Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, I hope that you and the other members of this chamber will join with me in welcoming 15 students from the Foleyet Public School in the chamber this afternoon. They are under the supervision of Mr. Munn.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you and members join with me in welcoming the students from Ecole St. Jules in the great town of Moonbeam.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I was wondering when the minister was going to get around to that.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members of the House to welcome the Young Voyageurs from Niagara Falls, Ont., who are hosting students from Powell River, B.C. They are here with the person in charge, Mr. P. Deegan.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In the committee on the legislative estimates on Tuesday, the chairman, the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson), made a ruling that certain things were not debatable during the estimates. He said, and I quote from the instant Hansard:

“I have a statement to give before we proceed with the debate. Last night when we adjourned there was an argument developed among members about procedure and about this particular vote. I have now investigated the situation, and my ruling is that the formula is debatable. The distribution within the caucuses is not going to be debatable.”

Mr. Speaker, the night before we had got a breakdown from the administrator of the assembly of the way funds were spent within the Liberal caucus and the NDP caucus, but not a breakdown for the Conservative caucus.

It seems to me this is an abrogation of the rules of the Legislature that say members are able to ask questions in regard to the estimates -- the amount of public funds that is going to be voted and supposedly used for public purposes.

I would ask, sir, that you look into this matter with a view to informing us that we, indeed, do have this right.

Mr. Speaker: I shall study the matter, but I might point out that the committee is run independently of the House and under its chairman. However, I shall study it and report further if it seems to be irregular.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, may I just say a word or two on the point? I was there the day the ruling was made and it places members of the committee, particularly opposition members, in a very difficult position. As you know, sir, those committees are set up so that there is an overwhelming number of government members, and if an arbitrary chairman is going to foreclose us from discussing how an estimate is used and how public money is spent, there is very little that an opposition member can do.

The chairman is not impartial, as you are, sir. The chairman is a partisan person. You are the servant of the House and I think we need your protection.

I join my colleague from Rainy River in saying we need your protection to ensure we can ask questions and get answers, particularly in as important a debate of the estimates.

Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly report back.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Before you move, I would like to comment on the point, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the behaviour of the chairman of the committee, which was perhaps characteristic and predictable, what right has the administrator of the legislative assembly to withhold information on the spending of public money by the Conservative caucus, while granting scrutiny of those of the opposition caucuses?

Quite apart from the chairman’s reluctance to allow us to know, since when is public money applied to members of the assembly revealed only as it affects opposition caucuses and not the government caucus? Could you speak to the gentleman about that as well?

Mr. Speaker: Yes: I shall study the whole question.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Speaker, one further point on this matter, in which I was also involved in that committee. I would like to say to you, sir, I am very pleased that you have undertaken to examine this matter because I think it is very much in danger of setting a very dangerous precedent in this House. I hope you will examine it from the point of view of, perhaps, overruling the chairman of the committee at that time and allowing the questions we posed to be put again and the answers to be provided. Thank you, sir.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): The opposition members are spending a hell of a lot more per capita than we are.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a further point of order.

Mr. Speaker: A further point of order?

Mr. Reid: This is a different one, Mr. Speaker, but it arises out of the same committee. At that committee the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) asked the chairman, the member for Lambton, if he had consulted with anyone in making the ruling we have just talked about. The member said, on the point of order, “I made it clear that I consulted with the Clerk and other members.”

On the same page of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk, Mr. R. Lewis, said, in reply to the member, “You mentioned you were going to make the ruling but you didn’t consult with me.” I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the chairman misled the committee and he should rectify the record.

Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West): Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would like to point out to the hon. member, through you, sir, that I am the chairman of that particular committee and I didn’t chair the meetings to which the hon. members are referring. Therefore, they should substitute the word vice-chairman for chairman.

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: I will get the full information about this and report back.

Mr. Lewis: Would the chairman of the committee allow the questions to be answered?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Can you ask him, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Not at this particular time. You may ask him in committee.

Mr. Lewis: We can resolve it right now. Will the member for Ottawa West allow the questions?

Mr. Speaker: I will recognize the member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to introduce to the House a group of grade 8 students from MacKilop Public School in Richmond Hill with Mr. Marcus and Mr. Binsted, the teachers who are with them. I ask that you welcome them.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry. The hon. Minister of Health. Sorry, the hon. Premier.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is deferring again, is he?

ENERGY PRICES

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the members of the House that yesterday I spoke by telephone with Prime Minister Trudeau, on the subject --

Mr. Stokes: Did he call the Premier or did the Premier call him?

Mr. Lewis: It is a marvellous invention. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Was that on the console behind the Premier’s desk, the one with all the buttons?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, as a matter of fact, yesterday it was. The other time it was not.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The red one.

Mr. Reid: Was it a red phone?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it wasn’t a red telephone.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): We don’t use Trudeau’s colours.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Did he reverse charges?

An hon. member: Did he call collect?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the hon. members would like to know what was said I am ready, Mr. Speaker, whenever they are.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): We are listening.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Did the Premier tape it?

Mr. P. Taylor: Play us the tape.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s get on with the business of the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I must confess I don’t tape my calls. The member for Carleton East may tape his, I wouldn’t know, but I don’t tape mine.

I spoke by telephone yesterday with Prime Minister Trudeau on the subject of possible crude oil and natural gas price increases. I made it absolutely clear to the Prime Minister that Ontario opposes any increase in the prices of crude oil or natural gas until such time as inflation is brought under control and unemployment is substantially reduced. I did not see that anyone could have misunderstood this position, particularly with recent Statistics Canada information confirming the gravity of the current economic situation. Mr. Trudeau assured me that he does indeed understand Ontario’s arguments. He indicated -- contrary, I think, to what has been speculated -- that the federal cabinet -- and this is as of yesterday afternoon at about 3:30, Mr. Speaker -- had not yet made a decision although, and I think I can quote him on this, he “anticipates that some kind of decision will be made in the next few days.”

This morning I sent the following Telex to the Prime Minister with copies to the other Premiers to once again reaffirm our position on the subject of possible oil and natural gas price increases. I’m quoting from the Telex:

“At this point I must restate Ontario’s strong opposition to any increase in the domestic price of crude oil or natural gas until such time as inflation is brought under control and unemployment is substantially reduced. The most recent information from statistics canada reveals that Canada’s current economic performance is the worst in over two decades. The possibility that the federal government might approve price increases for oil and gas at such a time is incredible.

“The main justification offered by the federal government for higher prices is to ensure sufficiency of supply. At the first ministers’ conference, my position. Was that this objective could be accommodated within the existing price structure. And if that were not enough, recently announced increases in the export price of natural gas will bring an additional $583 million to governments and producers at no cost to the Canadian consumer. Surely these substantial increases in revenue should be considered before any thought is given to escalation of the domestic price of crude oil and natural gas. It is my hope, and I feel the hope of most people, that the federal budget on June 23 will be designed to counteract inflation and expand employment. In the current economic circumstances, increases in oil or gas prices would be wrong.”

That is the content of the Telex sent today.

Mr. Lewis: It’s a pity the Premier didn’t send it last year. We wouldn’t be in this box.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did he send a Telex to Hydro, too?

Mr. Martel: He might ask companies to justify their price increases.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Health with a statement.

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, on May 29 last, I indicated to the members of the Legislature that I had agreed to respond to the request of the regional government of Sudbury to hold a public inquiry into certain financial and administrative affairs of the Laurentian Hospital. I am pleased to inform the members that Judge Carl Waisberg, QC, LLM, JD, has accepted our invitation to be the commissioner for this inquiry.

Judge Waisberg, a graduate of Osgoode Law School, is connected with the provincial court, criminal division, of the judicial district of York. He has a broad background in corporate and civil legal practice, and in community service. We feel fortunate that he has accepted this important assignment.

The terms of reference will permit Judge Waisberg to determine whether: The administrative organization of Laurentian Hospital was adequate for the purposes of the planning, constructing and equipping of the hospital; the Board of Governors of Laurentian Hospital paid an excessive amount for the site of the hospital and, if so, the reason or reasons therefor; the Board of Governors of Laurentian Hospital exercised due economy in equipping and furnishing the hospital; there were improprieties in connection with the awarding and carrying out of the general contract.

Further, the inquiry will look into: Issues in dispute between the Board of Governors of Laurentian Hospital and members of the senior administrative staff of the hospital; the adequacy of communications between the Board of Governors of Laurentian Hospital and the Sudbury and District Hospital Council with respect to funds required by the board for the hospital and any commitments for such funds from the community.

Judge Waisberg will submit his report and any recommendations to me at the conclusion of the inquiry. The appointment of Judge Waisberg and the terms of reference I have outlined today should meet the concerns expressed by the regional government and assure a thorough examination of the contentious issues involved.

HOME PROGRAMME STANDARDS

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to announce the new steps that are being taken by the Ontario Housing Corp. and the Ontario Mortgage Corp. to further protect the interests of families buying homes on Home Ownership Made Easy lots.

Before doing so, I would like first to outline the present procedures.

Although the responsibility for inspectors lies mainly with the municipalities, HOME units are also inspected on at least six occasions during the construction process. A full-time complaints officer handles purchasers’ problems with the builder. It is in the areas of moving families into houses before they are ready for occupancy and the laxity in cleaning up deficiencies, that difficulties have occurred with a few builders.

While we are dealing with modest, “starter” homes, the new owners are fully entitled to expect construction standards to be met and deficiencies quickly rectified. For these reasons, OHC has already hired additional inspectors -- the staff has been substantially increased in the last six months -- and we have placed senior inspectors and backup staff on-site for major projects.

The corporation has also arranged for an audit of construction inspection procedures and practices.

OHC is currently expanding its complaints section and decentralizing it to branch offices across the province. This will enable buyers to deal, in their own area, with an official of the corporation who will be responsible to see the builder corrects deficiencies.

As well, OHC will put into use a standard builder/purchaser acceptance form to be completed at the time of occupancy. This will list agreed deficiencies that the builder will rectify within a reasonable period. In addition, during the first year of occupancy, follow-up surveys will be made to ensure that all deficiencies have been corrected and warranty-type repairs have been made.

In conjunction with Ontario Mortgage Corp., OHC will withhold builders’ mortgage advance funds for a project if a builder permits occupancy before a house is inspected and passed for occupancy. This will be done until such time as the house is brought up to the required standards. In addition, should any builders’ performance not be of the standards required, that builder will be excluded from the HOME and rental housing programmes until appropriate corrective action is taken.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to relate to the members of the House an inspection I made yesterday in Gourlay Park along with the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ewen) and Wentworth (Mr. Deans), at which time I inspected several homes built by different builders in the area. In general, the people who have occupied the homes in this home development are very happy. In general, the builders are doing an excellent job. But in one particular instance, which was brought to our attention in this House by the member for Wentworth, the builder, in my opinion has done a very poor job -- and has been told so as of yesterday.

I want to point out to all the members of this House that the final inspection has not been approved nor have the funds been allocated in total to any of the builders in that particular project.

Valport were deficient in the outside construction; the basement construction; in the --

Mr. Singer: Inside construction.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- tidying up of the inside construction in regard to plumbing; in regard to doors --

Mr. Stokes: Totally deficient.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: These things have to be corrected and will be corrected.

Mr. Lewis: They’re pretty good at landscaping.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The landscaping will be done later. As the hon. leader of the NDP knows, it’s not even started yet; but they are doing the rough landscaping.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): We need some of the NDP’s kind of fertilizer.

Mr. Lewis: What’s left? They can’t build the outside, the inside, the basement and the roof -- so what the hell does the minister have left?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The point I want to bring out to all the members is this; that the builders in any area do not want to be tarred with the same brush, and they shouldn’t be, because we’ve had one firm deficient in its performance. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. members, that we should make sure this builder rectifies his mistakes and we don’t tarnish the other builders in any area. Thank you.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): There is no substitute for a homebuilder warranty.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Premier some questions based on his statement. Has he contacted the Premier of Alberta and the Premier of Saskatchewan so that they are clear as to Ontario’s position; and perhaps it is possible they might withdraw their demands for an increase in the amount of oil and gas prices? Secondly, has he coupled with his statement Telex -- with which we agree. A further statement to Ontario Hydro which indicates we are not going to permit an increase in the rates for Hydro as requested, which request is before the Ontario Energy Board at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The answer to the latter part of the question Mr. Speaker, is quite obviously no. The answer to the first part of the question I thought was contained in my statement, when I said that I had sent copies of the Telex to the Prime Minister of Canada and to all of the other provincial Premiers in Canada.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Based on his answer that it is quite obviously no, -- since the Premier feels that an increase in energy costs -- and I believe this to be a fact -- is going to have a deleterious effect on our employment and will certainly add further pressures to the inflation in the economy, why is it quite obviously no -- that the government of Ontario, which can in fact control the policy of Ontario Hydro, does not tell Ontario Hydro that we cannot permit an increase in energy rates at this time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really don’t want to get into a prolonged discussion in endeavouring to point out to the Leader of the Opposition the distinction between the increase or proposed increase or possible increase in the cost of crude oil and natural gas and the rate increase requested by Ontario Hydro, but if it will help him I will try to draw a distinction.

Firstly I will say that the government is not supporting the requested increase of Ontario Hydro; it has been referred to the Energy Board --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the government opposing it? Is it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- where a very careful analysis will be made as to the adequacy or inadequacy of their proposal.

