times a week. I have never refused to meet with him. I have discussed the terms of reference with the local chairman. They have been discussed with the Ontario Police Commission. There is some difference of opinion between the chairman of the Ontario Police Commission and the chairman of the local commission. However, I do not want to interfere in the decision of the OPC to broaden the terms of reference a little more than is desired by the local commission.

There are incidents that are related to the particular security force that is part of the regional police force that concerns the commission and involves more than just the Henchmen incident that took place and which was the reason for launching the inquiry in the first place.

In my opinion, the terms of reference are not too broad. They are wider than the local commission would like, but in my opinion I can’t take issue, argue, or find any fault with the decision of the OPC.



Mr. Laughren: I have a petition protesting the closing of the Natural Resources office in the community of Foleyet, and the transfer of Ministry of Natural Resources personnel from that community.

The closing and transfer of that office will be of serious detriment to the life of the community involving loss of jobs, declining tourism, and declining population. The undersigned citizens in Foleyet urge the government to put an immediate stop to that plan.



Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee has carefully examined the following applications for private acts and finds the notices, as published in each case, sufficient:

City of Hamilton;

City of Thunder Bay.



Hon. Mr. Grossman moved first reading of Bill 103, An Act to revise the Condominium Act.

Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 104, An Act respecting Motor Vehicle Access to Property by Road.

Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 105, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Businesses by Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.


Mr. Hennessy moved first reading of Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the City of Thunder Bay.

Motion agreed to.



Mr. McCaffrey moved first reading of Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the Royal Trust Company and Royal Trust Corporation of Canada.

Motion agreed to.


Mr. Peterson moved first reading of Bill 106, An Act respecting the Disclosure of Tax Incentive Costs.

Motion agreed to.


Mr. Roy moved first reading of Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.


Mr. Roy moved first reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Ottawa Charitable Foundation.

Motion agreed to.


Mr. Ziemba moved first reading of Bill 107, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: Off the cuff, I’d say it might be skewered.

Mr. Ashe: You’re probably right.

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this long overdue bill is to provide the minister with authority to settle the terms of a first collective agreement.




Mr. Roy: Prior to commenting on the various aspects of this bill, I’d like to underline --

Mr. Speaker: Would you move second reading of the bill, please?

Mr. Roy: I apologize.

Mr. Roy moved second reading of Bill 89, An Act respecting French Language Services in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: You have up to 20 minutes to speak to the bill and you can reserve any portion of that time for a windup, if you so choose.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, if I can get wound up. I would like to underline, prior to referring to certain aspects of the bill, the initiatives taken by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) in insisting on bringing forward this legislation. For two years he has talked about the fact that we should have an omnibus bill in this province whereby we could provide or guarantee services in this province by way of legislation. This bill is the result of the initiative taken by the Leader of the Opposition.

I am deeply indebted to my colleagues in the caucus and people working in the leader’s office who have worked with me on the bill in attempting to put forward a bill which reaches a common consensus in this Legislature. I’m extremely encouraged as well in reading the press reports. I have no first-hand knowledge, but it would appear that our party in the large majority will be supporting the bill, that my colleagues to the left, members of the NDP, are supporting this legislation as well, and that my colleagues, the members of the government party, have decided to allow this bill to come to a free vote.

Mr. Peterson: That’s a refreshing change.

Mr. Roy: This is an important aspect, and I’m deeply encouraged by this approach by all members of the Legislature. I would say, because of the limit of time, a few words in French.

Tout simplement, monsieur le Président, je voudrais souligner, dans la limite de temps qui m’est donnée, le fait qu’un précédent est établi ici aujourd’hui a la Législature. C’est la première fois, à ma connaissance, surtout dupuis que je suis ici, depuis 1971, qu’une législation est présentée dans les deux langues. Et le Bill 89 est un Bill qui est avec nous aujourd’hui en Français et en Anglais, et je trouve que c’est une étape importante ici dans l’acheminement des droits des revendications des Francos-Ontariens. Monsieur le Président, je voudrais tout simplement dire que notre but principal avec cette législation est d’établir un point commurs: notre idee n’est pas d’embarrasser personne, notre idée n’est pas de jouer d’une façon partisanne avec un point aussi important que celui-ci, mais c’est d’établir sin- tout un point commun on tout les membres de la Legislature ensemble, sans partisannerie, pourraient enfin en venir a une conclusion, enfin arriver a légiférer les droits des Francos-Ontariens. C’est pour cette raison qu’on a procédé de cette façon et je suis fortement encourage par l’initiative premierement prise par le Chef de ropposition, mes collégues, qui m’ont encourage et m’ont aide produire ce Bill, et tons les membres de la Legislature qui ensemble, comme nous en avons l’espoir, vont avoir un vote libre snr ce Bill. Et pour moi, c’est une étape importante, je suis optimiste que ce genre de legislation va recevoir l’approbation de la majorité des membres de la Legislature. D’aprés moi, c’est une preuve concrete pour les Francos-Ontariens qui ont lutté si longtemps. Aujourd’hui, on espére acheminer jusqu’â un point, et ainsi leur faire justice et en méme temps leur donner Ia preuve, a ceux qui croient encore au Canada, au Québec, et a travers le Canada qu’ici en Ontario, on est prét a donner du leadership; qu’ici en Ontario on est prét, méme s’il y a certains aspects d’autres legislations an Québec avec lesquels nous ne sommes pas d’accord et méme qu’on trouve aller contre les droit des minorités au Québec, que nous ne sommes pas préts a sauter dans Ic piège, mais que nous sommes préts, méme dans une situation difficile, a faire des revendications et de légiférer les droits des Francos-Ontariens. Je coosidére, monsieur le Président que c’est une étape fort irnportante.

To all my colleagues, I wish to emphasize exactly what the bill does. Basically, its purpose is to try to find common ground among all members here. It was not our attempt to embarrass anybody in this Legislature. We set out to try to find common ground, to try to remove a subject as important as this from all partisanship, so that we, as members of the Legislature, could all see and agree with the fact that the emphasis in this bill is on the aspect of services.

Therefore, we have proposed a bill which would legislate the right to these services. In the process, we have set up a mechanism to do so. We have set up a mechanism having in mind, as well, a cost factor in this. That’s why we set up the board; and we think that the board can do its work in one year.

I’d like to clarify and emphasize again that the purpose of the board is simply to make an accounting of the services that are available now, to tell us the areas where there is demand, and what services should be necessary. This is the purpose of the board. The yearly supervision of events under this legislation will of course be the work of the co-ordinator. We feel that with the board there have been sufficient studies made and that the procrastination should end. We’re trying to say that having established a common ground we’re prepared to legislate in these areas. To this end we have presented a bill which we consider to be reasonable, practical, and extremely flexible.

I would repeat, with emphasis, that what the bill doesn’t do is make French an official language in this province. I want to stress that once again, because I’ve seen reports where people suggest that it does in fact do that. I would emphasize again that we are not about to bilingualize the province. That is not the purpose of this legislation.

I would also stress that we’re not attempting to create a large bureaucracy within the civil service, or asking the civil service to learn French. This is not the purpose of the bill, The purpose is to provide services for Franco-Ontarians. That’s where the emphasis is in this bill. It seems to me that we should keep in mind that we’re not trying to force French on anybody.

I’ve read comments to the effect that something is being shoved down certain people’s throats. That, as I have said, is not the purpose of this legislation. The services are for Franco-Ontarians. Can anyone say that in areas like Prescott-Russell, Sudbury, and Ottawa-Carleton, for example, where there is a substantial number of Franco-Ontarians, these people cannot speak to their government in their language, cannot talk to their doctors in their language, that they cannot get services in the courts in their language? This is where we have put the emphasis in this legislation -- on services for Franco-Ontarians.

If we proceed as I’m hopeful we will this afternoon, and if this legislation receives the approval of the majority of the members of this Legislature, we will accomplish a two-fold purpose.

First of all, we will finally render justice to the Franco-Ontarian citizens in this province and assure them that they will be treated with equality and fairness. We in Ontario will show we are prepared to legislate their rights just as we do every day for others. They are asking for no more. They are asking for no less.


At the same time, in the process of trying to arrive at a consensus, and I say to my friends across the way, we are reasonable in this aspect. Anyone who doubts our good faith in this should consider that we worked together on the amendments to the Judicature Act which the Attorney General put forward. All three parties got together on it. My colleague from the NDP, the Attorney General, the critic in our party and myself discussed it and produced a piece of legislation which we consider to be practical because all of us here know that there are problems in this province in having wholesale matters of principle legislated, and that the legislation must be flexible and practical. We have done that, I suggest in the Judicature Act.

Just as important, it seems to me that the majority of the members of the Legislature of Ontario together approve this type of legislation, and approve the principle, we are sending a very strong and positive message to the federalists in the province of Quebec, to our federal colleagues and to the majority of the people in the province of Quebec who still believe in Canada and who still believe in this country. I think we are sending them a very important message in light of the fact that over the horizon the referendum is coming.

It is important that these people have some ammunition at a time especially when the PQ strategy seems to be to annoy and sometimes to intimidate to a point where they are hopeful that the majority of Anglophones and the rest of the country will say: “Let them go, for God’s sake. They are getting to be a pain. Let them go, and good riddance.” By taking the step that we are here today, we are not falling into this trap. We make the distinction between a separatist government and the majority of the people in Quebec who still believe in federalism. That’s the message.

In my opinion, it’s a ringing declaration of what we believe in in this province and in this Legislature. At a time when the PQ is attempting to restrict schools to certain classes of Canadians, we pass a bill here like the Essex school bill; at a time when they are attempting under Bill 101 to restrict the use of English in their courts, we pass amendments to the Judicature Act; at a time when Bill 101 and other culture reports which are just on the horizon are coming forward, when we see something as ridiculous as we have here read about recently about the changing of signs and so on, we, the members of this Legislature, are not about to be intimidated. We see what is going on, but we are still prepared to give leadership and we approve a bill like Bill 89 by a majority of the members in this Legislature.