I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition that Ontario Hydro is a non-profit corporation, whose cost is built upon costs they have to pay, one of the main ones being the cost of energy, whether it be in the form of oil, whether it be in the form of natural gas, or whether it be in the form of coal. Mr. Speaker, it’s great to say, “Tell Hydro not to charge more.” If the Leader of the Opposition would do just some of the most basic simple arithmetic he would see this would also involve the government of this province in saying, “Hydro, don’t increase your rates. We will, as a government, subsidize to the extent of the millions of dollars involved;” which in turn we would have to raise through taxation.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, reduce their rate of expansion.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker it is fine for the hon. member to say, “Hydro, don’t expand.” This government has a responsibility, so does Hydro in turn --

Mr. Lewis: No, “Reduce the rate,” not, “Don’t expand.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- to provide energy for the consumers of electricity in this province. To try and relate the two is just totally nonsensical, it doesn’t make any sense.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Not true, they are both sources of energy.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The Premier doesn’t understand at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, it doesn’t.

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea of what is being contemplated in terms of dollars by the federal cabinet. I don’t know what will be done in the form of distribution of that cost.

Mr. Cassidy: This is a completely irrational allocation of resources.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that if the distribution is basically further income for the producing provinces and for the federal government -- for the federal government in particular to meet what it feels its obligations are in terms of equalization -- it really is just a straight form of taxation, and to draw a parallel between that and Hydro is just completely illogical. I have to say that to the Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Wouldn’t the Premier agree that the real difference is that in Ontario Hydro’s instance the government does have control and in the other matter it does not have control and it is in fact taking a very cynical approach to the thing?

Mr. Lewis: Oh, the Premier refutes that.

Mr. Yakabuski: Ah, the Leader of the Opposition has been put down again.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is the reason the member for Brant won’t make Premier of this province either.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition thinks our position on oil and natural gas is cynical. I can only say to him his position is totally hypocritical. It’s a great thing for him to have the Prime Minister of this country at his farm, to politic -- that’s great -- and then to stand up here in this House and say we are being cynical.

Mr. Reid: Nobody came to the Premier’s.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to say it takes one to know one, and the Leader of the Opposition should know that better than anyone else.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: What about the Premier and Peter Lougheed?

Mr. Stokes: Let the leader of the NDP bail him out -- bail them both out!

Mr. Speaker: Order please, there are too many interjections --

Mr. Lewis: I am just putting sugar in my coffee, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask of the Premier, if he calls the 30 per cent increase which the oil companies are asking for “incredible” -- that was the word he used in that Telex, wasn’t it? The possibility of the increase administered by the federal government: Incredible? -- how would he describe a 30 per cent increase request from Ontario Hydro and a $23 billion capital growth expansion programme before 1982?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s all right; but don’t be hypocritical.

Mr. Lewis: Has the Premier a word that might describe that and which would apply?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to re-read the Telex. I don’t know what the oil companies are seeking. I repeat, I don’t know what the oil companies are seeking. My guesstimate would be that whatever the increase is, a good portion of that increase will find its way into the provincial and federal revenues. And this is what I find also unacceptable. It is a form of taxation art a period of growing inflation and reduction in the employment market --

Mr. Lewis: And 35 to 40 per cent will go back to the oil companies.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I find this illogical. I find it incredible -- and incredible means it is very hard to believe -- and I just totally don’t understand it.

Mr. Lewis: It is very hard to believe what the Premier is allowing Hydro to do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party can make all the case he wants as it relates to the long-term growth of Ontario Hydro, but he’s got to remember some facts. Ontario Hydro has been developing power in this province for generations to meet need. Now if the Leader of the Opposition says we will halt some aspects of industrial growth secondary industry, that we are to curb growth that needs energy, that’s another thing; let him say so.

Mr. Cassidy: It is the fluorescent tubes in the Toronto-Dominion Tower the Premier is talking about.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well of course that is what he is saying. It has to be.

Mr. Lewis: Thanks for calling me the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He gets one and I get one.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Incidentally, that is not what we are saying.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s keep a proper question period instead of a debating period. This is the question period.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You do mean me, do you?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was a Freudian slip.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t feel self-conscious.

Mr. Cassidy: Let him enjoy it while he can.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I don’t feel self-conscious; if the member can resurrect that as an issue, go right ahead.

I would like to ask --

An hon. member: What was it the member for Scarborough West was going to curb?

Mr. Singer: Yesterday is tomorrow.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier, if we could keep this on a proper question basis, as the teacher -- as the Speaker asks --

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is a Freudian slip.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- yes, he could teach us lots -- so that we are not going to be talking about that great picnic out in Brant county, which was a great, marvellous thing --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- would the Premier not think that one of the matters that should be concerning him and his Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell), if he is concerned about these matters, is the example established by the Nova Scotia Public Utilities Board, that has been referred to frequently in this House, which has once again shown without equivocation that the provinces do have the power to control internal prices -- that is the markup on the base price the wholesalers must pay for the material, namely the petroleum that comes into the province? Has he looked at the recent findings of that board and its decisions and the fact that it has had an excellent effect on the economy of Nova Scotia? Would he not further agree that the leadership in this whole matter is not coming from himself or the Prime Minister of Canada, but in fact from Gerry Regan, the Premier of Nova Scotia, who has established this procedure --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, shame!

Mr. Renwick: That is a bit much.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- and who, a year ago, indicated clearly that he did not want an increase in the oil price and that it was not necessary?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am really not sure, and I wouldn’t want to quote the very distinguished Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia as to what was said a year ago, but I --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier must recall what he said. He must recall.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition is not quite accurate, but leaving that aside, that is not the issue --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier supported that --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This is not the issue, Mr. Speaker, the issue in this instance is what may be a unilateral decision made by the federal government of Canada to increase the price of domestic oil and natural gas to the consumers right across this country.

Mr. Lewis: Right, right, right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What happens internally within the Province of Ontario and what has happened in the Province of Nova Scotia are separate issues. The issue here at this moment, on this date in June, 1975 --

Mr. P. Taylor: Just before the election.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- is whether the federal government, with inflation as it is, with Statistics Canada information as it was last Friday or Saturday, is going to -- and I think in a totally illogical and contradictory fashion --

Mr. Cassidy: You know, the Premier is hypocritical.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- further exacerbate the inflationary and unemployment pressures that exist here in this country at this time.

Mr. Lewis: Then let the Premier stop the increases.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the Premier remember his power to --

An hon. member: The Premier is hypocritical. He allows Hydro to --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Any further questions?

Mr. Yakabuski: I have never seen a man put down so many times in one day.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe the silent majority will still write in and save the Premier. Don’t give it up.

May I ask, has the Premier made any specific recommendations to the federal government, should it move in this illogical and contradictory way, of the date at which any increase might take effect, given the enormous inventories in the Province of Ontario at this moment?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the leader of the New Democrats that we are looking at a number of things at this precise moment, and I am not going to speculate until we see what the reaction is from the federal government.

My thought also would be that one looks with some degree of hope, at least, to the budget on Monday. Whether or not that will contain certain revelations for us, I honestly don’t know. I can assure the hon. member that we are looking at a number of things at this precise moment.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We have spent over 10 minutes now on the one question and there are many other people with other questions.

Some hon. members: It’s a very important issue.

Mr. Speaker: If it’s a very important issue we can come back to it in the form of a new question, perhaps, to give everybody a chance. We’ve had several supplementaries, I think. Has the hon. Leader of the Opposition further questions?

PICKERING AIRPORT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier what information he has about the airport expansion in Pickering and if the policy of this government is changed from the one that it has adhered to as to the airport’s location.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’ve had a communication from the Minister of Transport in Ottawa, which communication is a result of discussions held here a couple of weeks ago. We are studying the contents of that communication. When either the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) of this province or myself has some observations to make as a result of that, they will be disclosed to the House.

Related to the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, not to restate the obvious once again, it is not a question of the Province of Ontario having second thoughts as to the location. The location was determined precisely in terms of general geographic location by the federal government of Canada and there is just no way the members opposite can get around it.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Nonsense.

Mr. P. Taylor: This government was consulted.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is no way they can get around it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Would the Premier undertake to table the information he now has available as to the future of the Pickering Airport, that is the material on federal policy that’s been the subject of communication with this government -- even if he wants to hang on to it for a little while until he makes up his mind as to what he is going to do with it -- so that we can have that information?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to undertake to table the letter from the federal minister until we have assessed that letter and studied it. Quite obviously, we’re going to disclose as much as possible to the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is that confidential information?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I honestly cannot remember whether the letter was marked confidential. I doubt that it was, but I can’t undertake to table it until we have assessed it carefully.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the requirements for surface transportation around the airport involve a very large expenditure by this government, does this government therefore not have some responsibility in deciding whether or not that facility is indeed necessary, as proposed by the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to become provocative.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier spends all his time fighting the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly, we’re interested. The responsibility as to the determination of need is that of the federal Ministry of Transport. The hon. member knows that as well as any member in this House.

Mr. Cassidy: Boy, the Premier is copping out. He knows this is a copout.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This is not a copout.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly we have some very genuine concern as to what we would be involved in in terms of the infrastructure. This has been stated on many occasions.

Mr. Lewis: That’s the Premier’s escape route. May I ask the Premier, with what does the letter from Jean Marchand deal? If the Premier can’t give ns the specifics, what are the subject matters which are being reappraised?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t say they’re being reappraised. The subject matter of the letter, Mr. Speaker, and I’m not being facetious, is the proposed airport in Pickering.

Mr. Lewis: I thank the Premier very much. Is he reopening with them the question of agricultural land? Is the Premier reopening with them the question of infrastructure? Is the Premier reopening with them the number of landing strips or the cost? What are the subjects which are in contention, without giving us the particulars?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t enumerate what may or may not be under discussion or in contention until, as I say, we’ve analysed Mr. Marchand’s letter. We’re not trying to hide anything, but we want a reasoned, responsible response to that. I can assure the hon. members of the House, they will be informed.

Mr. Cassidy: Just before the election, he will reverse his stand once again.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

METRO CENTRE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier another question having to do with government policy on Metro Centre. There has been a good deal of discussion since the programme was ostensibly canned by the withdrawal of the railway corporations. Is the policy now to review the alternatives and perhaps even to consider the one that would see a consortium of federal and provincial governmental agencies of some sort going forward with at least the utilization of this land for housing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not laughing at the question. I was just looking up to the gallery, very briefly.

Mr. P. Taylor: What does that mean?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Nothing.

Mr. Cassidy: Just imagine what they think of the Premier.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is there somebody up there?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is a couple up there totally ignoring everybody in this House.

Mr. Ruston: It gets pretty dull in here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They should have been at the Liberal picnic.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They were.

Mr. Lewis: They are restoring to the Legislature what it lacks.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, a little affection.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What was the question?

Mr. Reid: What’s going on up there?

Mr. Speaker: Meanwhile, back to the question period.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I remember the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: It really throws him, eh?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is something I don’t often see in this chamber.

Mr. Lewis: Really, look around.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t often see that.

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the question, and to try to trace a little of the history of it, Metro Centre was a proposal made by the consortium, as I recall, of the two railways. Certain very detailed plans went through certain procedures. It was obviously in the process of not going too far. The province’s basic interest in the area was in the transportation centre. We were concerned that if the project didn’t go ahead, the transportation centre might be delayed or fall by the wayside.

I convened a meeting some few months ago of representatives from the railways, from Metro Centre, from the federal government and the provincial agencies, and from Metro and the city of Toronto. As a result of that meeting, we set up a study group to assess the transportation centre in particular. The group came in with a detailed report to the same full committee which met roughly two weeks ago, at which time the report was accepted.

The report dealt specifically with the location, the enlargement and the utilization of what is called Union Station here in the city of Toronto. The report was most encouraging from many standpoints: (a) it involves an expenditure of substantially less because there is no change in the geographic location; (b) it preserves the grand hall, if that is the way it is described, at Union Station; (c) the report also recommended an immediate start with the Bathurst St. interchange and the Minister of Transportation and Communications has issued instructions to have that interchange alteration proceeded with posthaste.

It was also decided at that meeting that there would be a group of people, at this stage under the direction or at the initiation of the city of Toronto, to get into the question of land use in the general area, with the decision now made as to the specific location of the transportation centre itself. That’s where it stands at this precise moment.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York-Forest Hill with a supplementary.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Supplementary: To use a word that has been running like a fugue through the afternoon -- “incredible” -- surely it is incredible, is it not, when we could have had 10,000 rental accommodation units built on this land without pushing anybody around, without dislocating anybody and without expropriating anybody, that the province apparently has done nothing to reserve that possibility of retaining that aspect of the project of having 10,000 rental units built? What in heaven’s name is the government doing about reserving that aspect of the plan, which it can announce immediately forthwith, when there is no land available to build on in Metropolitan Toronto at all today?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I say with respect to the hon. member that he perhaps oversimplifies the situation. I am going by memory once again, but the initial plan of Metro Centre, which we are told is no longer economically viable, contained a relocation of the tracks and the transportation centre in a southerly direction. Under the report that has been adopted, the station stays where it is and the track alignment stays where it is. There is not available, until other decisions are made, an immediate piece of acreage for “low rental or residential accommodation.” The province will have people participating in the general planning analysis of that area.

If a decision is made in conjunction with Metropolitan Toronto to move ahead with development of some type in that general area, there is no problem whatsoever, in my view, in having a good part of that in the form of residential accommodation. I wouldn’t want to define just what form it should take. I don’t think that is really something the province should do prior to the city of Toronto and others completing their assessment. But I can assure the hon. member the potential for that has not disappeared with the decision to keep Union Station in its present geographic location, it can still be accommodated.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Premier: Has the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) had any serious discussions with John Turner in the last few days about the matters of the gross national product -- inflation, employment, energy costs -- in a specific way, preceding the federal budget, given the Premier’s extraordinary concern?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I guess my concern is extraordinary; and I would like to think it is shared by the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: That wasn’t my question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t know; I will have to check with the Treasurer. My recollection is that Mr. Turner was away until last Wednesday or Thursday; I am not sure of this. I will check with the Treasurer and he will have word for the member tomorrow.

Mr. Lewis: Has this government indicated to the federal government the kinds of alternatives it might prepare or will have to resort to in the event of an increase?

Some of us, whatever else the government may feel, see the writing on the wall. The issue is rather less “will the increase come,” but more “what will Ontario do in response to it.” Has the government indicated to them the options to which it is forced?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have not.

EMISSIONS AT INDUSMIN LTD. PLANT

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health: Does the Minister of Health recollect the involvement of his occupational health branch in the testing at the Indusmin Ltd. plant in Midland, where I understand the silica emissions in critical areas of the plant are in excess of the acceptable standards, but that the government is endeavouring to bring them down? Can the minister give us a progress report?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker, I can’t -- although I will be glad to do so. I just simply remember the same instructions being given to my staff that the silica levels were high there and that they were working on it. They brought it to my attention at one point, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister aware that there are already in a very small work force -- I think it is 30 or 35 -- six compensation claims approved, and also the observation from a senior compensation board official that almost any long-term employee who worked at the plant at Whitby would almost surely contract silicosis; and therefore there is a very real sense of urgency about what happens at the Midland plant -- can he approach it that way?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I will certainly approach it with sincerity, because I know that this was a plant that our staff were not happy with.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much.

TORONTO REFINERS AND SMELTERS LTD.

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask the Minister of the Environment what the situation is with Toronto Refiners and Smelters Ltd., whose work order the minister was to approve on April 29 last, and I gather it is still not resolved?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, if the member recalls when I answered in the House before, we gave notice to the plant of what we wanted done. I am also having discussions with the city of Toronto regarding their 45 ft height bylaw, for one thing, which would have some bearing on stack extension at Toronto Refiners and Smelters.

There is also some discussion regarding the complete enclosure of the scrap area -- and issuing of the building permit for that. There were some problems about that. We will be discussing it with the city of Toronto.

Those are two items. The other one we are looking at right now is a complete study of the total ventilation system within the plant and maybe, if necessary, the extension of the bag house. That is what we are looking at, at this point in time. But there is no point in us finally issuing the control order unless we can get some co-operation from the city of Toronto regarding the height bylaw on the stack and the building for enclosing the scrap.

Mr. Lewis: Come now; the minister has known of the city of Toronto’s position for some time. Is the minister saying that the ministerial order which he imposed, effective April 29 last -- in fact April 15 last was when he promulgated it, based on all his previous knowledge -- that that ministerial order still isn’t resolved with Toronto Refiners and Smelters? Why has the minister retreated from the order which his staff, in good faith and on the basis of all the available information, prepared? What is it about Toronto Refiners and Smelters?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we have not. I said our staff had met with them and we will have other meetings with them. We got a control order, we have put it on, and the city of Toronto 45-ft height bylaw --

Mr. Lewis: No, the ministry didn’t. It is negotiating it.

Hon. W. Newman: We are talking to the city of Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: We know the ministry is talking, but the company objected, not the city.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: We talked to the company on the basis of the type of equipment that had to be put in and the time it would take to install it. These things take time, such as seeing about ordering the equipment. But we also want to discuss it with the city of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

COKE OVEN EMISSIONS AT ALGOMA STEEL PLANT

Mr. Lewis: A question of the minister about Algoma Steel and the one coke oven which has emissions: Where does his ministry stand in bringing all of that under control, since the coke oven emissions have now been chronicled, particularly in Hamilton, as having a direct relationship to the incidence of respiratory disease during the period of excessive emission?

Hon. W. Newman: Did the member say the Algoma Steel plant? Which one? The one in Hamilton or the one in the Soo?

Mr. Lewis: The one in the Soo.

Hon. W. Newman: The Algoma Steel plant in the Soo had abatement equipment on the stack. It was made of the kind of material in which there were some problems. Over a period of time it was breaking down, but as soon as it started to break down the new equipment was ordered. I can’t give the member the time frame when it will be put into place but certainly it will be put into place. It was ordered some long time ago and it’s a special kind of equipment.

Mr. Lewis: Can the minister report to the House on that?

Hon. W. Newman: I would be glad to give the member the proposed date on which that will be installed.

Mr. Lewis: Okay.

ONTARIO BITING FLY COMMITTEE

Mr. Lewis: I have one other question to ask. I can’t be here tomorrow morning and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) isn’t here either, and it has intrigued me for weeks. In the monthly checklist of Ontario government publications, under the Ministry of the Environment there is a publication entitled, “Controlling Mosquitoes and Black Flies in Ontario.” It is prepared by the Ontario Biting Fly Committee. Can the minister indicate to me whether in fact there is such a committee in his ministry?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we have a group, I don’t know whether it’s what one calls a committee --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: You know, the members shouldn’t make fun of this. It’s a pretty serious matter, some of these biting flies.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: They could get sick biting flies.

Hon. W. Newman: There are days I think the member has had more than his share of them, I will tell him that.

Mr. Lewis: Are their per diems paid?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How about the non-biting flies?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. W. Newman: Certainly we do have a committee that’s working on it, and that is concerned about it -- the effects of biting flies and insects.

Mr. Lewis: Could I just ask the minister who was on the committee and how much they are paid?

Hon. W. Newman: I can’t tell the member but I would imagine it is an internal group. There was some research done on it, I think, at the University of Guelph, as far as I know.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Supplementary: Could the minister name the flies which the committee investigates? Do they include, for example, the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman), the gadfly of the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He is a non-biting fly, the member for High Park.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour has the answer to a question asked previously.

PAYMENTS TO WCB CONSULTANTS

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to provide the following information in reply to a question asked of me on Friday, June 13, by the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt).

The task force on the administration of the Workmen’s Compensation Board filed its report in September, 1973, following the appointment of Mr. Starr as chairman of the board. P. S. Ross and Partners were retained by the board to assist in the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the task force. This work has been almost entirely completed for some months and the present reorganization of the board and new processes developed in several divisions of the board are largely the result of the work performed by P. S. Ross and Partners in conjunction with the board and its staff.

Currently, P. S. Ross and Partners are involved in one or two final assignments flowing from the implementation of the task force report, mainly in the areas of systems and data processing. In addition, a project is being developed in consultation with the board and accident prevention associations in respect of a survey relating to safety awareness. All expenditures of P. S. Ross and Partners, since the report of the task force, have been charged to the Workmen’s Compensation Board and paid for out of employers’ assessments. Total expenditures, since September, 1973, on these activities total $117,000.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the member who originally asked the question.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): May I ask the minister what additional moneys are going to be paid to P. S. Ross for the additional work which they propose to do?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I can’t tell the member exactly. I think there’s a budget of some $30,000, but until they’ve done the work we won’t know.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT

Mr. Singer: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Does the Minister of Health’s inclusion of this sentence in his earlier statement: “Judge Waisberg will submit his report and any recommendations to me as Minister of Health at the conclusion of the inquiry” mean that the minister is reserving his right to edit the report or not make it public? Or is the minister prepared to tell us without reservation that once the report is received it will be tabled publicly and made available to all the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to make the report public.

Mr. Singer: The whole report? Fine.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

ONTARIO HYDRO ADVERTISING IN THE UNITED STATES

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have a question of the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain, in view of the unemployment in the province, why Ontario Hydro is running these huge ads across the United States, trying to get --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Just in case the hon. Minister of Energy doesn’t realize it, the question was directed to him.

Mr. Shulman: He realizes.

Mr. Lewis: He knows.

Mr. Shulman: I gave him notice. Why is Hydro advertising in the United States for shift foremen, shift supervisors, corrosion engineers and electrical engineers, all of which are available in Ontario, in which they say they want them to go to Bruce? They say here: “Location midway between the towns of Kincardine and Port Elgin on the shores of Lake Huron in one of Ontario’s most popular tourist areas.” Why are we putting these ads across the United States? Why don’t we hire our own people?

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the member for sending me written notice. I couldn’t read his writing and had to consult with the Minister of Health to see whom the note came from.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’m used to doctors’ writing.

Mr. Stokes: Ask any doctor.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Secondly, I am not placing those advertisements. I will take the question as notice and get an answer for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

BOOKING OF COMMITTEE ROOMS

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Government Services. Is the minister aware that the Environmental Law Society made a firm booking for room 440 in this building and a temporary booking for committee room 2 in order to have a meeting this morning? As of this morning, both rooms were cancelled out. Surely, this government is capable of performing a simple task --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. What is the question?

Mr. Riddell: -- like committing a room and living up to it. What’s the story here?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I believe the rooms the hon. member is referring to are committee rooms. If that is the case, those committee rooms come under the Office of the Assembly and not the Ministry of Government Services.

Mr. Riddell: One room is 440. Is that under the Office of the Assembly?

An hon. member: That’s not a committee room.

Mr. Riddell: Room 440 was the one the firm booking was made for.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I believe that is the committee room on the fourth floor which is under the Office of the Assembly.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So!

Mr. Reid: Ah, ha!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I understand there have been alternative arrangements made. I’m not aware of the full gist of the question. I understand for the meeting that you’re talking about, whatever that is, final arrangements were made for the Queenston room.

Mrs. Campbell: In the Macdonald Block.

Mr. Speaker: In the Macdonald Block, yes.

The member for Port Arthur.

LAKE SUPERIOR POWER PROJECTS

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Can the minister tell me why, in his announcement on May 3 to a dinner meeting of the corporation of the township of Atikokan, he indicated -- on page 8, I believe, of the text of his speech -- that the process for investigating by Hydro for a nuclear station would be limited to sites located on the north shore of Lake Superior, in view of the experience that Hydro has had when its original investigation for sites was limited to the north shore of Lake Superior but it found in the process a site for the thermal generating plant that was an inland lake? Why is Hydro limiting the scope in the investigation in this case too for the nuclear site to Lake Superior?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the original investigation had to do with two stations, one thermal and one nuclear. The site for the thermal station has been approved at Marmion Lake near Atikokan. As far as choosing a site for a nuclear station in concerned, the advice of the planners at Ontario Hydro is that they should restrict themselves to the larger bodies of water of the Great Lakes.

Mr. Foulds: But does the minister not understand that the advice of the planners at Hydro in the initial investigation was the same -- that they limit it to the north shore of Lake Superior? It was only during the public participation process that they admitted it was possible to find a site on an inland lake. Is there not a danger that the same thing will take effect during this process and unduly delay the planning?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that’s the whole point of public participation. One puts forward one’s ideas and the bases of one’s ideas and puts them forward to be challenged, to be questioned and for alternatives to be put forward. It’s quite true that when this whole process started some time ago and Ontario Hydro proposed that the thermal station he at Bear Point, public reaction in the member’s area and the reaction of the people at Atikokan was that they didn’t object to this. They presented a case showing how it could be of benefit to them and still fit into the Hydro system.

They changed their minds. That’s the whole point -- public participation means one is prepared to change one’s mind.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask one last supplementary: Does the minister not understand that Hydro is limiting its investigation at the present time with regard to the nuclear site and that is a fault it made before and may apply in this case? Wouldn’t the minister agree it would be better if Hydro investigated a number of sites in the area, including inland sites, from the beginning?

Mr. Reid: Why not Atikokan?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Atikokan? Mr. Speaker, does the member want both of them? He shouldn’t be too greedy.

Mr. Reid: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What I was saying, Mr. Speaker, very simply is this: At this point in time it is Hydro’s considered best judgement that a nuclear site should be on the shores of Lake Superior. If a group in the constituency of the hon. member for Rainy River or anybody else in that area feels they can make a case that it should be near them -- members may recall that when cabinet met in Thunder Bay on May 14, there was a group from Red Rock and Nipigon who were most anxious to have it there; there are bound to be ether groups -- if they can make a case and satisfy the various concerns about the environment and the operation of such a facility then, I would say to the member again, if the evidence is there, the decision will be changed.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

RENTAL HOUSING

Mrs. Campbell: My question is of the Minister of Housing. In view of the fact that of the $77.9 million allocated by the federal government to this province for rent-geared-to-income housing only 20 per cent has been committed as of the first week in June of this year, will the minister advise when he proposes to commit that balance so that we may be assured that the poor, at least, are getting some kind of attention from this province and they’re not being used as a pawn in any political game unless it’s by this government?

Mr. Singer: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the member can be assured we will spend not only all of the $78 million or $80 million allocated for socially assisted housing --

Mr. Singer: Like the government did last year?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- we’ll spend $100 million, if we get it from the federal government, which I’ve asked for.

Mr. Singer: Just like the government did last year.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre -- is this a new question?

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question of the minister: In view of the comments by his parliamentary assistant about poor people being used as a pawn by the federal government, will the minister act to stop the member from Rosedale using poor people as a pawn in her efforts to stop the Don Vale area co-operative housing project?

Mr. Speaker: I’m not sure that was a supplementary question to the original.

The member for Sudbury.

Mr. Cassidy: Of course it was.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think the member should clarify it.

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. With reference to his appointment of Judge Waisberg to inquire into certain happenings at the Laurentian Hospital in Sudbury, will he include within the terms of reference an inquiry into what forces were at play in determining the location of this new facility in Sudbury? Is he aware that this new facility is within half a mile of our other two hospitals, which is not acceptable to the people of that community?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference have been set. I think it will be a question of interpretation by the hearing judge whether he has jurisdiction to look into the actual choice of locations as well as the terms of payment, price paid, etc.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

SEPTIC FIELD REGULATIONS

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Will he consider changing his regulations for septic fields in northern Ontario and in rural areas, in view of the fact that many in his ministry and many in the Ministry of Health feel they are unduly restrictive? Does he not feel that by relaxing them somewhat he would still be protecting the environment and increasing the number of housing units that could be built?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, under Part VII of the Environmental Protection Act, which covers the septic tank installation, there are regulations which are carried out by the various health units across this province; under section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act there is a fair amount of discretion of behalf of the MOHs in the various areas, depending on the circumstances in the individual areas.