We are prepared, by approving this bill, to give this type of leadership. For those who think the battle over the referendum is limited to Quebec, I ask why is it that when they are discussing certain legislation over there, people like Laurin and Morin point to Ontario and say, “Look what is happening in Ontario.” They think it is important and I say to members that it is important what happens to our sister province. I think it is important when they are looking at the way we treat our minority that the majority in Quebec will be very impressed by what we are doing here. When Camille Laurin points to Ontario, we can stand here with leadership and start enumerating some of the things that we have done in this province.

In closing, may I say that in some of my discussions with some of my colleagues -- and I can remember discussing this with the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) -- we used to discuss what happened in the early days of Confederation between some of the Fathers of Confederation. We are left with the impression today that at that time, all of these people were great buddies and great friends, that there were no major issues really dividing them and that it was a time of friendship with no animosity or prejudice or anything of that nature.

One has only to read some of the debates of that time and to look at them closely to wonder how they managed to be in the same picture, in view of some of the things they were saying to each other and of the prejudice that existed at that time, and the animosity between the linguistic groups.

What the Fathers of Confederation were able to do, in spite of all this, was to have a common goal and, in their attempt to achieve their common goal, they were able to compromise. Wanting to achieve this common goal, they were prepared to make concessions. In so doing, they set a tremendous example for us.

Since the election of the PQ government back in 1976, I have had many people who have come, sincere, in good faith, and said, “What can we do? What can we do to help? Is the debate limited to Quebec? What can we do?” And basically what I try to tell people is simple, “First of all, you have got to keep your sense of perspective. You can’t get carried away by one event, whether it’s the booing of the national anthem sung in French at a baseball game or whether it’s some other situation in Quebec where people who are trying to speak English at a meeting are shouted down.” I think we have to keep things in proper perspective.

And the other matter that the people have to keep in perspective is to try to be informed. When people make wholesale declarations or when people -- for instance, in this legislation -- say this and this, we should at least take the time to read it and see exactly what it does and what it doesn’t do. I think we have a duty all of us to do this.

But it seems to me that a question is asked of us here: “What can we do?” I think we as members of this Legislature, leaders in our own community -- and I understand that there is not 100 per cent support for this thing; that some of my colleagues in many of their ridings will have great difficulty with this -- surely have a duty to explain it, explain what it does and what it doesn’t do; even to rise above that, to rise above it, and to say: “What can we do?”

I think that we are given an ideal opportunity here to send a message and to send ammunition to our friends in the province of Quebec. I think it’s an opportunity and when my colleagues ask: “What can we do?” I think we are afforded an opportunity here to do not only justice in this province but to give leadership across the country, something that this province should do and has done in the past.

I wouldn’t want to miss this opportunity. I don’t think we should let it go by and I think this is the purpose and this is what we are attempting to do. We have found common ground on Bill 89. We are prepared to sit down and work together on it. We are prepared to accept some amendments to it, suggestions from the public but, surely to God, the principle should be important enough for all of us together, in the majority, to support this important principle, while at the same time doing justice for the citizens of this province -- Ontarians, Franco-Ontarians -- and at the same time make it very clear to the people in Quebec fighting for Canada, fighting for federalism, that they have allies here in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa East has three minutes remaining. Do you wish to reserve that time for the end?

Mr. Roy: I may, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Mr. Cassidy: Merci, Monsieur l’Orateur, je voudrais commencer cette journée historique avec quelques mots en français pour accueillir le pro jet de loi qui vient d’ètre propose comme un pas dans la direction qu’on a cherché depuis longtemps et puis aussi pour accueillir le fait que le Premier Ministre de notre province a accordé un vote libre sur cette mesure et assure le public que Ia Parti Conservateur ne va pas bloquer ce projet de loi.

J’espère que cela indique un changement de politique de Ia part du gouvernement et j’espère que ce jour verra le commencement d’une vraie legislation pour la protection des droits linguistiques de notre communauté franco-ontarienne.

La vie n’a pas toujours été facile pour les Franco-Ontariens. Nous avons depuis longtemps dépassé l’époque du réglement 17. Les FrancoOnitariens ont fait du chemin depuis cette époque, sine des plus sombres et des plus scandaleuses de l’histofre de l’Ontario.

Mais cette route vers l’épanouissement culturd et la reconnaissance de leurs droits les plus fondamentaux a été longue et pénible. Par exemple, cc n’est que depuis dix mis que les Franco-Ontariens out commence a acquérir un système d’écoles secondaires publiques.

La nécessité de cette luau pour avoir une egalité linguistique et culturelle continue jusqu’à nos joins. Est-ce qu’on peut afllrmer qu’aujourd’hui les Franco-Ontariens out vraimeut droit de cite dans leur propre province? J’ai bien peur encore que non.

Il est temps d’écarter tout vestige de domination linguistique et économique. L’Outario se doit de refléter le veritable “partnership” des deux peuples fondateurs du Canada. L’Ontario se doit de donner l’exemple et d’accorder pleins droits aux Franco-Ontariens, Ia plus importante minoritC francophone du Canada Anglais. Pourtant, jusqu’â hier, le Premier Ministre William Davis refusait de declarer Ic français langue officielle en Ontario et meme de reconuaitre en statut la position du français. II juge que cc serait un geste purement symbolique. On a eutendu mime il y a deux semaines quand ii a répondu au mémoire qui lui a été propose par l’Association Canadienne-Française de l’Ontario. Alors, je veux croire que Monsieur Davis est nn homme cle bonne volonté mais ce qu’il ne parvient pas a comprendre, c’est que les droits fondamentanx ne devraient pas être a Ia merci d’u gonvernement an ponvoir. La question dn droit linguistiqne ne devrait pas se sitner au nivean purement administratif. J’espère, comme je viens de dire, qne chex lni on verra nn changement de principe de Ia part du Premier Ministre.

It’s been a long time since we’ve come even as far as the bill that we have today. In welcoming the bill from Mr. Roy I also want to welcome the assurance of the Premier that there will be a free vote on this particular legislation and that his government does not intend to block this first venture into seeing that legislation is passed.

I’ve been personally involved. As a member with a riding in which 20 per cent are francophones, I’ve been fighting for this issue since 1971. My party has fought even longer and has, in fact, become effectively a party that works in both official languages over the course of the last six years.

When I spoke in the throne debate last February, shortly after becoming leader, I made it clear what the position of the New Democratic Party of Ontario was. We argued, and we still believe, that the government’s refusal to make French an official language has been enormously destructive in the effect on our credibility in contributing to the cause of national unity.

We have welcomed the promises that were made in the throne speech by the government this year about particular services that will be made in French. As a party, however, as I said at the time, we are still looking for legislative and not just administrative protection for the rights of Franco-Ontarians in services to health, in education, in the courts and in all areas of government. It is in that spirit that members of my party intend to support the bill which has been proposed by the member for Ottawa East today.

We do so, however, with a feeling that this does not go far enough, even though it is a step in the right direction. As I said in February, to make French an official language is quite simply a part of the overall approach of guaranteeing linguistic rights for Franco-Ontarians. But an enormously important step is the guarantee of survival to Franco-Ontarians as well as a sign of good faith to the rest of Canada.

I suggested at the time, and it’s the case as well today, that after what has been promised by the government, if those promises are carried out to make French an official language, it would be a step whose additional costs are insignificant.

The Premier has taken several stances. He told ACFO he was not prepared to move on French. In Montreal, shortly before the throne speech, he said the government had not rejected the possibility of a statutory framework for the French-language-service commitment that we already had. In the throne speech they talked about specific measures and now the Premier says he’s prepared to see at the very least a free vote on this bill.

I would hope very strongly that the government will make a further commitment and that that further commitment is either to see this particular bill, suitably amended, strengthened and improved, passed into law before the end of the year, or alternatively that the government will bring forward its own law to ensure that legally, in the statutes of Ontario, French-language rights are enshrined for good. I would hope that it will bring that bill forward and have it adopted between now and the end of the year.

I challenge the government to make that statement today because then this will be truly an historic occasion, with all three parties of the province of Ontario uniting in making the commitment that we have had for so long to Franco-Ontarians into not just rhetoric but into a reality through the statutes of Ontario.

The bill which Mr. Roy has put forward moves, as I have said, in the direction of ensuring French-language rights. It does, however, have a number of weaknesses which I am concerned about. Many people, including the members of the Liberal Party, have complained about the government’s administrative approach to providing an increase in the French-language services. The bill, however, simply substitutes a different administrative approach for the administrative approach which has been taken by the government.


It is therefore a weak bill. It’s weak in particular because the proposed Language Service Board, which is meant to delineate what services and in what regions French-language services would be provided, will expire after only one year. After that it will be carried out by a French-language coordinator, an office which already exists at the ADM level, I think, along with representatives from various ministries. That’s very close to what we have in practice in the province already.

We’re concerned over the fact that this bill might even be adopted with the co-operation of the government and then prove to be ineffectual because of the fact that the civil servants, acting under political direction from the government who are to carry it out after the demise of the Language Services Board, might not carry out the commitment which we certainly have in this party and which I hope and believe all parties now have.

I do want to suggest that while we intend to support the bill of the member for Ottawa East, the bill that was proposed last fall by my colleague, the member for Cornwall, is a good deal more effective and strong in assuring French language rights. The bill that my colleague proposed, for example, makes the declaration of principle about French-language rights and services which was sought by l’Association Canadienne-Française de l’Ontario. This I’m afraid is not contained in the bill which has been put forward by the member for Ottawa East.

ACFO has asked that municipal services be available in French and that is not contained in this bill. ACFO has also asked that it be the Ombudsman who polices this, rather than leaving it to an in-house committee of civil servants. That is not included in this bill, because the oversight over the assurance of French-language services is being left to a co-ordinator.

As I said in French, it has been a long and hard road for Franco-Ontarians to fight for their right to exist. Their experience, because of the inequality of French language in Ontario, has been completely different from Anglo-Ontarians. If you always have to fight over the security of your language, you can’t go and picnic and work and study and make love and do all of the other things that other people want to do without that nagging fear of not being able to survive always at the back of your mind. Given the intimate relation between cultural survival and linguistic rights, the measures being proposed now and which we will consider over the course of the coming months are many decades overdue.