If the member has some specific problems in specific areas, or specific suggestions, we’d be glad to look at them. We now have a working committee of some of the MOHs and the chief sanitary inspectors who are constantly looking at the regulations to see how they can be improved.

Mr. Reid: One short supplementary, if I may: Is the minister aware that is costs people, depending on where they live, up to $5,000 or $6,000 to meet these regulations and that there’s still confusion between the MOHs and the Environmental Protection Act? Will he not act himself, in conjunction with the Minister of Health, to formalize and relax the restrictions so that we can get on with building houses for people?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how there could be any misinterpretation, because it has been made very clear to the MOHs what their authority is under section 59, where they have discretionary powers. The member talks about $6,000 or $7,000 for a tank; I don’t know what kind of tank he is talking about. He may be talking about a raised bed, I don’t know; but certainly I don’t know of any tank that costs $6,000 or $7,000.

Mr. Reid: I’m talking about the whole thing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

FUNDING OF NON-SEXIST PUBLICATIONS

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development: When is the Provincial Secretary for Social Development going to make a decision about funding for a group of young women, referred to as “Before We Are Six,” who are attempting to publish and illustrate -- for the first time in Ontario, I might add, because of the failure of the Ministry of Education to do anything about it -- some non-sexist books which could be made available to young people in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): What does he mean, books without sex?

Mr. Laughren: And further, what is it about that incredible secretariat that refuses funds to the groups that need them the most, such as young groups under the Experience ‘75 programme in unorganized communities such as Gogama?

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What is the question?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to point out to the hon. members that the secretariat has no funds.

Mr. Laughren: Its ministries have. Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If that is true, why would the provincial secretary deliberately mislead me in a letter --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Here, here!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: Well, it’s in writing, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Lewis: It is in writing.

Mr. Laughren: It is in writing, Mr. Speaker. Why then would the provincial secretary say, when I asked her about the “Before We Are Six” grant: “The matter is seriously under review and I will write to you at a later date”? Further, concerning the problems with the application for grants in Gogama, why would she say: “Rest assured that I appreciate your concerns and I am endeavouring to have the matter reviewed”?

Mr. Speaker, is the minister misleading me in pretending that she has some control of the application of grants when she does not?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is misleading himself.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The only person the hon. member is misleading is himself. I’m a co-ordinator.

Mr. Martel: Did he write that letter to himself?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Probably.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If he wrote it to himself, he couldn’t read it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Have a nice day.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Kent.

HOUSING IN DEALTOWN

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing in regard to the announcement of a housing project to be developed at Dealtown in the southern part of Kent county: Has there been any feasibility study in regard to a housing development there and has he received a report of that study?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Not to my knowledge, but I’ll look into the matter.

Mr. Speaker: The time for the question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Clement presented the annual report of the Ministry of the Solicitor General for the year ended Dec. 31, 1974.

Mr. Wardle from the standing miscellaneous estimates committee reported the following resolution:

RESOLVED: That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Provincial Auditor be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976:

Office of the Provincial Auditor

Administration of the Audit Act and statutory audits .... $1,589,000

Mr. Morrow from the standing procedural affairs committee reported the following resolution:

RESOLVED: That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Assembly be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976:

Office of the Assembly

Office of the Assembly Programme .... $8,609,500

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Education Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, this bill only contains two sections; one is a housekeeping item and the other is a section concerning apportionment appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board.

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Theatres Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to extend certain of the controls of the Act to all methods of reproducing moving pictures where exhibited for gain or for public viewing. It also contains a provision which authorizes regulations to be made requiring prescribed proportions of films shown to be of Canadian manufacture.

Mr. Renwick: Very good.

Mr. Cassidy: The second half is very good.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It all goes together.

Mr. Cassidy: We have suggested this for a long time but the minister wouldn’t move.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll recognize the member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to the members of the House 60 grade 8 students from Marathon Public School, in that beautiful community on the north shore of Lake Superior. They are under the direction of Mr. G. Pappas and are in the west gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 2nd order, House in committee of the whole.

OMBUDSMAN ACT (CONTINUED)

House in committee on Bill 86, An Act to provide for an Ombudsman to investigate Administrative Decisions and Acts of Officials of the Government of Ontario and its Agencies.

Mr. Chairman: I believe we were debating section 15 of the bill and we had before us an amendment by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) which I will place again for the benefit of the committee.

Mr. Renwick moves that section 15(2) be amended to read as follows:

“The Ombudsman may make any such investigation either on a complaint made to him by any person affected or by any member of the Legislature upon a complaint made to the member by any person affected or referred to him by the Attorney General, or of his own motion.”

As I recall it, the hon. minister was about to respond to some of the comments that have been made by the hon. member for Riverdale and other members of the committee.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Chairman, we debated at some length on Tuesday evening the proposed amendments put forward by the member for Riverdale, and supported by some of his colleagues within his own caucus and supported by some of the members of the Liberal Party.

First, I just want to refer to some of the observations made by the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa). He took exception to the fact that any complaints coming to the attention of the Ombudsman should be in writing, as the Act is presently drafted. He recounted an experience in which he was involved with a person who found it difficult, if not impossible, to express himself, certainly in the English language and certainly in writing.

Now, there is nothing incumbent upon a complainant that would force him or her to put forward any complaint in his or her own writing. It can be written on his or her behalf. Although rarely, sometimes people do come forward who are illiterate and must dictate the complaint which they have to make.

Now, bearing in mind that many of the complaints will be of a serious nature -- at least I would anticipate that -- I think it’s only realistic to say that I would certainly want it in writing so that I could verify it later if the complainant decides to change his allegation, It’s certainly much more realistic for the Ombudsman to have the initial complaint before him.

In practising law, I just certainly never, ever settled a law case in my life without the instructions of the client in writing. On the odd occasion, perhaps half a dozen in all, many months if not a year or two after the litigation had, in fact, been settled) and the moneys paid, the person came back and suggested that I had settled it without his or her authority -- whereupon I dug up that instruction in writing and produced a photocopy for the person who then professed to not recall it, or it wasn’t their understanding, or something.

I think in the interests of all of those who are going to act on a complaint, there should be some verification as to what the gist of the complaint is, so that afterwards, the complainant can’t say, “Well, I didn’t really mean it that way; or I didn’t understand it.” I would suggest that an oral complaint would be, indeed, very dangerous.

So, if anybody should run into any such difficulty, I am certain that a member of staff in the Ombudsman’s office will sit down with the individuals, take down their complaint and read it back to them -- if they are unable to read -- and have them affix their signatures or marks to it, so that the Ombudsman has something on which he can fall back on. Because he, in turn, will be acting on some of these allegations.

Now, with reference to the suggestion in the form of amendments put forward by the member for Riverdale, I wonder if I could make an observation or two which I hope he might agree with. I don’t know how we do this, but perhaps he could amend the portion of his --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): I’m sure if you have an inclination to amend, you’ll find me most amenable.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’ve always found you most amenable under the most trying of circumstances.

In the first place, I found out from my legislative draftsman, and I don’t take credit for this, that we should not, or you should not -- let’s put it that way -- use the word Legislature. We should use the words legislative assembly or assembly, because the word Legislature includes everyone within this room, including the cabinet or executive council. I think that the criterion would be that it should be members of the assembly or members of the legislative assembly. So I take that we’re not going to debate this today.

Mr. Renwick: It is a distinction that escaped me, but I agree with it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I knew that you would be aware of it the minute that I drew it to your attention.

Secondly, if I may break your amendments down into two parts, in the first one dealing with section 15 subsection 2, I have no objection whatsoever to adding the words, “by any member of the assembly,” or, “any member of the legislative assembly.” I am not going to worry about that at all.

I would like to have deleted, and I address my remarks to the mover of the amendment, the reference to the Attorney General, and I will tell him why. Under one subsection, which I think we have already debated, the office of the Attorney General is called on in this Act to play some kind of a quasi-judicial role. Pardon me, we haven’t come to it, but we discussed it the other day.

Under section 21, the Attorney General under certain circumstances can certify that a document is privileged. I’ll paraphrase it by putting it that way. Therefore, when sitting in a quasi-judicial position to make that certification, after considering whether or not it meets the test of section 21, I would not like to see the Attorney General then be in a position later on to request the Ombudsman to intervene on a matter. I hope I make this point clear to the member for Riverdale.

The Attorney General is a member of the assembly, he is a member of the legislative assembly and, therefore, I think it is somewhat redundant to specifically refer to the office of the Attorney General. If the Attorney General in his official capacity wanted to refer something to the Ombudsman, he certainly could as a member of this House. Because the Attorney General does play some kind of a quasi-judicial role under section 21 in making the certification for the reason set forth there, I just feel, on the face of it, it would indicate some kind of conflict in face of the statute. I put those two submissions forward to the member for Riverdale. I’d be interested in hearing his response.

Mr. Renwick: May I deal with that part of it now?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I wonder if we could deal with this part of it now. I am quite in agreement to the amendment, if it read something as follows, Mr. Chairman:

“The Ombudsman may make such investigation either on a complaint made to him by any person affected or by any member of the assembly [or legislative assembly -- it doesn’t matter] upon a complaint made to the member or any person affected or of his own motion.”

Mr. Chairman: Before the hon. member for Riverdale responds, the Chair would like to recognize the hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Chairman, I should like the House to welcome 33 students from John Ross Public School in Windsor under the supervision of Mr. William Bowden, and two of the mothers of the class.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that the minister has seen fit to accept the substance of the amendment. I also accept the argument which he made, or the points which he made or the distinctions which he made with respect to deleting that portion of the proposed amendment that dealt with references by the Attorney General to the Ombudsman. Therefore, I take it that the amendment in the first part of the amendment, that is, the amendment to subsection 2, would now read as follows:

“The Ombudsman may make such investigation either on a complaint made to him by any person affected or by any member of the legislative assembly upon a complaint made to the member by person affected or on his own motions.”

Hon. Mr. Clement: That is my understanding. I agree to that proposed amendment. I think that’s a good amendment. Now just when we are getting along so well together --

Mr. Renwick: I would accept that.

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if we could have the committee deal with that first.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That’s being flexible.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that Mr. Renwick’s amendment, as read, carry?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, if you would like to deal with the amendment which I moved in two parts, I am quite happy to do so and we can move that part of it.

Mr. Chairman: Does the committee want me to read the amendment again? I will read the amendment and then we can seek the approval.

Mr. Renwick moves that section 15, subsection 2, be amended to read as follows:

“The Ombudsman may make any such investigation either on a complaint made to him by any person affected or by any member of the legislative assembly upon a complaint made to the member by any person affected or of his own motion.”

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, may I make just one other comment that struck me about this amendment -- and I am delighted that it is accepted. The one part that it also refers to, which in the course of the debate the other night we didn’t make a back-reference to, was the earlier debate about the facilities of the Ombudsman, and branch offices and places to conduct his business and that kind of thing.

It did seem to me that in a very real sense members of the assembly could assist in maintaining the personalized nature of the office of the Ombudsman without him having to proliferate the institution in order to reach out into various parts of the province to the extent that would have otherwise been necessary.

Hon. Mr. Clement: As I recall, perhaps a week ago tonight or whenever it was that we touched on those discussions, my recollection of the debate and my response to it, Mr. Chairman, was to the effect that I didn’t know; there had been a suggestion that there be branch offices perhaps, and that, in fact, there even be a mobile office in the parts of northern Ontario -- all, I presume, based on whether a need existed. My response at that time was that that would be a decision the Ombudsman would have to make, depending on the demand for his services and the availability of his services in various parts of Ontario.

It may well be, as experience develops in this particular responsibility, that you may find a mobile operation may have to be expanded in several parts of the province. But this will be a judgement call on the part of the Ombudsman as he sees the matters unfolding. So that was where the matter had been left, as I recall our debate; I think it was a week ago tonight.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Mr. Renwick’s amendment to subsection 2 of 15 carry?

Section 15, subsection 2 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any comment on subsection 3? Shall it carry?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, there was no amendment there.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick has an amendment to subsection 4.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I wanted to respond to that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we can carry subsection 3 and I will read Mr. Renwick’s amendment to subsection 4. Subsection 3 carries.

Mr. Renwick moves that subsection 4 be amended to add thereto the following proviso:

“Provided that the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation notwithstanding that the person aggrieved has or had such a right or remedy if satisfied in the particular circumstances it is not reasonable to expect the person aggrieved to resort to or have resorted to it.”

Does the hon. member for Riverdale wish to comment on his amendment?

Mr. Renwick: I did make my comments the other night and I think they would, in a sense, be repetitious. I would be interested to think that the minister is prepared to accept that, or some amended version of that amendment as well.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying a moment ago, it is just a shame when we have been getting along so well together for the last 15 minutes that now our paths must appear to part, but I am hoping to take the member for Riverdale by the hand up the path I intend to discuss.

Mr. Stokes: Not the garden path I hope.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It is awfully hard to take him up the path -- he has never been taken in his life, believe me -- but that is neither here nor there and probably isn’t relevant to these discussions.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Yes, but he has been up the path before.

Mr. Renwick: You can take me to the bar but you can never make me drink.

Hon. Mr. Clement: To a bargain, did you say?

Mr. Renwick: To the bar.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I remember when the member for Riverdale was called to the bar many years ago; a fine young man, too, at that time.

Mr. Renwick: I agree.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am dealing only with the proposed amendment put forward by the member for Riverdale. The other night, unfortunately, the hours came and went and I didn’t have an opportunity to respond while the debate was fresh in my mind.

I am under the impression that there are some members of the House, Mr. Chairman, who feel, and feel very sincerely, that before the Ombudsman can intervene the member of the public affected must exhaust practically every conceivable legal remedy available to him through the proper court and/or tribunal in order to come to the Ombudsman, presumably on his knees and completely chastened in terms of financial hardship and time, and say: “There, I have been to the Supreme Court of Ontario. I then appealed to the appeal court. Then I took it to the Supreme Court of Canada. I have been unsuccessful” -- or whatever the results have been -- all the way. I am still not happy with the result. Now, for God’s sake, will you please intervene or look into the matter?”

The member for Riverdale, by the nature of his proposed amendment, wants to be assured that as the circumstances warrant in an individual case -- certainly not all -- the Ombudsman could and should have express remedy or statutory authority to step in and say, “Mr. Citizen, you need not go through this torturous route to seek the remedy you’re after. At that point, I will step in.”

I suggest, with the greatest of respect, that right exists right now, for two reasons. He really doesn’t have to go through the process of the courts or the tribunals or the hearing boards. He can wait until the time for appeal or so on has expired. In many of our tribunal statutes, by which a registrar issues a proposal -- let’s say it’s the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act -- the registrar writes a letter of registered notice and so on to the realtor or the salesman, “I propose to suspend your licence” or “I propose that I will not renew your licence for the following reasons,” and then he sets them out.

There is a 15-day period in which the recipient of that notice can say, “I want the matter dealt with by the tribunal. I don’t accept the finding of the registrar.” Under subsection 4(a) as it is presently drafted, if he failed or refused for one reason or another to exercise his right within the 15-day period and, let’s say, 20 days after having received the proposal from the registrar, said, “My gosh, what have I done? I should have appealed it,” he’s told it’s too late.

There is nothing to preclude him from going to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman looks it up and says, “You should have appealed it but you didn’t?” He says, “No.” The Ombudsman says, “Do I, as the Ombudsman, have the right?” He can read the section and say, “Until after the time for the exercise.”

Mr. Renwick: I agree with that analysis far that particular purpose.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right. Now there are time limits, as I understand it. I stand to be corrected; I don’t hold myself out as any expert in all these applications for extraordinary remedies. I am presuming, and my understanding is, there are time limits for just about everything you bring in by way of the court process after you knew or ought to have known the facts about which you complained.

Let’s say there was an exception or several exceptions to that. The Ombudsman who, after all, is the guardian of everybody, on his own motion can look into it if that individual has been deprived of basic justice. Let us say there still was time for someone to appeal. I think the complainant would have to make a pretty fair case to the Ombudsman to say, “I don’t want to appeal. I realize I have eight more days to go or 15 days to go but I want you to do it.” I think there would be a pretty heavy onus on that individual to demonstrate that he was the “victim” -- I say that in quotes -- of some arbitrary government decision and he would have to demonstrate that he didn’t have the financial ability to process it through the court system or the tribunal system or whatever group was intended to hear it.

The Ombudsman then would have to make the decision. If he decided that indeed this person appeared at first blush to be a victim of some kind of an arbitrary or improper decision by any level of government within this provincial structure, he could say on his own motion, “All right, I agree.” Certainly no one in Ontario would know more about the anticipated cost of proceeding before some of these courts than Mr. Maloney. He, on his own motion, can say, “All right, fine, I’ll look into it.”

I think the public perception must be that he is not, nor should he ever become, an alternative to the courts. I am genuinely concerned that everyone -- at least substantial numbers of people -- will come before him and say “By virtue of this subsection 4 which was amended when it was discussed in the House, you on your own initiative can do it. You can superimpose or insert yourself somewhere in the court procedure even though the rights haven’t been exhausted, even though the time hasn’t expired. You can stick your wedge-like nose into the matter and you are an alternative to the court system.”

Why wouldn’t anybody? I would. Why should I spend several hundreds or thousands of dollars to take it up to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada? I’m talking about only if the time is still open for the appeal. If the time has gone by that is another thing. I would be afraid the public perception would be, “You’ve got the express right and, by golly, if you don’t do it for me, you are not doing your job.”

I think the Ombudsman can say to that person, “You go home and wait until your time has expired, which will be next Thursday. You come back and I’ll take a look at it then.” They already have that right.

Or, if he was genuinely persuaded that a person simply could not afford it because of the financial ramifications -- and there are many who cannot -- if I was talking for Mr. Maloney -- and I’m not -- I would perceive him saying, “If I get my nose in this today I’m really sticking my nose in the court process because the doors are still open for appeal and you are not the only party to this matter. The other party or parties may wish to appeal. Here is the date the appeal runs out and I am going to wait until after that. You’ve convinced me you cannot afford to take it any further. I’m going to wait until the date for appeal goes by and the matter is finalized at that point. Then I am going to have a look at it.”

If he was persuaded I think he would step into it but I want to make it clear that we don’t want him as an alternative to the courts. Why go to the courts and pay the money when you can go to the Ombudsman and have him do all your work for you? I don’t perceive him as being a champion for the individual in the courts. I see him being a champion for the individual who has no recourse to anybody, except to be confronted with frustration.

Those are the only observations I have. I have one last one, I should say. It may be somewhat prejudicial and I appeal to the member for Riverdale on this basis: If the time hadn’t gone by for a party to a proceeding to appeal and the Ombudsman was persuaded to intervene or look into the matter, could this not end up as a kind of an information gathering or fishing expedition for future court action? If I had litigated against you in a court in this province and I was successful at trial and you had a number of days to appeal -- I was happy with the outcome. As a citizen, I would be extremely annoyed to think that my government dollars are going to allow someone, a government servant or servant of the people, to come in and perhaps direct his staff to look into the matter and then to find on the 14th day that it’s reported out to the opposite party in the lawsuit, “Yes, we think you did get a bad deal in the lower court,” and on the 15th day to have the complainant or the defendant -- whatever role the member for Riverdale had -- say, “Fine, I’m going to appeal. The Ombudsman helped cut through a lot of morass and got me information for my appeal.”

I’m concerned about that. I know the Ombudsman is not going to do that; he’s not that naive, but I wonder if the other party to the lawsuit would believe it. I would, therefore, ask the member for Riverdale seriously to consider withdrawing the amendment to subsection 4 in that, with the greatest of respect, I say the proposal he puts forward already exists in the legislation before us.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I thought the minister was doing much better until he had that afterthought. That’s exactly the problem. The government already, in the language which the minister used, assumes that in some way this new institution of government is to he, as we are, subject to the unusual power of the executive, but this must be -- and I use his language because he corrected himself -- a representative of the people, an officer of this assembly representative of the people, an officer of this assembly related to people in this assembly who represent people, not the executive power.

The Ombudsman is to provide protection for the citizen against the executive. The executive has got lots of power and is not going to be hurt, if in the extreme situation somebody could say that the Ombudsman had gone on a fishing expedition and had got information which was later available in a proceeding in the court. He isn’t going to go on that kind of a fishing expedition in the first place.

Secondly, even if he did go on it and the matter was to be decided in the court, I would accept the position of the court on that question rather than have what is inherent in the words of the minister -- a failure to disclose information to a citizen of the Crown if there is a matter in dispute with him. That’s the implication I took from what I refer to as his afterthought and I think that didn’t help the argument.

I don’t have any problem with the first argument. If in fact there is time limitation on a proceeding which a citizen can take, and that time has gone by and the citizen has no remedy, quite clearly the section connotes the possibility that the Ombudsman, if he decided to do so, could make the investigation. Whether the effluxion of time was by inadvertence or whatever the reason, it could still be opened by the Ombudsman, knowing full well that there was no reference to the court available or no reference to any other body available to that citizen. That’s quite clear. I have no problem with that.

We now come to the second point which poses very serious problems to me, because what the amendment was designed to do was to provide some degree of flexibility, recognizing that in the first argument which the minister put to me no one will be able to go and say to the Ombudsman: “Now look, 10 days from now, my right of appeal is going to expire. If I let it expire, will you make an investigation?” The Ombudsman is never going to bind himself that way. Forgetting that situation, and talking only about where we need some flexibility, and ruling out the minister’s third argument, we have so many situations that I don’t think we can catalogue them all even if we were to spend the rest of our lives. We have situations which could arise under which a citizen would feel aggrieved because of maladministration in a government organization, as defined in the Act, and have the opportunity of deciding, where the decision becomes final, where he has no further right of appeal, whether ifs to a body within the ambit of the government structure, or whether it’s a body which we refer to as a court, or whatever the remedy may he.

So, assuming for a moment that I can’t define them all, I therefore, of necessity, have to make a selection. I may be wrong, because of some section of a particular statute which someone can hold up to me and say, “Well, I haven’t read such-and-such a section” -- but that’s not my point.

I want to try to put an example to you which I think would mirror within it many other situations by analogy, although it may not fit clearly and exactly -- and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) is in the assembly. The Board of Review, as it was originally known, which is now known as the Social Assistance Review Board, reviews entitlements -- and they are now entitlements -- of persons to assistance under the Family Benefits Act, the General Welfare Assistance Act, and that kind of decision.

That seems to me to lee a very good example of the kind of classic case that I want to put, which could be mirrored in many other situations. You have a person who is either in receipt of family benefits assistance or has made an application for family benefits assistance to the ministry in the normal way. A decision is made in which the citizen feels aggrieved. Either he has been refused, or the amount has been determined adversely, or some deduction is about to be made which is unauthorized -- or which he claims to be unauthorized -- or he is not being given the opportunity -- just a multitude of situations. I am sure the minister and those who sit on those boards of review know very well there are just a multitude of situations which can

So, the first requirement that the minister referred to is fulfilled in that example. In all likelihood the person doesn’t have a lot of money available for indefinitely pursuing remedies available to him, but he can go to the Social Assistance Review Board -- and he goes to the Social Assistance Review Board, and a decision is made under which he again feels aggrieved for some reason.

Now, my understanding of the decision of the member of the staff of the ministry, which is subject to appeal to the Social Assistance Review Board, is that it is called by definition a statutory power of decision. This is separately defined under the Judicial Review Procedure Act of 1971, and is included in the definition of statutory power. I am not going to read them again, because I did refer to them on other occasions. Well, perhaps I will.

“Statutory power means a power or right conferred by or under a statute to make any regulation, rule, by law or order, or to give any other direction having force as subordinate legislation.”

That is one example. The second one is: “To exercise a statutory power of decision,” And that’s the one that my example, I believe, fits in. So I look at the definition of statutory power of decision, and that means:

“Power or right conferred by or under a statute to make a decision deciding or prescribing the legal rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties or liabilities of any person or party.”

As I say, I assume that a citizen in Ontario has a legal right to assistance under the Family Benefits Act if he meets the requirements as to need under the statutes and the regulations of the ministry -- that is a legal right. So, the decision made about his benefits is a legal right, the decision is reviewable by the Social Assistance Review Board by way of appeal, and that reinforces that it is a legal right. The decision is such that it comes within the phraseology, “statutory power of decision.” And it is exactly from that kind of decision, which that citizen would then have available to him, using the terms of subsection 4 of section 15, item (a):

“In respect of which there is, under any Act, [that’s the Family Benefits Act] a right of appeal or objection, or a right to apply for a hearing or review, on the merits of the case to any court, or to any tribunal constituted by or under any Act, [etc.]”

So I would say that in that situation -- which I am using for example purposes because (a), I think it is clear and precise that it falls arise. within this framework; and (b), because it is illustrative of many, many other situations, a multiplicity of situations which none of us could dream up -- I would say that in that situation the Ombudsman would not have any authority whatsoever to deal with that matter, even if he wished to do so, until that citizen had taken the course of applying to the divisional court by way of originating notice of motion for the purpose of having the merits of that matter decided, or the question decided as to whether he had a proper hearing, or as to whether or not the matter was within the regulatory authority of the regulations under the Family Benefits Act or whatever the other reason was, to have it reversed if necessary or to be sent back for reconsideration.

I think there was such a case quite recently. I don’t know whether it is reported, but I certainly received a circular -- as all members did -- of the decision of the court in Ontario which sent a matter back, as I understand it, dealing with the eligibility of a 16-year-old boy, I believe it was, with respect to a question of his learning capacity and his ability to learn; the matter was taken to the court and was referred back to the either the Social Assistance Review Board or to the minister or to his department for reconsideration or reassessment in the light of what the court had said.

As I say, that’s the kind of example and that’s why I say that we do requite the limited flexibility which this amendment proposes to be used by the Ombudsman if, in his opinion, it is warranted. You’ve got to give the Ombudsman credit for exercising judgement and discretion about such situations, and it is that kind of situation where I think the proposed amendment would give the Ombudsman what I consider to be necessary. I simply wish to add, and I want to repeat because it is at the end of the argument that I am making -- and if I may interject again, I am not worried about the legislative language of it; anything that will accomplish the purpose is fine.

“Provided that the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation notwithstanding that the person aggrieved has or had such a right or remedy if satisfied in the particular circumstances, it is not reasonable to expect the person aggrieved to resort to or have resorted to it.”

As I said the other night, I simply extracted that language from the statute of the Parliament of the United Kingdom establishing the Office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, because they recognize the essential need for that kind of leeway for their ombudsman.

It seems to me -- and I will await with interest what the minister has to say about it -- it seems to me that in the example which I gave, you cannot place each citizen who may avail himself of the opportunity to apply to the government for family benefits assistance, general welfare assistance or other eligibility -- you can look at those regulations, which are published, and you can see how difficult it is for anyone to know whether the regulations are correct or not correct and they can only be sorted by process of appeal -- you can’t place those citizens in the position where they have to go to the review board and then they have got to look around and say: “Oh yes, if I have grounds to do so, I can go to the divisional court.”