The time has come to grant justice to Franco-Ontarians. We believe this is a matter of simple natural justice to provide legislative protection for French-language rights, whether you move by making French an official language as we would prefer, or whether you move in that direction as we have before us here today. We in the New Democratic Party are prepared to take that move and enshrine French-language rights in the law regardless of what happens in Quebec --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Cassidy: -- because we think this is an important matter for the Franco-Ontarians in this province alone. But we also believe that, particularly as has been evidenced by the events since November 1976, this is also a vital, crucial and important step to take for Canada and for the continued survival of our party -- of our country.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Let Hansard show that.

Mr. Warner: One and the same.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: I think I know what the headlines will be.

Mr. S. Smith: Priorities, priorities.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Monsieur le Président, en tant que Franco-Ontarien, et représentant de Cochrane Nord, un comté dont plus de 60 pour cent de Ia population eat francophone, il me fait plaisir de participer a ce débat, et d’indiquer l’appui en principe du gouvernement au Bill 89.

Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to be a member of the Davis government which has recognized the French fact in the province and whose policy was clearly stated in the Premier’s statement in the Legislature of May 3, 1971. I believe it bears repeating, and I quote: “We will provide, within the areas under our jurisdiction and wherever feasible, public services in the English and French languages; we will provide education, wherever feasible, to students of the French-speaking and English-speaking minority in the language of that minority. We will also provide them with the means to acquire a good command of the language of the majority.”

The approach which has been developed has been clearly understood. I want to repeat here as explicitly as possible that our approach to French-language services in Ontario will not force anything on anyone. Our policy does not require Ontarians to become bilingual. It does not mean that we are trying to force two languages and two cultures upon every Canadian. As the first volume of the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturism stated, “a bilingual country is one in which the great majority of its citizens may well be unilingual. Therefore, what Ontario’s policy means is that the legitimate requirements of Ontario’s French-speaking population are being met and will continue to he met.”

The policy of this government was again very clearly enunciated in Her Honour’s address in the beginning of this session. I quote: “The fundamental right of Franco-Ontarians to education in the French language have long been recognised in Ontario. Franco-Ontarians also have a commitment from the government for the expansion of government services in the French language in accordance with the need and population distribution. We shall continue to build upon the strong foundation already in the field of education to ensure that French-language programs are available at all levels, where practicable, to French-speaking Ontarians.”

Let me outline briefly some of the accomplishments of this government in the provision of services to the French-speaking citizens of this province. Again, in the speech from the throne at the beginning of the session, it was stated “that the present government translation services will be augmented to make more public documents, publications and forms available in both English and French. Of particular importance, a special section will be established to begin work on translating Ontario’s statutes into French.”

I am pleased to inform this House that a translation unit under the Ministry of the Attorney General is now being established. The government has presently -- in English and French -- more than 500 publications and forms and documents available in both languages.

Over the last two years, the Ministry of the Attorney General has made criminal division court services available in French, throughout the main francophone areas of the province. Family court services in French are also available in the Sudbury region on a trial basis and it is anticipated this service will be expanded to the Ottawa area and to other designated areas as soon as the necessary court personnel are available.

It is estimated that some 66 per cent of the French-speaking population of Ontario can obtain 98 per cent of their court trials in bilingual or French-language courts. Bills to amend the Judicature Act and Juries Act to allow French-language services were passed in this Legislature in the last two weeks.

There are a number of other programs that are proceeding and which will have direct benefits to the francophone community. The government instituted guidelines to provide that those who communicate with the government in French, either in writing or orally, can expect a response in that language.

The government has established specific organizations which are designed to help support the French-speaking community. These include: the Council on French-Language Schools, to advise the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) on existing or new policies that will ensure that the French-language dimension is respected; the Council on Franco-Ontarian Affairs, which advised the government of the needs of Franco-Ontarians by identifying their cultural, educational and other requirements; in 1970, the office of the co-ordinator on bilingualism was established. His main job is to advise ministries and coordinate their efforts with respect to French-language services, and to recommend to government ways of implementing policy more effectively. An interministerial committee of advisers on bilingualism was set up to assist the co-ordinator in implementing policy.

A policy of financial aid to municipalities providing services in French was established and is now in effect. Several municipalities, many in my own riding, are presently receiving compensation from the province for these services.

I have outlined briefly some of the current programs the government has in operation. We will continue to improve and expand those programs.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, we have no difficulty in supporting the principle of this bill. In accepting the principle, the government has some reservations as to this bill, and to the limitations inherent in drafting a meaningful legislative framework at this time.

This government has not set aside the possibility of a statutory framework as was mentioned by the leader of NDP and others. I quote from the Premier in his speech in Montreal of February 16 of this year:

“We have not as a government set aside the possibility of a statutory framework to the French-language-service commitment we already made. I refer to the type of statutory guarantee already existing in the context of education and of course, now in the Judicature Act and the Juries Act, the kind of meaningful, practical guarantee our population has every right to expect.”

This matter was further discussed with ACFO, l’Association Canadienne-Française de l’Ontario, delegation when they were meeting with the cabinet on May 10, 1978, and the Premier indicated his willingness to meet with them again before their September meeting.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this government is proud of its record of action and its ongoing program of providing French-language services. Let me be clear that in accepting the principle of Bill 89 we are not altering our course of action. We will continue to pursue our policy of French-language service in accordance with our desire to serve the interests of all the citizens of Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: I am very pleased to be able to rise at this time and take part in a debate of which all of us can probably be quite proud as years go by.

Je veux dire quelques mots premiêrement en français seolement pour expliquer que je suis, trés Her d’être un membre du Parts et Chef du Parti qu’hier comme membre Monsieur Roy, qui a présenté aujourd’hoi uu Bill trés utile dans notre histoire, un Bill trés important a cette êpoque dans laqoelle nous vivons et je suis três Her de donner mon appui it ce Bill et de fit]iciter Monsieor Roy pour avoir fait quelque chose qui signifie une vraie ittape en avant it ce temps dans noire histoire.

What we are doing here today is important for a number of reasons. First of all, I want to salute the government. In accepting the principle of this bill, although I realize they are not really going a whole lot further than what they have already been doing, they made a choice.

There were two options open on the political scene with the presentation of this bill. One was what we might call the low road in politics, the option of assuming that most citizens would not bother to read the bill portraying it as something which was somehow or other going to give us an awful lot more in the way of costly French-language services that would bust English-speaking civil servants, that would force French down people’s throats and so on and so forth. That option was open, and politically it might well have paid dividends for those willing to exercise that option, because it would have forced people like the member for Ottawa East and myself and my colleagues to say, “No, our bill wasn’t really doing any of those things,” and the defensive is not an easy position in politics.

I want to salute the government for not taking that road and for taking the high road instead. They have taken the high road; they have recognized their own record in the area of French-language service is really pretty good and if they can be faulted for anything, it is the fact they haven’t been as vocal as perhaps they should have been in making sure all the citizens, not only of Ontario, but of Canada, knew the extent to which the generosity of spirit of Ontarians has brought us to a point where there are a great many French-language services in Ontario, both in education and in justice, and in certain other areas as well as outlined by the minister just a moment ago. So I am happy about that. The potential for divisiveness which could have hurt politically, and more importantly could have hurt in the search for national unity, has been avoided and I am pleased.

The bill itself is very important. There is a lull at the moment in the national unity debate. It is as though people don’t want to hear any more about it. It is as though they feel that now Mr. Ryan has been elected to lead the federalist forces in Quebec we can just relax and everything will be fine. Nobody wants to hear about French and unity and all that stuff any more.


However, this lull is almost in itself part of the separatist strategy. In many ways, it plays into the hands of those who are going about their work in Quebec, trying to persuade the average Quebec citizen that nobody much cares about the future of our country and that, in fact, they would suggest that most people probably like some kind of sovereignty association; only they want another name -- they want to call it something else.

It’s interesting. If I had to assess what I think the average citizen wants today, outside Quebec, I would venture to say that most of them -- probably without thinking much about it -- have decided that what they would like is a country with nine English provinces and one bilingual province. Failing that and put to the test, they might agree to have nine English provinces and one French province, and figure that the English in Quebec can somehow muddle through.

Only with a certain amount of resistance can one, I think, create the feeling that our country should be more than just nine English provinces and one French province, that it can he something richer than that. It can’t really be 19 thoroughly bilingual provinces in the sense of Ottawa’s idea of what bilingualism means. It can be 10 provinces in which, whether you come from English-speaking Canada or French-speaking Canada, you can move, you can visit, you can he transferred, you can study, you can spend a little time during your business career in any part of the country without feeling the necessity to give up entirely your culture, your language, your opportunity to educate your children.

It is a rich and an advantageous thing to have more than one language. To have that around us in our atmosphere, in our milieu, makes us richer and more distinctive as Canadians at a time when our distinctiveness as a country is going to have to be made clearer and clearer to people because our financial cost to remain an independent country is day by day becoming more apparent to every one of us.

All I can say, therefore, is that we in this Legislature must not simply accept blindly the sentiment that we would be okay with nine English provinces and one French province. We must make sure that in Ontario the Franco-Ontarians -- granted a small percentage, six per cent or so -- feel comfortable; and all of us feel comfortable seeing them comfortable; and all of us feel enriched by their presence here and by the presence of their language; and that we are a place where those Quebeckers whose native language is French feel comfortable, wanted, appreciated and at home, That’s all that’s asked.

The bill itself does deal with emotional, judicial, health, social, municipal -- I just might mention “municipal” because I think it was missed by previous speakers hut one -- and other public services.

Ms. Gigantes: You weren’t listening.

Mr. S. Smith: The bill itself doesn’t go as far as some would like, but it goes, I think, as far as it should at this time. It does what’s right. It declares the right principles and it shows the way by which, first of all, we can remove this matter from the political realm, the divisive partisan realm, into one which is less divisive and less dangerous for the country; and secondly, it gives the Franco-Ontarians the feeling that their rights are being enshrined in the law and are not simply at the whim of a given minister of government, however generous or however enlightened that government of the day may be.

I congratulate my colleague, I thank those who have already spoken for their indication of support, I congratulate the government for taking the high road, and I feel very proud in this small way in this Legislature to be taking part in a debate which may, both in terms of substance and in terms of symbol, be another building block at a time when we are, in fact, constructing over again a nation which had its first attempt at construction over 100 years ago and which I still think will prove in time to be the greatest living example of co-operation and tolerance for this entire world.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Cornwall.

Mr. Warner: The voice of eastern Ontario.

Mr. Samis: Merci, Monsieur l’Orateur. II me fait plaisir de dire quelques mots en français. Jo pense que ma position sur cello question est trés claire parce que j’ai déjà introduit nn projet de loi a l’Assemblée il y a huit mois. Ce projet de loi donnera la reconnaissance officielle a la langue française on Ontario et naturollement j’appuiorai co projet do loi presenté par lo député d’Ottawa Est.

Je ne le regarde pas commo l’équivalent dc mon projet do loi mais je peux l’appuyer sans aucuno difficulté formidablo et j’aimorais profitor do cello occasion pour félicitor mon colléguo lo député d’Ottawa Est.

I rise in support of the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I would call to your attention the fact that it was over eight months ago that I introduced a bill on the floor of this Legislature which would give full legal recognition to the French language in the province of Ontario. I would also bring to your attention the fact that the Now Democratic Party in 1969 in its program passed a resolution that would give full legal recognition to the French language in this province. At our most recent convention in February of this year, we re-endorsed that resolution as an integral part of the policy of this particular party.

When we discuss this bill we should look at some of the other jurisdictions to give us some sense of perspective. The leader of the Liberal Party and I both come from the province of Quebec and we both know the rights of the English minority in that province were enshrined in the BNA Act over 111 years ago. Even with Bill 101, it’s been estimated by several groups that the English minority in the province of Quebec still has more rights than the Franco-Ontarian minority has today in the province of Ontario.

I also think of another province that has a large minority, namely, the province of New Brunswick which in 1969 passed its languages act. I would point out that that act has been implemented, supported, endorsed and very effectively implemented by the Progressive Conservative government of the province of New Brunswick. Unlike the Premier of this province, the Premier of New Brunswick was not afraid to take a stand and say, “I support the official recognition of the French language in the province of New Brunswick.” He knew there was a backlash. He got flak and criticism but he stood up because he believed it was right and good for the province of New Brunswick, good for les acadiens and good for Canada in the long run.

That contrasts with the record of the province of Ontario. I’m afraid that if we compare the treatment of the Franco-Ontarian with the Acadians, and with the English in the province of Quebec, it’s a pretty sorry record. Anything and everything that the French have got in this province they have had to fight for. They’ve had to put the pressure on the government and the government acts only when it is cornered, only when it has been embarrassed, and only when the publicity has forced it; and when it does act, it gives as little as possible.

I recall quite visibly in my own riding how they had to fight five years ago to get their own French-language high school, while 25 miles down the highway for 111 years they’ve had the right to English-language high schools in the city of Valleyfield, Quebec. That is no formula for keeping a country together when there are two provinces, two communities side by side with such disparate and unequal treatment of their two minorities. No wonder the French-speaking people of this province are so worried. No wonder they want their rights legislatively enshrined.

All one has to do is look at the assimilation rate. No wonder they’re so insecure. In my own area, for example, the assimilation rate is almost terrifying to some people. When one looks at the figures produced by lower Quebec, by ACFO, they are talking in a general average of 27 per cent. When one looks at this monolith to the south and looks at the general anglicization of society, no wonder they do not want compromises, privileges, concessions or breadcrumbs, they want their rights guaranteed by law. And who can blame them? That’s what this bill is all about today.

When we discuss this bill, I think we should consider some of the circumstances as well. We’re a country that is doing a lot of soul-searching, our whole national unity is being challenged and hopefully we are looking at what have we done in the past, what are we doing now and what lies ahead.

The issue we are discussing today is anything but a provincial issue because what we are discussing today and what we decide today has national ramifications. You can be sure, just as the Premier said no to ACFO when they asked for official recognition of their language -- and that made the front page of almost every newspaper in Quebec -- that what we decide today will receive equivalent treatment in the Quebec press and the Quebec media. As the Leader of the Liberal Party said, we have to show the people of Quebec that we are prepared to remedy some of the injustices of the past, and the time has come.

Another circumstance of this bill -- let’s be honest -- is that there is a backlash in this province. The word “bilingual” has unfortunately become a dirty word. You can gain votes by playing to that backlash. You can gain added support if you play to that backlash, but it seems to me when your country’s whole future is under threat and being questioned by a government, you just can no longer play that short-term cheap political game of either holding seats or getting more votes.

Now is the time, as in 1864 and 1865, when we have to stand up for our country and overcome that backlash, not give in to it, not accede to it, but display leadership and give the people a sense of vision and generosity -- that we are Canadians first, Ontarians second.

You know, Mr. Speaker, when I heard the Premier in some of his earlier speeches, as reported in the press, talk about that word “bilingualism,” I wonder about the imagery conjured up. The leader of the Liberal Party and the member for Ottawa East also talked about it. Nobody on this side is in favour of ramming French down anybody’s throat. Nobody on this side is in favour of taking away anybody else’s rights.

What we are trying to do is protect the rights of an endangered minority. What we are trying to do is give equality to minority in this province. What we are trying to do is see that all Canadians in this province at least have an equal opportunity to lead their lives in whatever language, whatever culture, whatever mode of life they want to lead it in.

That is what it is about, not the Trudeau-style bureaucracy. I would really emphasize that if one looks in North America and around the world, there is more than one model of bilingualism. It need not be the Trudeau federal model. There are many models available.

Speaking about the bill, in particular -- in the short time allotted -- I would say that I do regret the absence of a commitment to recognizing the French language officially. I think that is essential. I wish the mover of the bill had included that.

To me it is somewhat akin to the idea of a man and a woman who have been living together. What this bill says is: Here are the rights of two people in their conjugal state, but who are not going to get married, are not going to formally, officially legalize it. We will legalize the rights of the two parties but we won’t call it marriage and we will avoid that word at all costs. I regret that.

The question of the Language Services Board: I appreciate the comment made by the member for Ottawa East, but I would ask him to consider the whole sunset concept. I really don’t think it is essential to the bill.

There will be some difficulties in implementing the bill and I would think, if he is not prepared to withdraw the sunset concept, he should at least extend it beyond the one year to overcome any of those difficulties.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say I support the bill. I think it is a step forward. I think it provides for greater rights for the Franco-Ontarian minority. I think it will remedy many of the injustices current. It will provide for greater equality. I only wish it provided for official recognition for the French language.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think between men of goodwill there often occur disagreements which are based not so much on principles or objectives, but rather on the implementation of those principles and the means by which to best reach those objectives.

I think the debate surrounding this bill today, Bill 89, is a good example of this type of situation, be that a debate in this House or a debate that has gone on outside the confines of where we are all sitting here today. I would, however, like to believe that there will not be one member of this House who doesn’t basically agree with the principle of this bill.


As I have stated previously in this House in many debates, I think Ontario has a very crucial role to play if the French-Canadian component of our national heritage is to survive and prosper in a united Canada. Why do I say this? I say it because the greatest concentration of French-speaking citizens outside of Quebec reside in this province.

Every measure that we as a government have taken -- and we have taken many, and we took many long before November 15, 1976 -- has been first and foremost in the interests of the French-speaking citizens of Ontario. I think we must also realize that anything we do to help preserve our French-speaking community here in Ontario has strong national connotations. We can’t get away from that. I would go even so far, as some have already said, as to include the debate that is now going on in this House. This debate today will have certain national connotations.

I am very pleased to join with my colleague in cabinet, the member for Cochrane North; the Leader of the Opposition; the member for Ottawa East, and others in taking part in this debate. I think we have to put on record the framework within which this government operates and that could be no better stated than in the words of the leader of this party, the Premier of this province, when he said recently -- this is not a speech from 1971 or 1975, but from only a few months ago -- and I quote:

“We must continue to do what is right. What is right for Ontario is continued expansion of French-language services to meet real needs openly and directly. This is our formula. It has no ceilings, no fixed budgets, no artificial deadlines. There are not limits imposed by any preconceived notions. What there is, is a deep-rooted commitment to ensure equality of opportunity for the French-speaking population of our province.”

Flowing out of that commitment have been and will be many initiatives. My friend from Cochrane North has itemized many of them. I am particularly pleased to take part in this debate because many of these initiatives flow out of the ministry that I have had the honour to head up for the past six years. I think the initiatives in the education field are very important because from them will flow much of what will happen in many other areas in the future.

I am not going to itemize all the initiatives that have taken place or will take place, except to say very quickly that they have been significant: initiatives such as the appointment of an assistant deputy minister in our ministry; the increase from 16 Franco-Ontarians in our regional offices a few years ago to 30; the new program of providing teams of program consultants to help the French-language units and the French-language schools -- 21 educators working with these people to help improve the program in the French-language school system; increases in supplemental grants this year -- that’s grants per pupil above the normal grants for all students from $9.5 million to $17.4 million; establishment and financial assistance of the Franco -- Ontarian resource centre in Ottawa -- $2.5 million this year and an ongoing commitment for the development of French-language learning materials; correspondence courses moving to provide more and more services for the French language.

I could go on and on. I don’t think that’s necessary today. All I am doing is illustrating the commitment the Premier stated and which, I have stated many times, is a commitment we intend to keep.

The commitments in the educational field, the law field, and the other commitments itemized by my friend from Cochrane North and known to the members of this House, represents a list of initiatives that substantiate the Premier’s statement that the government of Ontario prefers concrete measures to symbolic gestures. I believe the action of the government, in particular the Ministry of Education, will help ensure that the French language remains a living language in this province.