As I say, I don’t think the Ombudsman is going to go on a fishing expedition. I don’t think, secondly, that he is going to exercise this power, stated as it is, as a proviso except in situations where he feels -- and I mean “feels” in the very real sense of the term -- that it is only right and proper that that particular citizen should not be put to either any more expense or the need to exhaust his remedies.

I consider there is immense merit in this flexibility, and I feel sufficiently strong that it falls in the same category as the one which the minister accepted a few minutes ago that if he doesn’t accept this, we will have to divide on it.

In all fairness, if the Ombudsman is going to perform his function, the bill has got to provide some alleviating provision against the immense rigidity which will come into the bill, because we have passed another bill in which we tried to reinforce the rights of citizens. But to say that there is only one path, and that that path must be followed to infinity before the Ombudsman can move, is not my version of the way in which the personal relationship of the Ombudsman to the citizen should be maintained.

Mr. Chairman: Before the hon. minister responds, the hon. member for Peel South would like to introduce some visitors.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), who is downstairs in committee, I would like to welcome students from Assumption School in Aylmer, with their person in charge, Mr. VanDyke. Would the hon. members join me in welcoming this group to the Legislature?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think there’s a philosophical difference between the member for Riverdale and on this issue at all. I think there is a legal separation, if I may use that phraseology, which perhaps makes both the member and myself a little nervous.

I am sorry, I don’t understand the obviously very fine legal distinction he is drawing -- and I have listened with interest, both today and the other evening, when he expanded on this to some degree -- because subsection 4, as I read it, is a barrier to the Ombudsman under certain circumstances and he is without jurisdiction on the face of it. Subsection 5 will allow him to apply to the Supreme Court and so on if there is a question.

Mr. Renwick: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right. He is not a substitute for the court -- and I am not attempting to put words into the member’s mouth by saying that he is saying that; he is not saying it. I want to make this clear for those members of the House who are perhaps listening and haven’t been following this as long as the member and I have. The Ombudsman is not a substitute for the court; so, in order to see if he has jurisdiction in a legal sense, he has to determine if there still exists in the citizen’s legal pouch a right of appeal or objection that still exists in terms of time or whether indeed he has a right to apply for a hearing or a review on the merits of the case -- and that is very important wording -- be it before a court or a tribunal. He has no jurisdiction up to that point until the matter has been dealt with by that appeal tribunal or appeal court or until the time for appeal has expired.

I don’t think any court called upon for a declaration under subsection 5 is going to say: “Mr. Ombudsman, I don’t think you have jurisdiction, because it seems to us the citizen who came to you really should have brought a mandamus application or an application for an extraordinary remedy. Not having opted to take that course he has not therefore exhausted all those rights available to him.

I think one has to read it on the merits of the case, and that’s the crucial phraseology. I am not trying to be obtuse about this, Mr. Chairman, but there is a time limit for appeal, as I understand it in my own mind, for just about everything. There is a limitation otherwise these things would go on ad infinitum.

I know there is nothing to preclude my bringing an application before the court for a mandamus to compel the building inspector of the city of Niagara Falls to issue a building permit he refused to issue in 1940. I could bring the application, but when I get in that court I am going to be told I am out of my skull. The time ran out in 1940 plus a week or something. You can’t keep people from going to the courts but very often, as the hon. member readily appreciates, the court says: “We are without jurisdiction because of the limitations. Don’t be so silly; get out and get along with your business.”

I think the idea of the legislation as it presently exists is to make it clear the Ombudsman is not a substitute for the court. He is not to step in and start to assume the role of the court or the tribunal or whatever judicial group is involved in the process. Not only is that there for the direction of the Ombudsman, it is there for the direction of the public.

Once that time goes by and the member of the public wants to come forward there is no question about that aspect at all. I don’t think the Ombudsman should interfere in matters progressing through the court; I don’t think he should take that role until the time for appeal has expired. If he feels strongly enough about it he can still go ahead and look in and investigate the matter on his own motion. But while that thing is still legally or judicially alive, until that spark is extinguished by the passage of time, he is functus. Once the time has gone by then he has jurisdiction if he decides it is worthwhile looking into.

I am really at loggerheads with the member for Riverdale, not, as I say, in the philosophical approach, by my reading of the section and his obviously are at variance. I don’t see -- I don’t know and perhaps the member could assist me: Does he know of any legislation or any remedy which doesn’t have a time limit on it when the matter has been judicially dealt with, whether that judicial dealing consisted of a court or a judge or a tribunal? Is there any statute the member is aware of, he can help me by pointing it out, that is open-ended?

Mr. Renwick: No.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Insofar as appeal time is concerned?

Mr. Renwick: I am saying -- I may be quite wrong -- I think the right of appeal of a recipient under the Family Benefits Act is open-ended. As I recall it when a person has applied for family benefits assistance and is aggrieved by the result, I don’t think there is any limitation on the time during which he can appeal that decision to the Social Assistance Review Board. I stand to be corrected but that is my understanding of it.

Secondly, so far as I read the Judicial Review Procedure Act, it is open-ended. There is no time limit on a person to make an application to the court for judicial review of a decision. Again I may be wrong, hot that is my understanding of it.

Assuming for the moment that I am correct, I don’t quite know why the minister and I have differences. While he was speaking I was listening to him and refreshing my mind about what the Judicial Review Procedure Act says. It is a fascinating booklet.

“The primary objective is to establish a single form of proceeding relating to the performance or exercise of statutory duties and powers. The result is the new application wholly supplants proceedings by way of the traditional prerogative writs. The scope of the application for judicial review is given greater precision by two definitions: (a) the definition of statutory power which has four headings, one of which is itself subject to further definition, namely, the words ‘statutory power of decision.’”

They are very wide in their terms, all embracing, these matters which can be subject to judicial review.

I mentioned the other night that it’s clearly stated in the words of Mr. Mundell that the whole idea is to do away with the distinctions in administrative law by judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative decisions so that you get away from all that hang-up that has bedevilled administrative law. Then it talks about the grounds for seeking relief on an application for judicial review. There are three grounds, and I am not going to recite them all, I am going to refer to the one that I am interested in and what I referred to as the classic example that I have been trying to put. The grounds for seeking release may be conveniently considered under three headings. I am selecting the second one: “Grounds for orders prohibiting or restraining the exercise of powers of decision or for setting aside a decision.” Those are matters dealing with, I think, the merits of the case.

Then it goes on and lists any number of situations where that relief has been recognized traditionally by the courts and itemizes, from items (a) to (k), the situation. For example, in making its decision the tribunal applied principles or took into account considerations extraneous to those applicable or appropriate to be taken into account under the Act conferring the power of decision. Or again, the tribunal failed to comply with procedural requirements; that is not likely to be the case anymore, but we always run into those situations. There are 13 of them listed:

It says, “As already indicated, one former ground for relief has been extended and one new ground has been added.”

He refers to the one that has been extended at some length, then he goes on to talk about the new ground for relief by way of judicial review where the findings of fact of a tribunal made in the exercise of a statutory power of decision, which is the all-embracing definition, are required by any statute of law to be based exclusively on evidence admissible before it and on facts of which it may take notice. If there is no such evidence and there are no such facts to support findings of fact made by the tribunal in making a decision, the court may set aside the decision on an application for judicial review; and there is an earlier one as well.

All I am again saying is that the Judicial Review Procedure Act was drafted in such omnibus language for the purpose of removing the anomalies and providing a broad remedy by way of judicial review in the widest possible circumstances. I am simply saying that in the example I gave one must look at the section we are talking about and the way in which the language is phrased. Subsection 4 of section 15 states: “Nothing in this Act empowers the Ombudsman to investigate any decision, recommendation, act or omission that is very powerful exclusionary language which is used in the opening of that section:

“In respect of which there is, under any Act, a right of appeal or objection, or a right to apply for a hearing or review on the merits of the case to any court or to any tribunal constituted by or under any Act, until that right of appeal or objection or application has been exercised in the particular case.”

If in the example I have given there is no time limit for taking those actions -- there is no limitation period -- I would say the Ombudsman may say: “I think it’s ridiculous. I don’t think you should be required to exhaust those remedies. I think the opportunity is there for me to mediate this matter, not in substitution for the courts at all but to carry out my investigation of this thing. I may agree it makes sense to do so but I’m precluded until you make your application to the divisional court for a judicial review of that situation.”

That’s the only purpose of my amendment. It has no other purpose. The minister, as he said, is not imputing to me that I’m saying it’s a second road as an alternative of the court. I’m not implying that. I’m not saying the Ombudsman is going to use it as an alternate; I am simply saying you’ve got to relieve against the inflexibility of the statute, of the office of the Ombudsman, by saying:

“Not in every case; in practically all cases you are required to go to the infinity of exhausting all your remedies before you can go to him, but in some cases, when he is satisfied in the particular circumstances, it is not reasonable to expect the person aggrieved to resort or to have to resort to it.”

That’s what the amendment is designed to say; it’s just that little bit of elbow room which will make the statute work. It will make it reasonable and fair and will provide for those very people who, until quite recently, had claims or applications available to them against government but couldn’t enforce any rights.

I’m sure the present minister will recall some years ago when the government first established the Board of Review -- not for the purpose of providing a right of appeal to the citizens of the province but for the purpose of complying with the provisions of the federal Acts so it could get the money -- we sat here until 3 o’clock in the morning before the government would agree to say: “Not only are we conferring the right of appeal, but we’ll send everybody a notice.”

That’s all we asked, that now there was a new right of appeal, it would give everybody a notice that there was a right of appeal. We sat here until 3 o’clock in the morning because the government didn’t want to recognize that applicants for family benefits assistance -- I forget what the statute was at that time -- were not supplicants but were persons who by law were entitled to rights. Once you permit an appeal, since the substance of law is in appeals, you have recognized the right and that’s what the Social Assistance Review Board, as it now is, does.

It’s a legal right and it’s a decision which falls within the purview of the definition of statutory power of decision. That kind of decision is a clear road to judicial review by a citizen who is aggrieved, to the divisional court.

Your statute says in each and every case you’re excluding the Ombudsman from making an investigation, regardless of how unreasonable it may be. I think that’s wrong and I think you should give us the little bit of elbow room we require to provide equity to the rigidity in the way in which the situation is phrased. The minister knows as well as I do that laws have to be clear, but laws also have to be tempered by those provisions which permit the exercise of some equity in difficult situations.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I am not knowledgeable enough to be able to say to the member here today that every statute within this provision has a time limit in which someone can appeal, because then I would be, I suppose, presuming that I am familiar with every statute and the contents of it, and I don’t make that statement because I am not qualified to do so. As an example, you pointed out the Family Benefits Act, or whatever one it was there you referred to -- yes, the Family Benefits Act -- and I would point out that in the Civil Rights Bill, 1971, a 30-day time limit is set forth in that.

Mr. Renwick: Subject to extension.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It can be, in fact, extended by the board either before or beyond that 30-day period if there are reasonable grounds and so on to allow the extension.

You’ve awakened in my mind memories of some private matters in which I was involved while practising law. It seems to me that there are common law remedies, certainly there are remedies at law, both legal remedies and equitable remedies, which of course have no basis in a written statute form but are traditionally there. But they too have always been subjected to criticism by the courts on the basis of lapses and delay, and the case law is quite ample in those regards.

I just can’t think of any statute that doesn’t have a time limit for appeal, either in terms of rules of practise or statute, but I’m not going to say it doesn’t exist, and you may well be right.

Mr. Renwick: Unless somebody can tell me otherwise, I think the judicial review has no limit.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That may be, I just don’t know. A lot of those things, of course, are not necessarily on the merits; a lot of those are on technical grounds too, where you may have a remedy which is really without bar for very good technical reasons, but riot necessarily on the merits of the case.

Mr. Renwick: Oh yes, I agree. Some of the substantial decisions are procedural, but others are substantial no the merits.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m not trying to be adamant or difficult on this, I am really concerned. If the amendment proposed by the member for Riverdale is acceded to, I am concerned that it will be regarded by the public and perhaps by some Ombudsman in the future -- certainly not the one we have been mentioning here in the last few days -- as an alternate route for him to take on his own volition under certain circumstances as he or she, in their very good judgement, sees they apply.

It will be an alternate route to the courts, and I want to make it most clear that I don’t subscribe to this statute and the role of the Ombudsman as being such an alternate route. I just don’t subscribe to that philosophically. I don’t, and neither, I know, does the member for Riverdale -- he has made it clear here today -- but we may not always be around, particularly here, and someone, someday may see that as the role of the Ombudsman.

That is why philosophically, really on a legal basis, I cannot accede to his suggestion. When the time has expired, there is no question in both our minds -- I think we are on the same wavelength -- there is no question he’s got jurisdiction if he wants to assume it.

The merits of the thing may not awaken his interest and so on, but I put it to the member for Riverdale now, on a practical basis; remember, he is not reviewing commercial activities downtown, he is reviewing the alleged interference or malfeasance or nonfeasance of someone working for the government of Ontario. Be that person a minister or right down to the bottom of the scale, some citizen comes forward to the Ombudsman and makes some complaint. Surely no civil servant or minister is going to say to the Ombudsman: “You know, there are some extraordinary remedies under the Judicial Review Procedure Act that this person has not explored and you are barred.” If anybody did this, I would imagine the hackles on the back of the neck of the Ombudsman would immediately rise and he’d say: “Are you trying to hide behind a legal barrier, because I intend to stick my nose into it anyway.”