I would say that inasmuch as the bill introduced by the member for Ottawa East will help ensure the attainment of this objective, I will support it. But I also say this to the honourable members, and probably they all agree, it’s not the passage of a bill that counts, it’s the action taken that really counts -- actions that will significantly improve the situation of the French language in this province; actions that will make it easier for French-speaking Ontarians to fulfil their cultural aspirations; actions that will assist them in checking the high assimilation rate affecting their community. These are what we are concerned about and these are the kind of actions we will take to overcome these fears of this community.

In my term of office as Minister of Education, I’ve been very privileged to have had the opportunity of getting to know our French-speaking compatriots. I’ve found them generally to be reasonable in their requests, courteous in their dealings with us, and patient yet determined in the face of the misunderstandings and frustrations they often have to live with day by day.

I think what I am saying here would be echoed by most members of this House. It’s my fervent hope that whatever debate goes on in respect of this bill will not create the impression that this House is divided in its support of the just cause these people have, but that on the contrary our discussion here today is motivated by a strong desire to find the most effective response to what I think are the real, legitimate aspirations of the Franco-Ontarian citizens of this province.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for London Centre. You have about two minutes.

Mr. Peterson: I am sorry I only have two minutes. I just want to say a personal note, if I may.

I have never in my brief time in this House participated in a debate that was more emotional for me. I would like to say how proud I am not only of my colleagues, my party, but all members of the House. I am so terribly impressed with the tone, with the moderation and with the community of feeling on this bill. There’s been so little heckling today. Everybody, I feel, has been extending themselves to understand the points of their colleagues, their friends, and even the opposition members in the House. That’s a constructive thing and it’s a good thing.

I suspect, as my leader pointed out earlier, that this afternoon will be a very significant one and an important one in the history of this province. Indeed, as the Minister of Education said, it possibly will have national repercussions.

That tone has been set so beautifully. I compliment the ministers who have spoken and the Leader of the Opposition and my own leader and the introducer of the bill, the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. S. Smith: I am the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peterson: Leader of the Opposition. I’m falling heir to the same mistake he’s made. It’s a terrible thing and I apologize for that.

But it’s a very important time for moderate men, for reasonable men, to stand up. When we take the vote on this day, I desperately hope everyone stands up together, joins hands and votes on this bill.

We all know it’s not easy. We all know it’s difficult, particularly for a person like myself who represents a riding in southwestern Ontario that occasionally has a repercussion. It doesn’t have a major percentage of Franco-Ontarians there. There’s no need for this particular kind of service there, in large measure, with the exception of some isolated pockets.

It’s an important act, in terms of its symbolism as well as its substance here. I compliment all the members and I’m proud to participate even for these brief two minutes.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would only say how encouraged I am about the comments made by all members on all sides of the House on this legislation.

If I may introduce a few moments of levity I would say to my colleague from Ottawa Centre that we Franco-Ontarians have had many problems but one of them has not been that we have any difficulty making love. I should put that on the record.

Mr. Cassidy: You’ve only got three minutes to talk about it, Albert.

Mr. Roy: One of the things I would say to my colleague from Cornwall is there was no intention of giving any thought or reflection that we were disfavouring marriage. We’re all in favour of marriage, families and so on in this bill.

I would say to my colleagues to my left, especially to my colleague from Cornwall, that yes, it may be that it would have been better to go further, to have legislation which had more principles in it. The fact remains that all of us here from various areas, represent the province. It was our attempt in this legislation to try to reach common ground. We felt, with this type of legislation, that finally we were together. All of us are taking a step forward, rather than taking positions, for instance, that are maybe more laudatory principles, but when we sit back and look at each other we say we can’t agree.

What I find encouraging is we are in agreement. I think that is important. I would say to my colleagues from the government side, there have been important steps taken towards guaranteeing and giving services in French in this province and they should he underlined. They have received our support. We, on this side have, I think, especially since minority government in 1975, shown our flexibility and shown our goodwill.

The fact remains that Franco-Ontarians, like every other citizen in this province, want their rights guaranteed through certain legislation. After all, what we’re doing all day long is passing legislation either giving rights, giving privileges, or allowing people to do certain things. This is what they’re asking for.

I’m deeply indebted to all the members who have participated. I’m extremely encouraged, not only for the future of the Franco-Ontarians and the justice that we’re rendering to them today, but I’m deeply encouraged in the message and the ammunition we can give to people who believe in this country.


Ms. Bryden moved resolution 17:

That the government consider bringing in legislation to establish a public participation fund to which individuals, non-profit groups and associations may apply for assistance to insure effective participation by the public in hearings instituted under the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act. The parties assisted should be representative of the various interests which are directly or indirectly affected by the hearings.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine for up to 20 minutes.

Ms. Bryden: It’s only in recent years that public participation in decision-making has become an accepted principle. Governments used to adopt the attitude that father or mother knows best, but for a considerable time there has been some participation of the public in the regulation of rates for monopoly-type public utilities. The extension of public hearings to other areas of decision making grew out of a feeling that under today’s conditions of resource scarcity, governments have to make critical decisions in order to meet people’s needs. Acceptance of such decisions is more likely if the people affected have a say in them.

Pressure for public involvement in environmental decisions built up when we discovered that our lakes and rivers had been allowed to become public sewers and our air was hardly fit to breathe. Concern about the potential health hazards in the thousands of new chemicals being introduced into industry and agriculture added to the demand for a public voice in standard setting and control procedures. The United Nations recent conference on human settlements stated that, quote, “Public participation is a right that must be accorded to all segments of the population.”


So, after a long period of foot dragging, we now have in this province provision for some form of public hearings on approvals for waste disposal systems and sewage works and on environmental assessments of new and expanded undertakings. Burt all too often there is a gross under-representation of the public interest in these hearings. The public voice is very weak in comparison to the applicant’s voice. It is generally a David and Goliath situation.

A hearing which appears to be fair because all interests are invited to participate is really a mockery and a sham if the interested parties are on an unequal footing. We know that most of the applicants for approvals and licences hire lawyers, consultants and expert witnesses to present their case and to conduct cross-examinations of opposing witnesses. Most of the interveners cannot afford this. They are either public interest groups or ad hoc organizations of citizens or individuals.

The applicants can deduct their costs from their taxable income and thereby recover up to 50 per cent of the cost. The interveners cannot generally do this. In fact, they and the rest of the taxpayers in Canada and Ontario make up the revenue lost through these deductions.

The Maple landfill application is an illustration of the problem. A gravel company and a waste disposal company applied for permission to set up the largest landfill operation in North America near Maple. Public hearings started on July 6, 1976, and went on intermittently until November 25, 1977 -- well over a year. A total of 80 hearing days were required. It is estimated that the companies spent at least $1 million in their applications.

Local residents paid thousands of dollars to monitor the hearings and to make their case against proposals that they thought would be very damaging to the environment and the community. One citizen paid out $600 just to get one expert witness. Others spent large sums on transcripts and preparations of briefs. No one calculated the cost of attendance for 80 days at the hearings by people who lost time off work or by volunteers who sat in for those unable to be present.

The Environmental Assessment Board has recently ruled against this project in very forthright terms. I am very glad the Ministry of the Environment just yesterday has accepted the recommendations of the board. I sincerely hope the cabinet will also accept these recommendations. I feel the efforts of the citizens’ groups had quite a bit to do with the decision. They brought out all the counter arguments very forcibly. The residents were fortunate that people were ready to put up the kind of money they did to make their case and there were volunteers to monitor the hearings.

But it really isn’t fair to expect individual citizens to finance such expensive interventions out of their own pocket. In many other areas it would not be possible for this kind of activity to be financed without outside help.

The sources of funds available for citizens’ groups which intervene are very limited in Canada. We have no huge foundations like the Ford Foundation which might finance them. They cannot raise large sums through membership fees or donations, even with the help of an income tax deduction. Nor do we have large public-interest groups of a national nature such as exist in the United States, partly with the help of wealthy foundations. The Consumers’ Association of Canada and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa do yeoman service in public intervention but their puny finances require them to limit their activities severely.

My resolution calls for a correction of the serious under-representation of the public interest in environmental hearings. It proposes the establishment of a public participation fund to which individuals and non-profit groups and associations may apply for assistance to ensure effective participation by the public in hearings.

The principle could be extended to the Ontario Municipal Board hearings and to the rule-making and standard-setting activities of other government agencies. I have chosen to confine my proposal to hearings under environmental legislation simply because I feel this is the most important area where action is needed right now, and also, to put my proposal in the form of a pilot project for legislative action on public participation funding.

The fund could be administered by a small government-appointed board which would be independent of the Ministry of the Environment. It would receive application for assistance and make awards to those it considered needed aid in order to ensure representative public participation in hearings. It could draw up guidelines for determining eligibility. In some cases, it could make awards contingent on groups or individuals with similar interests joining together in their participation to avoid duplication of effort.

Basically, an award would cover such things as legal fees, expert witness costs and research. It could also cover transportation and accommodation, if interveners had to travel considerable distances to the hearings. It should also cover transcript costs and the costs of reproduction of briefs if several copies are needed. In some cases, it might cover a monitor’s cost where attendance at lengthy hearings by someone other than a lawyer was deemed necessary.

We already have several precedents for funding of public participants in Ontario and Canada. The Porter Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning funded a number of groups out of its allotment from the provincial government. The Hartt Royal Commission on the Northern Environment did likewise. The former spent about $250,000; the latter was voted $362,000 in the 1977-78 estimates.

The federal Berger commission on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline asked the federal government to fund groups wishing to make submissions. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development responded by making substantial grants to native groups. Some other federal agencies also made grants to other groups. A few groups in Canada have received LIP and Canada Works grants to help them prepare briefs for public hearings on specific issues such as the construction of a dam or the selection of a landfill site. In all cases, the amounts granted are very small and there is no legislation guaranteeing the availability of such funding.

Recently, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission issued a booklet which endorsed the principle of public funding for public-interest groups participating in rate hearings. It proposed that companies involved in rate hearings should be required to assist in the funding of nonprofit interveners. However, the rules suggested in the proposal are rather restrictive. I hope they will be altered.

For example, subsidies would be awarded only to those groups which are deemed by the CRTC -- not by the independent body, but by the CRTC -- to have intervened responsibly and to have contributed to the commission’s better understanding of the issues. Moreover, only groups which would not be able to intervene effectively without subsidy would qualify. Presumably the CRTC would determine that.

Groups receiving any financing from a government would be ineligible, even if they needed supplementary funds. The worst feature of the proposal is that the selection of the groups to be subsidized and the amount of the subsidy would be determined after the hearing. So the groups would have to gamble on support.

Looking at the US situation, Mr. Speaker, we find that funding for public interest groups is growing through a number of avenues in the United States. Several federal agencies are now funding such groups which appear before regulatory, environmental, health, and public safety hearings.

The federal agencies include the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Food and Drug Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Energy Program, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These agencies have financed public participation in hearings on fuel economy standards, on environmental impacts and on setting of standards for control of hazardous substances.

The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act in the United States specifically provides for the payment of legal fees and expert witness fees and other costs of participation in proceedings setting standards for the control of toxic substances. In addition, of course, private foundations and corporations such as the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation do make grants to United States public interest groups. Some of them offer to match funds raised for a group.

I hear that some bar associations have instituted a $10 voluntary checkoff with dues payments for public-interest advocacy. In a number of universities and colleges there is a student checkoff which has been instituted to fund student briefs and student research for appearances at public hearings.

So there are undoubtedly more funds available to public participants in the United States than here, but the amount is still puny in comparison to the amount spent by the companies involved. The public interest groups’ activities have generated a backlash. Business leaders are starting their own so-called public interest law centres to counterbalance the genuine public interest groups -- for example, a legal foundation which started in California in 1973 with $40,000 now has a budget of $1.2 million from corporate donations. It specializes in environmental and land use questions, advocating broader use of pesticides, more development and more intensive timber harvesting and grazing on public lands.

This sort of activity underlines the need for a legislated public participation program to ensure equality in public hearings.

A bill currently before the United States Senate sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy and Charles Mathias, requires all federal agencies to underwrite the cost of participation in their regulatory licensing and adjudicatory proceedings. Under this bill, participants would qualify only if they represent an interest that would substantially contribute to a fair determination of the proceeding and they must show that their economic interest in the proceeding is small in relation to the cost of effective participation, or that they do not have sufficient resources to participate effectively. Funds for this program would come either from the government agency or in some cases applicants would be required to pay some or all of the award.


Getting back to the situation in Ontario, the key question is, where will the money come from to finance the public participation fund I am proposing? Public participation in the Hartt and Porter commissions was funded by the provincial government and that is certainly a legitimate source if we believe the province has a moral obligation to ensure there is fair play in hearings. It also has an obligation to see that the views of all interest groups are properly put before regulatory and assessment bodies.

Other sources of funds which might be considered are a levy on the companies involved. This could be either a percentage of what they spend on their applications or a participation fee based on their size or earnings.

The income tax checkoff is another source which should not be ignored. It has been proposed for financing political parties in the form of a voluntary checkoff of $1 or $2 which the taxpayer could opt for on his income tax form. It was recommended in the report of one of our select committees in this House. It could be applied to a checkoff for an environmental fund.

Group checkoffs by lawyers or other professionals on their dues statements could also be encouraged to provide money for the fund. One can argue that lawyers who benefit from the advocacy process have an obligation to assist in making it less stacked against public interest groups. Individuals and foundations might also he encouraged to contribute to such a fund. Bequests could be accepted as well.

In a democracy we have an obligation to assure that there are always equal forces contending before decision-making forums. We are not fulfilling that obligation if we do not institute a public participation fund of the kind I am proposing. I urge the government to give immediate consideration to the proposal and to bring in a bill on the subject as soon as possible.

If there is any time left, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to rebutt any comments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has two minutes.

Mr. Sterling: I wish to reply to the resolution tabled by the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

The general idea set out in the resolution is a commendable one in so far as I interpret it, that assistance be provided so individuals, nonprofit groups and associations are able to participate at hearings at various environmental agencies. Public participation is one of the keystones of our democratic system. No one here would try to refute this point. But the resolution itself is cast in rather vague terms and the assertion of this philosophical concept is, perhaps, its strongest point.

On the other hand, I find many problems with the practicability of the resolution put forward. It would appear to me from the context of this resolution that any fund established would have to be open-ended in order to be effective. If this is the intention then, it is a dangerous and economically unrealistic proposition.

The vagueness extends further into terms of eligibility for those who might partake of those moneys. I recall the words “individual nonprofit groups and associations.” This appears to cover nearly everyone who could ever wish to apply, almost a universal eligibility policy. It worries me that among the people who have a genuine environmental interest, and a genuine need of financial assistance to express their views, may also be some people who have a greater interest in the remuneration they might receive. This is where the ambiguity of the definition of recipients could create problems.

Furthermore, on the question of eligibility, the applicant need only have interests which are “directly or indirectly affected by the hearing.” This “or indirectly” intrigues and worries me. It appears to allow for anyone, who has merely the vaguest of interest, to apply and receive funds to participate in hearings even where his participation may be unnecessary or irrelevant. It could spawn what I would call frivolous objectors.

Many of us who have had experience with the Ontario Municipal Board have had considerable experience with frivolous objectors who have held up needed development and raised the cost of development on many occasions. Someone with a banner to wave, looking for an occasion on which to wave it, and to be paid for it, might be attracted to this type of fun.

The ambiguity in the question of relevant interest could allow great abuses to the proposed system. Furthermore, the appearance of any frivolous objectors at hearings would likely retard the progress of these boards which, being objective, we all know move at less than a rapid pace. We must remember that every time a project is held up unduly, it costs everybody and, in the end, the consumer, a great deal of heartache in terms of money, in terms of jobs and in terms of development progress.

To return to the philosophical aspect of the resolution, the member appears to be concerned with the public good. I believe this is admirable, but too often the public good is hard to reconcile with something that is essentially removed from the realm of philosophy. There are too many grey areas and apparent loopholes in this resolution to be seriously considered at this time, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I find I must oppose it.

In addition, it is my view that this resolution deals with expenditures of substantial amounts of government funds and I believe, in my estimation, this is not a matter to be considered in a private member’s resolution or bill.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a few comments with respect to this particular resolution and support it. I think the principle espoused in this particular resolution is worthy of support. It is the principle of providing funds to groups who wish to appear before the Environmental Assessment Act or under the terms of that act at an environmental assessment hearing.

The Environmental Protection Act, the Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act involve themselves with public hearings. The Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act in particular can be complex in the sense that the issues with which they deal are involved, are detailed and on some occasions are very lengthy.

It seems to me that small groups, and private individuals who wish to appear and who wish to put a particular point of view in relation to a problem under the terms of any one of these particular acts, does have some difficulty, particularly if the hearing is long and involved. The costs are, in some cases, prohibitive. For that reason I think it is a move in the right direction to move in financially supporting these groups where it is indicated they wish to make a submission.

I want to deal with a couple of the points my friend from Carleton-Grenville raised. They are the frivolous objector and the matter of uncontrolled expenditure. I will do so just a little later.

This particular resolution moves in the direction of the bill proposed by my colleague last November, as I recall it, Bill 100. The member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) proposed a bill whose intent was basically the same as proposed in this particular resolution.

The Ministry of the Environment was created back in 1971 in response to a growing problem of environmental damage and pollution. Then, in 1975 the Ministry of the Environment passed the Environmental Assessment Act. That bill, as I recall, was, at that time, considered to be a hallmark piece of legislation. It has had some difficult times and I think it’s only now moving from the teething stage into the further development and refining stage. Because of that, public participation should be encouraged to a greater extent than it has been up until now.

I think the Environmental Assessment Act and the other Acts mentioned here are important. I think it’s important they don’t become instruments of the strong against the weak. As the member for Beaches-Woodbine mentioned, small groups cannot begin to raise the money which is necessary to secure the services of lawyers and engineers so that their ease would be properly put when hearings are called.

Mr. B. Newman: It becomes David against Goliath.

Mr. Gaunt: I think the Ministry of the Environment is a very sensitive ministry. It’s sensitive because it touches the lives of everyone in one way or another every day, and does involve itself with the protection of the environment, and at the same time the protection and well being of people generally. That’s a heavy responsibility. When one involves people to that extent, it’s vital that one encourage and generate public participation on these issues.

That can only be done where public funds are used to assist individuals and groups who cannot properly on their own take part in the hearings under the act to which reference is made in the resolution. There has to be a reasonable balance in all of this. The government never has unlimited funds, as was pointed out by my friend from Carleton-Grenville, particularly in these days, so it’s important that criteria are established so that available resources can be provided in the fairest possible way to ensure effective public participation.

I see nothing wrong with putting some criteria, some limits, and some guidelines under which groups and individuals can apply. I think the Porter commission has done that and done it with some success and I see no reason why it couldn’t be done under a government bill as proposed in the resolution.

We have precedents in this respect, as the member for Beaches-Woodbine mentioned -- the Porter commission, the Hartt commission. I believe we have a precedent federally as well, the Berger commission. The Hartt inquiry was allocated, as I understand it, $362,000 up to March of 1978. The Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, the Porter commission, has provided funds for groups and individual participation in the commission.


So far my figure doesn’t quite match the figure indicated by the member for Beaches-Woodbine but the latest figure I had was that the Porter commission had spent about $2 million up to the present time for public participation of various groups and individuals. They’ve a very open policy. They have a lending library and I went there one day. I was interested in seeing what was available and they had some very good publications which one can either take out and return at a certain time or which one can purchase.

They have certainly encouraged people participation; and I think the thrust and intent of the resolution would generate more public participation which I think, in the final analysis, is all to the good.

The member for Carleton-Grenville referred to people who might appear before these various hearing bodies to object on a frivolous basis. I’m sure that will always be the case, no matter what mechanism one sets up, where one has an appeal structure of any kind. There are ways and devices whereby frivolous objectors can be discouraged and would be discouraged. That’s the reason I say that criteria should be set up under which this program would operate.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine isn’t saying that there should be a program of full subsidization. The intent of the resolution is to assist groups, not to completely subsidize them in the actions they want to undertake. That in itself surely is some sort of control mechanism in the system. If someone has to put his or her own money up front in order to object, I think that indicates --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Gaunt: -- an interest and intent on the part of the person, and I think that’s a control mechanism of its own.