Now if there was just complete lack of co-operation the Ombudsman has the right, of course, to apply to the court to have the matter tested by the court as to whether he has jurisdiction; and if the court, because of the evidence before it, ever came to the conclusion that in fact we did not have jurisdiction, that the civil servant was correct, the roof would be off of this House, and rightly so.

I personally would oppose the Ombudsman if he tried to stick his nose in while the matter was still subject to appeal. But that’s another issue, and I don’t think anybody is going to argue with me on that; he should not do that. But the practicalities are such that the people he is going to monitor and whose activities he is going to look into simply have to respond. Those are the practicalities of it. If not, the Ombudsman can either go to the court or he is going to come to the House, but he is going to deal with it.

I put it to the member on the two bases. On a legal basis, I don’t want him considered -- the member or me -- I don’t want him considered by the public as an alternative to the court system until the time has expired. If there is no such time limit expressly set out in the statute under which the person is involved with government, then I say from a practical point of view, no one can simply put up the barrier and try to say, “Technically, I think you are wrong.”

I can tell the member that within my ministry -- and forget my role as the Attorney General -- if I was any other minister, I would say: “Co-operate with him. Find out what’s wrong. Let’s correct the wrong.” The government has to be responsible and responsive to the public. That’s what elections are all about, but that’s another issue. That’s all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, these are my last words on it. I don’t really think I can be asked to accept that kind of an argument. A few minutes ago the minister was telling me he didn’t want the Ombudsman going on a fishing expedition. Now he is suggesting in a sort of PR way that if the minister were to be approached by the Ombudsman, he wouldn’t stand on the legal position at all, but he would say: “Well, come on right in and look around. You may not be entitled to, but come in and look around. We will straighten everything out.”

That’s all right. I am not suggesting for a moment that in many ways that isn’t likely to be how any wise and skilful minister -- if he wants to survive for the length of time that the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) and the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld) have survived in the cabinet -- goes about things, that he doesn’t stand on legal rights. But the minister is talking about the responsibility of the Ombudsman to so develop the practise of his office within the terms of the statute which give him that right.

Unless I am so far off base that it’s inconceivable to me, although perhaps conceivable to thousands of other people, one of the questions that will have to be answered under the Family Benefits Act situation, using the example as I have, is that he is going to say: “Have I got the power?” He is going to be faced with the Judicial Review Procedure Act and he is going to have to decide whether or not he’s empowered in that situation.

We are not talking about the right to go there having gone because of the effluxion of time. I am saying that as far as I know, consistent with what the minister says, that no Board of Review is going to refuse very many people the right to an extended time of appeal to the Social Assistance Review Board. Secondly, if the matter has never been heard by the review board, certainly it’s unlikely that that’s going to happen. And, as I say, in the field of administration covered by the Judicial Review Procedure Act, I know of no way in which a time limit is set on those decisions.

There may be an ultimate time limit; I don’t know. There may be five years or seven years, or 20 years or something like that -- but we are not talking about that kind of time limit. We are talking about the 15-day, the 30-day, the 45-day time limit -- and there is no such limitation on judicial review,

I really don’t think I can express it more clearly than I have tried to express it. I don’t think we have come to a conclusion on it. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the time has come simply to divide on it, and hope that the division will alert the ministry to the fact that in the next year or two they had better come back with this provision in the bill.

I think that if one assumes, in the hazards of life, that the present Ombudsman-designate is going to hold his office for a full 10 years -- the government has selected him to do so -- what better way in which to establish the body of procedures and precedents in the way in which he goes about his office than to have a person, such as the Ombudsman-designate, in the office for 10 years under a statute which clothes him in the kind of loose-fitting clothes, but sufficiently definitive in form, to permit him to do his work, rather than to encase him in an ancient knight’s armour, or in some more rigid straitjacket than he need be in.

And that’s, I think, what we want. We want a flexible instrument of government, wisely exercised under a statute which is just right for the purpose. This statute is flawed for the purpose if this strange proviso is not inserted in it.

The committee divided on Mr. Renwick’s motion to amend subsection 4 of section 15 which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 24, the “nays” are 38.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

On section 16:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on section 16 may I raise with the minister a specific question first of all on subsection 2, which states that all rules made under this section shall be deemed to be regulations within the meaning of the Regulations Act. This is a technical question -- does that mean those regulations will be flied and will be published in the Ontario Gazette? I want to make certain that is not only the intent of the language but the language is apt to accomplish that purpose.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, your understanding is correct.

Mr. Renwick: On the first subsection of the bill, with respect to the assembly making the general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman in the exercise of his functions under this Act, my question is to the ministry. Has the ministry any suggestion or recommendation or does it have any conception or recommendation -- please don’t tell me the rules are to be made by the assembly -- as to what the framework of those rules will be or should be for the purpose of providing the relationship to the assembly which is fundamental to the role of the office of the Ombudsman?

Specifically, has it any intention in those rules -- again, always remembering that the assembly makes its own rules but for some reason or other the government seems always to have its hand in the application of the rules, as was shown in the standing committee on social development a few minutes ago -- to do what is done in the House of Commons in England -- not in the bill but in the House of Commons -- to establish or to recommend to the Legislature the establishment of a select committee of the assembly which will deal with reports of the Ombudsman; have the opportunity therefore to meet with the Ombudsman; have the opportunity to discuss with him the substance and nature of the reports -- rather than to limit the assembly in dealing with the substance of his reports merely to the formality of dealing with the Ombudsman through the office of the Speaker when the appropriation comes before the assembly for the votes.

I want to urge upon whoever makes up the rules the essential requirement that he look at what the House of Commons does and what the select committee of the House of Commons does in response to and as part of the carrying out of the function of the Ombudsman. I happen to have the second report from the select committee on the parliamentary commissioner for administration; it is not entirely up to date but it is illustrative of what I am talking about.

The government in the United Kingdom, undoubtedly on motion of the government at that time, established a select committee which is sitting all the time. I gather it’s more or less a permanent one, reappointed, of course, with each new Parliament, but it’s part of the tradition that the reports of the Ombudsman and recommendations of the Ombudsman go to that select committee for consideration. They make their report and this document is, strangely enough, the next part of it. The select committee makes its report back to the House of Commons in England and the government issues its observations on the recommendations made by the select committee, after having discussed with the ombudsman or the parliamentary commissioner his reports and the cases with which he has dealt from time to time, and the government responds.

God forbid that I would think for one single moment that a Conservative government would establish that kind of responsible procedure to be allowed. Could I urge upon the ministry it has an obligation, if it has the carriage of this legislation in this House, that surely to God we can’t be placed in the position simply of referring this matter in some distant time in the future to the procedural affairs committee of this assembly in order for it to come up with rules, without some help from the ministry as to what happens in other jurisdictions and particularly in the United Kingdom.

My second point on the first part of it is, assuming as I do that the Act will come into force on a day to be named by the proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor; and assuming as I do that the government would not want to go to the people without this particular jewel in its crown -- blemished and flawed as that jewel obviously is in our opinion in some respects -- without having proclaimed the Act in force; and presuming as I do, from what Mr. Maloney said, that he’s spending his time now winding up his affairs so he will be available on Sept. 1 to take on his duties -- which happens to coincide with some people’s views about the approximate time when the writs will be issued for the election -- when are these rules going to be made so that the Ombudsman from the inception of his office in law as a member of this assembly, will have the benefit of these general rules for his guidance?

That, of course, raises the other interesting question. At what point in time is the Ombudsman going to have the oath administered to him? I presume, consistent with the election timetable of the government, that one of these days before July 4 -- and wouldn’t it be interesting if the day of the Declaration of Independence in that great republic to the south will the day on which the Ombudsman was installed, and how significant and how correlative it is to the Shriners’ appearance here on July 1 --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Firecracker day.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): That is another location.

Mr. Renwick: I made an aside the other day which I think is worth repeating for the purpose of having it recorded. There’ll be more people at the Shriners’ celebration here on July 1 than on the day on which the government of Ontario formally joins the United States. I would suggest that perhaps July 4 is not the appropriate date for the Ombudsman-designate to appear before the assembly. I assume he is going to be sworn in before the session prorogues and I assume that on Sept. 1 he’s going to take his office. I’d like to know, when are the general rules going to be prepared under which he’s to conduct his office? I think those are significant questions and I would hope the minister is able to respond affirmatively to each of them.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I am putting forward a proposal that a committee of this House -- an existing standing committee -- or a new committee of this House be created to develop the rules forthwith. Whether that committee should be a standing committee or whether it should be a select committee, I don’t know which form it would take.

If the House did prorogue on the date announced by the member for Riverdale, namely July 4, and the Ombudsman were sworn in by that date, I would think by the very nature and by the timing probably a select committee would have to be created to work over the summer weeks with him in the creation of those rules. If the House continued through the summer, perhaps the standing committee could be the route that should be followed. I want a committee of this House to develop the rules required. It will be a continuing committee, as I see it, not necessarily meeting constantly with the Ombudsman but from time to time as the need develops.

The Act does indicate that he can determine his own procedures but, of course, he cannot determine his own rules nor should he. It will be the committee concept. I will perhaps he in a better position to advise the member once I get an indication of when we might conclude this debate -- I am not talking about the debate now -- but hopefully I can get back and respond with a little more clarity and detail within a week or 10 days from today as to what type of committee should be created.

I am aware of the select committee system in the United Kingdom. I see the role of the committee being to develop the rules for the Ombudsman and I would presume he would be an integral part of that committee in terms of being in attendance and pointing out what he thinks he might require. It wouldn’t serve much purpose to develop rules which his experience indicates he can’t work with or are impractical. I think it’ll have to be a co-operative type of situation.

The Act does indicate very specifically that he shall take his oath here in the House; as to a date, I just don’t have one yet. I presume it would have to be before the House rose. That’s all on the basis, of course, that there is going to be a general election within the next few months. It may be that that general election may not come for a year so I am sure in this fall or next spring we’d have a lot of time to have the oath administered, and this sort of thing, in this particular House.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, let me say what I think the timetable should be in the interests of the Province of Ontario and not in the interests of the Conservative Party.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It is the same.

Mr. Renwick: It’s long overdue that we have an Ombudsman in the province.

Hon. Mr. Clement: He heard that. He just ignored me.

Mr. Renwick: I got that.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): But he is smiling.

Mr. Renwick: It’s long overdue so I would suggest the following timetable, if I may: The Act be proclaimed as soon as it has completed third reading in the House because the Ombudsman can’t be sworn in until the Act is proclaimed; that he be sworn in before this session prorogues and not await the ultimate disposition of a dissolution and next year sometime we will have the Ombudsman sworn in; and that a select committee be chosen.

The distinction, I think, is now clear, having had the benefit of the advice of a person whom I am told I can’t ever name in the assembly. My comments on second reading of the bill were correct -- it is a select committee. The select committee can sit any time and the strange idea that select committees can sit only when the House isn’t in session is entirely wrong; whereas a standing committee is eliminated whenever the House is not in session.

I think it has to be a select committee and I think the select committee has to sit immediately. I think it has to have the rules settled and promulgated for the time when the Ombudsman sort of takes over -- which I take it to be, given the necessities of winding up affairs, on Sept. 1 or thereabouts -- and is in business not later than Sept. 1. I would urgently ask that once this bill is passed the Attorney General’s office does not immediately say that this is a problem for the Ombudsman and for the select committee but the select committee should have the benefit of the assistance of those in the ministry who have worked on this particular bill, in the hope and anticipation that the procedure followed in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom with respect to that Parliamentary Commissioner be the procedure which is adopted here. That is, having a select committee, the ones who make the rules, continue to sit as a select committee indefinitely during the lifetime of each Parliament. We can’t cover the period of the election but we can get by all right during that 40-odd-day period. I urge the government to be prepared to adopt the procedure of the select committee making its report and then the government feeling under an obligation to respond to it. I would hope that would be the course of events.

I do not think it should be the standing committee on procedural affairs that should be charged with this responsibility. It should be a select committee, which in its first functions, in a continuing sense as a body, would have the obligation to prepare these general rules and promulgate them, of course, in consultation with the Ombudsman and with the advice and assistance of the minister’s ministry.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I have noted the member’s remarks and I cannot take exception to the bulk of them. I think there has to be some definite procedure outlined very quickly for the reasons set forth and, as usual, I bow to his suggestions in these matters. If my staff will obtain a copy of the Hansard that is being recorded at this very moment, perhaps it might form the backbone of the creation of the committee. If it’s successful, I, of course, will take credit for it. Should it not be successful, I will be sure to point out to those who criticize whose brainchild it was.

Mr. Renwick: Well, at least share the responsibility if it is a disappointment to you. My shoulders are not broad enough.

Section 16 agreed to.

On section 17:

Mr. Chairman: The minister has an amendment on section 17.

Hon. Mr. Clement moves that section 17(2) of the bill be amended by inserting after “institution” in the third line, “or training school,” and by inserting after “institution” in the last lines, “training school.”

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on section 17(2), I am going to take it that the minister has responded to the comment made on subsection 1 by my colleague, the member for Sudbury, and of course he will speak if he wants to make any further comment about that aspect of it.

I do not think that one can adequately understand subsection 2 unless the minister is prepared to comment pretty categorically about two aspects of it. One, it cannot be read except in conjunction with the extraordinary power contained later in the bill with respect to the exclusion of the Ombudsman from any premises. Section 26 of the bill grants the Ombudsman power to enter any premises of any governmental organization and inspect the premises and carry out any investigation within his jurisdiction. He has to give notice, of course; which we can talk about at that time. But the section also says:

“The Attorney General may by notice exclude the application of subsection 1 to any specified premises or class of premises if he is satisfied that the exercise of the powers mentioned ... might be prejudicial to the public interest.”