I’ll close by saying that legislated public participation is important in view of the vested interests of those who wish to promote actions and products which are potentially harmful to the environment or to health.

Mr. Makarchuk: I rise to support this resolution both in principle and also because of a personal experience some time ago in trying to sue the government to prevent the construction of the bridge across the Elora Gorge.

Mr. Sterling: Where is that?

Mr. Makarchuk: I’m sure my friend from Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. Johnson) will understand the situation.

For the benefit of the members of the House, it was an action that was initiated by the current mayor of Kitchener, Morley Rosenberg, and myself when we were members of the Grand River conservation authority, against the Grand River conservation authority in order to prevent them from deeding lands over to the county of Welling- ton to facilitate the construction of a bridge across, shall we say, the last remaining natural gorge in Ontario.

In the process we took it to about three different courts. We lost, and it cost us $17,000 for the costs of our opponents.

Mr. Gaunt: You weren’t a frivolous objector, were you?

Mr. Makarchuk: We lost the case not only despite the fact that we probably had the best legal services available in Ontario.

An hon. member: Your own?

Mr. Makarchuk: We had one Eddie Goodman, Edward Goodman, who I’m sure is well known to members from the other side of the House. He donated his services which we appreciated. We also had the assistance of the Environmental Law Association and the Federation of Ontario Naturalists. If we had had to pay for the services of the lawyers, the cost would probably have been a lot closer to $30,000 instead of $17,000.

That is an indication of some of the problems that citizens face when they try to deal with matters which relate to government, the environment and everything else. We also discovered that there is a standing doctrine that says: “No person may use the courts to challenge a statute, or an action of government, or a public body, or to seek damages or other relief against a public nuisance unless he or she has some special interest, usually pecuniary or proprietary, or has sustained damage beyond that suffered by the general public.”

In this case, we never did have our case heard, We just brought it to the court and were told that we really haven’t got the power to take it to the courts. We discovered -- and I think this is a point that should be raised here -- that the only possible plaintiff in cases where no private interest is at stake is the Attorney General.

We’re concerned that there’s no reason in principle why members of the public should not be allowed to protect the public interest in the courts. In fact, this is why the public should have the right.

The reasons for challenging the rule of standing have not to do only with environmental protection but with the broader question of the rule of law. This is something that the member for Carleton-Grenville should realize that a democratic government must be a legal government, it must obey its own laws.

That, in effect, is what this resolution will do -- it will give people an opportunity to ensure that the government they elect lives up to the laws that the government itself passes.

It means that when there is a question as to whether a governmental action is within the law or a statute within the constitution, there must be a way for that question to he decided by the courts. To leave it to the discretion of the Attorney General, no matter how much confidence one may have in the Attorney General, who is himself an arm of the government, raises the question of whether there really is sufficient desire for the government to move against the government.

We also have to recognize when we’re dealing with this resolution that even with the best will in the world to deal with or show concern about the environment -- and we question some of the government’s concerns about the environment -- that no government really has all the resources to deal with environmental matters. Therefore, the citizen should have the opportunity -- and it certainly is his responsibility, I feel -- to turn, if necessary, to the courts to protect the environment in which he lives. We have all sorts of evidence these days in our rivers that are open sewers, in our lakes that are polluted and everything else that we are not doing the job. The environment is unprotected.

The matter that was raised by the member for Carleton-Grenville -- that it’s going to open the courts to a floodgate of litigation, et cetera -- is like the matter raised with Bill 132 or Bill 70: If one gives the workers a right to walk off their jobs under unsafe conditions, they’re going to walk off. I remember when we were going through the hearings of the bill we asked the corporate representatives over and over again, “How many times have you had workers quit work since Bill 132 was introduced?” There was not a single case where the workers took any kind of frivolous action to stop working.

I think it’s the same kind of mythology or demonology or whatever it is that the member is introducing here. He in effect does not trust the good sense of the people of this province. He assumes that if we give them certain rights, they will automatically abuse those rights.

We should look at the United States. An environmental protection law was passed in the state of Michigan in 1971 establishing the right to a clean environment, as well as granting standing to any members of the public to enforce that right. The results show that the courts have not been overburdened. Similar legislation has been introduced in five other states and there is not an inordinate amount of litigation, according to their own attorneys general.

The other point I want to bring to the attention of the House is the statute that’s called the Vexatious Proceedings Act that can be used by the government as well as by the individual or the agency that is promoting some project to stop what could be considered frivolous proceedings. Although at times we depend on the government and expect the government to protect the public interest, there are occasions where the government refuses to move. For example, the experience we had in the Elora Gorge, where there was some effort to try and get the government to move in and it refused. The Attorney General has to take this action. He is not dealing at arm’s-length and you question whether he would be the appropriate plaintiff in any actions.

Look at the Dow Chemical case. It has been going on for seven years and appears to be at a standstill. There is nothing to indicate that the government or the Attorney General is going to proceed with vigour on some of the outstanding environmental problems with which we are faced, some of the projects with which we have to deal.

Another point we seem to have raised when we discuss this thing -- it was said it was going to create havoc in construction or something -- is the erroneous belief that private interests are more important than public ones and that the courts exist simply to protect private interests. This assumption is belied by the simple fact that people do find public interest actions important enough to put time, money and energy into them, even though they have nothing to gain as private persons, only as members of the public. The fact that we have managed to preserve the Elora Gorge in its natural state is something of benefit to the people of Ontario.

It should be noted that permitting the public to have access to the courts will in no way impede or restrict government initiative actions against polluters or other law breakers. More liberal standing will simply add a new and effective dimension to judicial redress for existing and threatened injuries to the environment and to civil liberties. In a sense, it will restore one of the paragraphs in the Magna Carta that says, “To no one will we deny, to none will we delay, rights or justice.” It seems to be a reflection on our society that 763 years after that document was tabled we are here discussing the possibility of extending rights to people who have earned the right, as I have and as every other citizen in Ontario has, to fresh water, to fresh air, and to a healthy environment. What this resolution does, in effect, is it provides that kind of leverage or that additional help to give this.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Makarchuk: I would suggest to the members that this resolution merits the support of all members of the House. In the interests of justice, I am sure they will support it.

Mr. Johnson: I am very pleased to rise and speak, especially after the member for Brantford, because he has caused me considerable problems in my riding in the Elora Gorge district. He is also talking to the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton), who shares my sentiments. Maybe he can convey the message.

I am concerned about this type of legislation which could cause delays such as we are experiencing in Elora. I can speak from personal experience regarding these delays. They date back to 1964 when the county decided the Elora Gorge bridge should be built. It carries through year after year, until we come to July 10, 1974. At that time a writ of summons was issued by Messrs. Rosenberg and Makarchuk against the conservation authority. This was their first court appearance. This was dismissed.

On July 15 and on July 23 they appealed again -- I am sorry, they appealed for the first time. On April 29, 1976, the decision of the Court of Appeal given unanimously affirmed the earlier decision, awarding costs to the county of Wellington and the Grand River Conservation Authority. On September 27 the same two appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. On October 19, 1976, Chief Justice Laskin and Justices Judson and Spence of the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal with costs. I believe these are the costs the member is concerned about.


Mr. Makarchuk: We never did touch on the subject matter.

Mr. Gregory: Shame. Shame.

Mr. Johnson: It has proceeded to the OMB. There have been several hearings on it. The cost to the county, at the present time, amounts to between $60,000 and $70,000. Legal costs are another $30,000.

It’s unwarranted, in my opinion, that any group can take 10, 12 or 13 years to overrule a county. Many members of this House pretend to support the principle of local autonomy. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what credibility is given to locally-elected officials to exercise their judgement when they have it overruled or unduly delayed by individuals and organizations not directly affected by these decisions but yet are able to prevent the project from being carried out? Twenty-one municipalities in the county of Wellington unanimously supported, in a recorded vote, the building of the Elora Gorge bridge. They are denied this right to do so. This is supposed to be a democratic process, but at the same time it’s costing the people of Wellington an escalation in the cost of building the bridge from a little over half a million dollars to well over a million dollars.

As I mentioned, there was also the cost of another $70,000 to $100,000 for legal proceedings. It just seems to me there is something wrong when a group of supposedly concerned people can prevent a county from proceeding with building a road or a bridge or something of this nature when the county officials are elected to do this by the people of their area.

Mr. Makarchuk: We’re not stopping them if they put it someplace else. There are all sorts of other places for that bridge.

Mr. Johnson: You can prevent anything from happening by claiming you’re going to kill a couple of alligators or lizards or whatever you have.

An hon. member: Butterflies.

Mr. Johnson: And butterflies.

Mr. Makarchuk: I didn’t know they had alligators in the Grand.

Mr. Gregory: Or turkeys.

Mr. Johnson: Turkeys.

Mr. Gregory: Turkeys. There are lots of them over there.

An hon. member: See you later, alligator.

Mr. Kerrio: You don’t have to worry if you’re on a big yacht.

Mr. Worton: If I had known there were alligators there, Jack, I wouldn’t have supported it either.

Mr. Makarchuk: I guess there will be no swimming in the Grand this summer.

Mr. Johnson: I think we are so concerned with protecting the rights of a few individuals that we forget about the rights of the majority of the people.

This is the danger of endorsing this type of resolution. Maybe the principle merits support, but certainly the method doesn’t.

There are many questions that come to mind. Who is to administer the program? Does this mean setting up another level of bureaucracy? Who is to judge the applications made by individuals, non-profit groups or associations? This is a judgement call; who has the right to make that decision? If it is thrown back to the minister, then we don’t need it in the first place.

Would funds go to groups such as Pollution Probe which is non-profit, but already has an existing level of funding? What happens in a case where an application is rejected? Do we set up another level of bureaucracy to hear the appeal? When groups are preparing briefs to appear before these bodies, would these funds be used to pay for lawyers, consultants and other professionals? If so, I could provide the names of a couple of lawyers who are quite hungry for this type of legal work.