Well, the public interest, in the eyes of every government, is quite elastic and it is not a sufficient protection.

Mr. Stokes: Therefore the interests of the government and the Conservative Party are synonymous.

Mr. Renwick: When we come to this particular section, section 17(2), we are preserving or establishing the right of any person who, by virtue of the authority of laws of this assembly, is in an institution under the control of the assembly and in which his personal liberty is curtailed. I think that’s the purpose of it.

It would appear to me that if that line of communication between a person in any such institution is to be preserved, the ministry between now and the time we get to section 26 has got to consider an exception to section 26 that would preclude the Attorney General from ever designating one of the institutions within this province under the control of the government in which a citizen might, at any time, be held with his liberty curtailed. I don’t think you can, under any circumstances, give any meaning to the communication between the inmate and the Ombudsman and the privacy of that communication, unless the Ombudsman knows that he can go to those institutions.

The purpose of section 26 is probably different and, therefore, the ministry, by the time we get to that, should have no problem in putting a limitation on the power of the Attorney General to designate premises as not being open to inspection by the Ombudsman, to make certain that the Ombudsman has complete access to the provincial correctional institutions, or to the hospitals, or to the training schools, and I would also like to know whether it covers other institutions in the province. Does it cover all of the jails? Presumably it doesn’t cover the detention cells at a police station, but it must, I presume, cover the Toronto Don Jail, for example.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I wish to put forward the amendment that has been read to you by Mr. Chairman for the reason I indicated, I think, somewhat privately to the member for Riverdale the other day. As I understand it, our correctional institutions Act does not include the phraseology, “training school,” and it’s the intention that, of course, it apply to people in training schools as well as correctional institutions and psychiatric facilities.

We’ll deal with the matters referred to in section 26 when we reach that point. I do have a specific situation in mind whereby I may, in section 26, be able to demonstrate -- hopefully successfully -- to the member for Riverdale that it may be in the public interest in one or two instances. It certainly is not in the public interest if the Attorney General just refuses point blank to allow the Ombudsman into these institutions referred to in section 17, because you’re just emasculating the whole strength of the section.

Mr. Renwick: That’s the point I was hoping to cover in section 26.

Mr. Chairman: Does Hon. Mr. Clement’s amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

On section 18:

Mr. Stokes: I have one comment, regarding subsection 3 of section 18, which reads:

In any case where the Ombudsman decides not to investigate or further investigate a complaint he shall inform the complainant of that decision, and may if he thinks fit state his reasons therefor.

Why didn’t you put “in writing” in there? Why didn’t you state “in writing”? Why doesn’t he inform the complainant in writing that he is not going to pursue the case?

Mr. Renwick: If you move the amendment, he’ll accept it.

Mr. Stokes: Why didn’t you put “in writing,” as you did in section 17?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Are you referring to the reason that he is refused?

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I guess I must have been persuaded by the member for Sudbury in the argument that he put forward the other night. It may well be that it should be in writing. I have no strong feeling one way or the other.

Mr. Stokes: May I so move?

Mr. Renwick: After the word “complainant.”

Mr. Stokes moves that section 18, subsection 3, be amended by inserting the words “in writing” after the word “complainant” in the third line.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’d be happy to accept an amendment from you. You know, it’s refreshing to talk to you. I’ve a feeling that the member for Riverdale and I just can’t keep meeting like this much longer.

Mr. Stokes: I’ve been listening and I thought there was too much of a monopoly, so I thought I had to intervene.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right. Fair enough.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): You thought that dialogue wasn’t getting anyplace.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury on section 18?

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Yes. Section 18 says the Ombudsman “may if he thinks fit” states his reasons for rejecting a complaint. I think everyone who goes to an ombudsman has what he considers is a legitimate complaint, because no one goes there and puts himself to this trouble unless he is plagued by some matter.

I think it would be unfair for the Ombudsman just to say, “Well, I’m not going to investigate your complaint,” and he, therefore, does not have to give a reason. If it is some legitimate reason, such as that he hasn’t pursued all the avenues readily or presently available -- appeals, procedures -- well, the Ombudsman should tell him so. If the Ombudsman says it is a frivolous complaint that is being lodged, then the complainant should know, I think. I think it should be mandatory that the reasons be stated why the Ombudsman rejects a complaint or decides not to investigate.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have to explain why that is in there. It could be very harmful to the public interest if, in all instances, he did. Let me tell you why it might be. An individual might complain about some treatment that he or she received, let’s say by some agency of this government. That agency at that time could well be under very active investigation by, say, the Ontario Provincial Police. We may be alerted that something is wrong.

The right to respond to a victim and say, “I am not going to investigate it at this time because it happens to be that it is under investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police,” by itself could be very destructive to the investigation. That is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, it should not be mandatory that he set out the reason.

Hopefully, the Ombudsman would not use anything but the real reason. There is no sense saying to that person, “I think your claim is vexatious or your allegation is frivolous” -- when, in fact, it is not so. Yet I would hate to think that the Ombudsman, by the nature of the legislation, would be compelled to give a reason for what I pointed out earlier.

It may be that the rules committee, if I can call it that -- what we have been discussing in the previous section 2 -- may well come to the conclusion that, except in certain instances, a reason should be given. Fine, I would live with that. I think there should be that flexibility, rather than mandatory giving of a reason. I have only pointed out one illustration, and there are possibly many that would come to mind if one thought about it for some period of time; that would show that in the public interest it just might not be the best course of action.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Stokes’ amendment say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

I declare the amendment carried.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

On section 19:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have no other comment to make on section 19 other than on subsection 6 -- “if in the opinion of the Ombudsman there is evidence of breach of duty or misconduct, he shall refer the matter to the appropriate authority.”

I can’t conceive of a situation in which the Ombudsman, if on the basis of careful consideration of a matter there is evidence in his opinion of breach of duty or of misconduct, wouldn’t do that. But I think it should be obligatory upon him to refer it to the appropriate authority, and I would ask that the word “may” be changed to “shall.”

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’d just like to explore this for a moment. What about a technical breach? Someone has acted in good faith; the civil servant involved has acted in good faith throughout in his own mind, but he has technically breached his statutory duty -- something that can be corrected right away. It would seem to me to be somewhat destructive of the future of that person if he found himself now involved in some kind of a disciplinary procedure by the authority because of a technical breach.

No question about his faith; he acted in good faith. He misinterpreted his responsibility; or he didn’t do this when it should have been done within three days, and he did it on the fourth day. I wonder, is it really necessary? I don’t regard it as any cover-up sort of thing. I think the Ombudsman has to make that decision. If it is a serious matter, well, then, there is no question it should be reported. But it may be a technical breach of duty. It has been pointed out to me by staff that there was some discussion with the Ombudsman, the proposed Ombudsman, on this and he felt very strongly that it should be “may” and not “shall.” I didn’t know this until just now; I was just advised.

Mr. Renwick: He felt very strongly that it --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Maloney, in discussing this legislation with the deputy minister as it was about to be introduced said he felt it should be “may.” It should be permissive and not mandatory, I presume, maybe for some of the reasons I touched on a moment ago.

Mr. Renwick: I’m not prepared to press the point nor am I prepared to refer back to the discussion which my colleague, the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor), had about what consultations had taken place with the Ombudsman. I think the substance of it was that the Ombudsman had made no comment upon the bill although it had been furnished to him, subject to the Deputy Attorney General having then advised you that he, as you said, met with him. I presume it was in the course of those discussions this reference was made.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I had no discussions with him.

Mr. Renwick: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Is section 19 carried?

Section 19 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is section 20 carried?

Mr. Renwick: No.

On section 20:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions about section 20. First of all, let me ask a technical question about subsection 6 SO that people will be aware of this.

Subsection 6 would appear to me to preclude the need for a person calling in aid the provisions of the Ontario Evidence Act in order to protect him. I would say this does not obviate his need to call in aid the provisions of the Canada Evidence Act in order to protect himself against incriminating evidence which he may give in the presence of the Ombudsman.

This is a technical question. My conclusion is that a person reading that subsection could be trapped into thinking he didn’t have to call in aid the Canada Evidence Act. I am afraid he would have to do so if he was to protect himself against criminal proceedings. I think that’s a legal question and perhaps at some point it could be answered before the bill goes through.

If it doesn’t then either in the general rules or in some other way a person has to be warned. We finally won the battle about warning in the procedures which were set up under governing bodies of one kind or another. He has to be warned of his rights before he gives evidence under oath so that he can claim the privilege and be advised of the right to claim the privilege. I think subsection 6 as it is presently drafted is a trap and that a person giving evidence under oath would not be protected against the evidence being called for and used in a criminal proceeding. I bow to my friend, the member for Kitchener, on questions such as that.

I would like the minister to tell me what subsection 5 means; and that is the only further comment I have on that section of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Speaking off the top of my head, I think I am inclined to agree with the member’s observations with reference to subsection 6. There is no question that he does not have to claim the Ontario Evidence Act protection, but I don’t see how we can certainly involve the federal Evidence Act by this provincial statute. I think when preparing the rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman that may well be something that should be considered.

Mr. Renwick: It is quite a trap, though.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I agree. I must say I always bite my tongue a little bit when I read in the paper some story of a trial and it says the witness asked for and was granted the protection of the Evidence Act. I always say to myself, “That must be a good-hearted judge granting that. I wonder what would happen if he didn’t?” But you claim it and you’ve got it. It’s as simple as that.

I suppose technically on every question you should claim it. We used to follow a procedure or practice in concert with the Crown attorney in our area that there was an agreement right on the record of the trial, in the transcript, that we were going to claim it on each question, and in order to expedite could there be an agreement that it was deemed to be claimed. We would get that admission from the Crown attorney, who was very co-operative, and go on with the matter. But people think they claim it and it is granted. That used to rather annoy me. I am sorry I said that, but you read it every day in the paper.

With reference to subsection 5 -- and I will keep my mind on that in subsection 6 now, I think it should probably be in the rules that the person is warned as to the --

Mr. Renwick: Before you leave that could I make one comment about it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Sure.

Mr. Renwick: I am sure legislative counsel, or counsel in your ministry will recall that somewhere in the procedural amendments, following upon the McRuer commission report, we provided an affirmative requirement that a witness be advised of his rights and the privileges he may claim, or something like that. In other words, it was an affirmative thing rather than a passive matter.

The reason I am glad we are raising it now, just before the supper recess, is that it may be possible that an appropriate change could be made. I think having it in the rules would be essential if it is not in the statute, but having it in the statute would be a much more positive placement than in the rules. If it is not possible to put it in the statute, I think it has got to go in the rules.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The Statutory Powers Procedure Act, section 14, subsection 1, says:

“A witness at a hearing shall be deemed to have objected to answer any question asked him upon the ground that his answer may tend to incriminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to civil proceedings at the instance of the Crown, or of any person, and no answer given by a witness at a hearing shall be used or be receivable in evidence against him in any trial or other proceedings against him thereafter, taking place other than a prosecution for perjury in giving evidence.”

Subsection 2 touches on the very problem we have been discussing:

“A witness shall be informed by the tribunal of his right to object to answer any questions under section 5 of The Canada Evidence Act.”

So that rather confirms my feeling of your observation with reference to that.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps a suitable amendment could be introduced after the recess.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have no objection to having it as an amendment, or we can put it in the rules. Perhaps it is better it should show on the face of the statute itself.

Mr. Renwick: It is better in the statute.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 20 carry, subject to the minister bringing in an amendment? Are you going to bring in an amendment to Section 20?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I won’t argue with what the numerical sequence is, but we will draft one during the supper hour.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I had asked a further question on subsection 5. The minister was going to move on to that when I interrupted him so he could clarify this one point. I asked the question: “What are the privileges of witnesses in a court of law?”

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think really, this report refers to the solicitor-client relationship, that sort of thing. You have me at a disadvantage. It hasn’t really sunk into my mind. Section 20, subsection 1 deals with evidence which is fairly inclusive. I think that subsection 5 just refers to those solicitor-client relationships that exist. I don’t know.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps we could stand the section down until after dinner. I can clarify my thinking on it, but it seems to me the very language of that section actually brings in the rules of evidence. If it brings in that part of it I am afraid it brings it all in. I am just curious as to whether or not the Ombudsman should be that limited, and whether the Ombudsman shouldn’t rather have the kind of extended powers that a royal commissioner has; that he can accept evidence, but that in rendering his decision he must take into account only that evidence which would otherwise be admissible, which I think is probably a rough and ready statement of the general rule.

If the effect of subsection 5 is indirectly to import the rules of evidence of the courts of law into the powers of the Ombudsman in the course of making his investigation, it seems to me you are unnecessarily inhibiting the Ombudsman and that the ambit of the inquiry the Ombudsman should be entitled to make in questioning people and that kind of operation should be identical to that which a royal commissioner has. Again, I am not talking about how to draft the language but I’m very concerned that we are unnecessarily limiting the Ombudsman.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would like to take the suggestion and answer it fully following the supper hour. I point out it deals with privileges of witnesses and not scope of evidence which would be applicable in the proceedings taking place before the Ombudsman.

Let’s explore for a moment what privileges do exist. There is the solicitor-client privilege; perhaps there are privileges dealing with occupation, I don’t know; husband and wife; and this sort of thing. I can’t see it expanding beyond that role; there is no way I can see it expanding beyond that. I think the intention of putting it in there was to make it clear that these things would exist in the hearing before the Ombudsman as they do in a courtroom situation. I’ll deal with it a little more fully after supper, but that’s my understanding of it right now.

Mr. Chairman: Seeing that we have some clearing up on section 20 rather than move on to section 1 we’ll call it 6 o’clock now and the chairman will return at 8 o’clock

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.