How do we define an interested party affected directly or indirectly by the hearings? Is that anybody? Does that mean the funds go to union groups? If so, would it not be discriminatory not to include a corporation or the like?

It also seems to me that this sort of program would lead to unnecessary appeals, delays of projects, and place an even greater burden on such agencies as already exist.

Mr. Mackenzie: Did your buddy George put you up to that speech?

Mr. Johnson: I would also ask myself if this would not lead to government funding lobbies and paying lawyers and consultants for special-interest groups.

Mr. Kerrio: All the Tories are doing that already.

Mr. M. N. Davison: You are just interested in investment.

Mr. Kerrio: All the Tories are doing that already.

Mr. Johnson: In my view, this would mean that appeal would follow appeal and there would be delay on top of delay, just as we have in the example the member for Brantford has mentioned. I suppose he would like to make this retroactive if possible.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I am sure he would.

Mr. Kerrio: No, that is the Minister of Agriculture and Food who does those things.

Mr. Johnson: With the opposition’s support. I am of the conviction that we should not as a matter of general policy enter the realm of funding various interest groups. If they have a need for funds, I’m certain that they can find the means of raising them. I certainly cannot accept the principle that we should be funding individuals. Therefore, I would urge all members of this House to consider carefully the results of supporting this resolution. I must vote against it.

Mr. Warner: That is sad.

Mr. G. I. Miller: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to have the opportunity of participating in this debate this afternoon. I support in principle the resolution that has been presented by our colleague from Beaches-Woodbine that the government consider bringing in legislation to establish a public participation fund to which individuals, nonprofit groups and associations may apply for assistance to ensure effective participation by the public in hearings instituted under the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act, and that these parties assisted should be representative of the various interests which are directly or indirectly affected by the hearings.

It has come very close to home, particularly in my riding over the last three years; we’ve had to utilize the Environmental Assessment Act. I’d like to say that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McCague) has a difficult job to do, which was only established, as my colleague pointed out, back in 1971 or that area. It has had a considerable impact on the improvement and quality of the environment in our natural resources. These assessment boards that have been established have given the public the right to have a fair hearing and present their case.

I’d like to point out that there was a proposition proposing a Cambrian well for industrial waste which was to be located near the little village of Canborough in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk. The people there rose up against it and were able to convince the ministry that the dangers and the hazards were too great. Another group known as the D and D Group, a waste disposal management company, was to have established a waste disposal or lagoon disposal in Nanticoke. It was in the middle of a farming community and could affect the water resources, the environment, the value of the land and the natural resources.

The people again had to band together, and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture took a strong stand as well. They spent $5,000 of hard-earned money to oppose the location of the site. The Nanticoke Ratepayers’ Association was another group that banded together and spent approximately $5,000 in opposing the location of that lagoon in the immediate area. The Nanticoke pollution control committee has spent $9,000 in order to oppose the location of this waste site, the first and only one in Ontario.

The people proposing the site there were supported by the government I have been critical and will be critical of them for supporting it. There should be a different way of approaching this problem rather than forcing the people, the average little person, to rise up against it and to put up their money. The two organizations, the OFA and the Nanticoke Ratepayers’ Association, have a debt of something like $11,000. Some say that these lawyers could be making work for themselves, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the lawyers involved knew that the funding was not available and they were concerned for our environment. They were concerned for the welfare of the small person. I think they deserve a lot of credit for taking on that responsibility knowing that there could well be no funds available to them.

We can’t be frivolous and we do have to deal with our waste, but there has to be a better way. Another example I would like to point out is the Glanbrook dump site which is now set for a hearing in September. The people are trying to come up with some funding through the area municipality of Glanbrook and the local association and they are really fighting the region of Hamilton-Wentworth who are supporting the project. The area municipality is opposing it and while they are contributing about 2.4 per cent of the funding to the municipality, they are really giving money for something they are trying to oppose.

I think there has to be a better way to deal with this and consequently I would like to support the resolution which has been put before us. I know it is a money-spending bill and it will be up to the government to bring in legislation to make this effective. I would hope that they would be able to come up with some proposal that would use the public more fairly and provide a fair way of dealing with them.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time we have, reserving two minutes for the member for Beaches-Woodbine?

An hon. member: Two seconds.

Mr. Kerrio: There should be two seconds, Mel.

Mr. Lane: It’s all through, it’s over.

Mr. Speaker: You have about five minutes.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution. It has some very serious applications in our area in Niagara in two respects.

The last speaker mentioned that the ratepayers in the Niagara Peninsula, actually in the area east of Welland, fought the location of a sludge disposal site which was to be placed very close to a number of the residences around there.

There was a fairly lengthy hearing with the environmental board and then subsequent to that there was an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Although the environmental hearing approved of the site it was turned down by the Ontario Municipal Board.

And, Mr. Speaker, the ratepayers involved in that had a great deal of cost and although they were finally able to win it, it was in spite of the inequality of the fight and the fact that they had by far the best side of the case.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. Will all members please keep their private conversations down? It is extremely difficult to hear.

Mr. Swart: If there had only been equality on both sides, I suggest they would have lost the case simply because they did not have the funds to have the experts and to have the lawyers there to fight the case at the same level as the region of Niagara and others that were involved in it.

Mr. Stong: No disparaging remarks about lawyers now.

Mr. Swart: Within the latter part of this year, Mr. Speaker, there will be, we expect, at least an eight-week hearing taking place on the urban boundaries of the Niagara region. This of course concerns the preservation of the fruit land and the grape land in Niagara.

It is estimated that the total costs of an eight-week hearing, when the regional municipality of Niagara and at least five municipalities will be involved, will be in excess of $500,000. Those on the side of preservation of the land, wanting to reduce these excessive boundaries, are hoping to raise something like $25,000 to fight for their side of the hearing. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if a vote was taken in that area, you would find at least 90 per cent of the people were in favour of preserving that prime agricultural land.


Yet when that hearing comes around in October, if it does take place, it will be a David and Goliath battle. If it is won by the preservationists, by those who are concerned about preserving our prime agricultural land, particularly the grape and fruit land which is so unique in that area, they will win it only because they have an overwhelming case on their side, not because of the experts they will be able to gather or be able to pay. It will be a case of them spending $25,000 and $500,000 being spent on the other side.

If we are going to have any kind of fairness in these hearings -- and I am concerned about the cost of hearings too; I was in municipal government for 21 years -- but if we are going to have these hearings, then I suggest there should be equality in them. The only way we will get equality in these hearings is if those who are concerned with the public interest have some resources similar to those developers and others who are fighting to get their way.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have received the support of the member for Huron-Bruce and the member for Haldimand-Norfolk. I think they too recognize the principle of the need for balance of interest appearing before public hearings. I hope the government members will not deny this principle by blocking the vote on this resolution because in it we are simply asking that this House extend what the government is already doing, but put it into legislative form. We are simply asking them to apply the principle that they have adopted in the Porter and the Hartt commissions to all hearings. In the application of those public participation programs before the Porter and Hartt commissions, we have shown that most of the objections put forward by the members opposite can be met or are really imagined difficulties.

I did not say that grants would be given to anybody who applied. I said that we must develop criteria and eligibility requirements. The member for Huron-Bruce also emphasized this. The Porter commission and the Harts commission published guidelines showing their criteria. The US agencies have done the same and in effect they rule out what might be called frivolous applications by the guideline method. In fact there can be frivolous applications right now by well-heeled companies which can take most of their costs off their income tax, but this is the only kind of frivolous applications that we now have. I am not suggesting we want frivolous applications; I am suggesting we can roll them out by suitable guidelines.

The member for Carleton-Grenville suggested the fund was open-ended, but I have suggested that the fund would simply award the amounts that were put into it from the various sources that I mentioned. This would include either government grants into the fund, an income tax checkoff from lawyers’ associations or professional associations, bequests and things of that sort. Only what is in the fund would be distributed, but it would be distributed in the fairest possible way, not to put everybody on an absolute equal footing -- I am afraid that is an idealistic dream -- but at least to redress the balance of representation in public hearings and to ensure that all interest views are heard as much as possible.

Therefore I would appeal to all honourable members to support the principle of this bill because it is something we are already doing. It’s simply a matter of legislating it and making a more uniform system for all hearings.


Mr. Speaker: Mr. Roy had moved second reading of Bill 89.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for standing administration of justice committee.


Sufficient members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on resolution 17.


Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to indicate the order of business?

I draw the members’ attention to the sheets on their desk in so far as the order of business starting at 8 o’clock this evening is concerned. Keeping in mind that it’s difficult to predict how much time this may take, there is a fairly full evening ahead of us.

Tomorrow the House will be in committee of supply, continuing the estimates of the of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

For the week of June 5, may I indicate our work order as follows:

On Monday, if the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs are not completed tomorrow, that is on June 2, it’s my understanding they will be concluded on Monday afternoon next.

Following that, and not being able to predict if we will get to the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the May 4 report of the standing members’ services committee, if we haven’t arrived at that particular point tonight we will take that into consideration on Monday afternoon. We then have the consideration of the fourth report of the select committee on the Ombudsman, once the adjourned debate on the motion for the members’ services committee report has been completed.

On Tuesday we have legislation in this order: Bills 86 and 95 to be considered in committee. Then we will proceed with any legislation not completed this evening. Time permitting, we will continue with the debates on the two committee reports, depending on where we are with respect to those reports -- both the members’ services committee and/or the report of the select committee on the Ombudsman.

On Wednesday, the general government committee, the resources development committee and the justice committee may sit in the morning.

On Thursday afternoon we have private members’ public business, being ballot item 25 standing in the name of the member for London South (Mr. Walker), and second, ballot item 26 standing in the name of the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio). In the evening, the House will take into consideration second reading of Bill 96.

On Friday morning next the House will continue the debate with respect to the two committee reports, depending on where are, in so far as those debates are concerned, as far as time allocations are involved.

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

The House recessed at 5:55 p.m.