The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DEATH OF JENNIFER MCGILL

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, a coroner’s jury sitting in Hamilton has reported eight recommendations arising from the death last year of Jennifer McGill. The death from internal injuries of this 17-month-old child has recalled again to public attention the roles and responsibilities of various helping agencies in our communities and the duty of my ministry to supervise the welfare and safety of children.

I want to inform the House about my ministry’s findings in this case of child abuse and summarize our conclusions about the work of the local children’s aid society. That summary will, I hope, go some way to describe the decision I have reached not to initiate a judicial inquiry.

Four of the eight jury recommendations are addressed and, I believe, satisfied by the amendments which the government has proposed to the existing Child Welfare Act. Bill 114 is now before the House and we shall be requesting third reading for it during this session. Its relevant sections focus on the rights of the abused or neglected child, yet preserve with great care the delicate balance that must be struck between the civil rights of child and parents.

Questions arose about the roles of the society, the crown attorney and the police in the handling of the criminal investigation. The Attorney General is prepared to speak to those aspects of the case.

Two other recommendations, which have been studied by my ministry, will be given further review as they bear on responsibilities of other ministries: They call for mandatory inquests in cases which involve child abuse and for the employment by family court of advisory panels drawn from the local community. A recommendation to broaden the Canada Evidence Act would require action by the federal parliament.

It is a natural consequence of a tragedy such as the death of Jennifer McGill that the practices and specific actions of the children’s aid society should be called into question. The actions of the Hamilton-Wentworth Children’s Aid Society in this case have been scrutinized by officials of my ministry. We have, as well, the benefit of two recent reviews of the society’s management of child-protection cases in the recent past. More than 280 individual cases were examined in those reviews, one in 1977 and the second earlier this year.

Our overall impression is of a very competent and efficient service. In both reviews, we were impressed by: first, the generally excellent management of these cases by the society; second, its clear-cut policies and procedures; third, the society’s strict attention to those policies and procedures; and fourth, good day-to-day practices by both supervisors and front-line staff.

It is evident that the local professional community, including the children’s aid society, has identified and spoken to many issues dealing with inter-agency and community response to child-abuse issues. It is a reflection of the expertise and experience available to us in Hamilton-Wentworth that my ministry announced this past August a major grant of more than $95,000 to fund the regional council on child abuse’s pilot project for better abuse management.

There is evidence of effective action in many phases of the McGill case by the children’s aid society. There were also, however, other periods during the society’s contact with the McGill family when high-risk factors should have indicated different decisions.

Both in December 1976, when Jennifer was returned to the care of her family, and in the early summer of 1977, when other evidence of possibly abusive bruising were reported, specific decisions of the CAS about what action to take are open to criticism. Those decisions were reviewed by the coroner’s jury. The society has acknowledged that questionable judgement was exercised at some points in its supervision.

In addition, there was a delay in reporting to the police what proved to be a fatal injury to Jennifer. The customary and established procedure for liaison with the police did not work in this instance. Even before the coroner’s inquest, the society initiated the following changes in its procedures: immediate reporting of all abuse situations to the police department as soon as they are received by the society, and an updating of its internal review procedures for management of all abuse cases.

It is a discretionary responsibility of the children’s aid society to make recommendations to a family court judge about the return of a child to its family under an order of supervision. Following the inquest in this case, the board of directors at Hamilton-Wentworth decided on a policy which makes the society much more selective about such recommendations. This is an interim measure pending the establishment in 1979 of abuse and supervision provisions under the revised Child Welfare Act.

Based on three main factors, I have come to the conclusion that the role of the society in the handling of the McGill case does not warrant a judicial inquiry.

First, as a result of intensive inquiries by my ministry and the evidence of the coroner’s inquest, we are familiar already with the circumstances which resulted tragically in Jennifer’s death.

Second, my ministry has already reviewed the society’s handling of comparable cases of this kind. The case of Jennifer McGill does not reflect the general competence of the society.

Third, the society on its own initiative and with advice from my ministry has already taken every reasonable step to give the best possible protection to children who may be abused or neglected within its jurisdiction.

[Later]

Mr. S. Smith: Are we expecting the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry)? I wonder if the House leader will tell us whether the Attorney General will be making a statement on the other part of the matter referred to by the Minister of Community and Social Services because in the McGill matter he does make reference to a second part of the statement. If we are going to hear that, I will leave my question until we have heard from him.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes.

[Later]

Mr. McClellan: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: In his statement concerning the circumstances surrounding the death of Jennifer McGill, the Minister of Community and Social Services led the House to believe the Attorney General was prepared to make a statement with respect to aspects of that death which are under his jurisdiction.

The issues involved relate to the question of why the crown attorney’s recommendation that second degree murder charges be laid in the case wasn’t followed through and why it was 18 months from the time of the child’s death until the time of the inquest.

I would like to understand whether the Attorney General intends to make a statement on this question?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I hadn’t intended to make a formal statement but I am quite prepared, with the permission of the House, to extend the question period for that one question.

Mr. Foulds: Revert to “Statements.”

Mr. Speaker: It was raised originally by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) in your absence. I think it is a very dangerous precedent, but if the House thinks it is of sufficient --

Mr. McClellan: I just wanted to know if there was a statement or not.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would like to respond, with the permission of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I have no objection to that providing it is done by way of a statement rather than extension of the question period. Do we have unanimous agreement to allow that?

Mr. Foulds: Revert to statements.

Mr. Breithaupt: Would you allow the House to revert to statements?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to --

An hon. member: Are you objecting?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, I am not objecting at all. I just want to make it clear I did not indicate the Attorney General would be making a statement. I indicated, if I recall correctly, and I am just checking the particulars here, that the Attorney General would be prepared to respond to that. I did not indicate he would make a statement but I am quite pleased that he is going to.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Attorney General, for purposes of making a statement.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Basically, Mr. Speaker, the position of the crown attorney’s office in Hamilton was that there were not reasonable and probable grounds to charge either one or both of the parents with an offence related to the death of the child. This has been the position of the local crown attorney’s office for some time and has not been altered by the inquest.

Now, reference may be made to the fact that apparently during mid-October 1977 an assistant crown attorney on reviewing the matter wrote to the police recommending that a charge be laid. However, eight days later he wrote to them rescinding his recommendation by virtue of the fact that the evidence the police said that they had with respect to cause of death was not borne out by his examination of the material. From that point on it has always been the crown’s position that there were not reasonable and probable grounds upon which to lay a charge.

AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I rise to make a correction. Yesterday I was asked the number of agencies, boards and commissions. I said to the members who asked the question that there were approximately 352 of these.

Mr. Wildman: There are 700.

Mr. Breaugh: You still don’t know.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I would like to correct that so that the record will show it. I was taking into consideration groups in coming up with the 352 figure. If one looks at the individuals and counts the groups as one, one will find just a little over 300 of those. If one takes them individually, one will come up with a figure of just under 700.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I should say that there are some fairly large ones in the 700 figure, such as housing authorities with 51, health units with 41 and conservation authorities with 38. Those are some of the larger ones that help to make up just under 700.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WELFARE RECIPIENTS

Mr. S. Smith: I will direct a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Can the minister tell the House whether the marvellous speech by the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker) on “work fare” happens to be government policy and meets with the approval of the Minister of Community and Social Services, how much consultation went on between the two ministers before that particular speech was made and whether he has read the part of the speech that says that if only 80 per cent of welfare recipients were able to undertake 20 hours of community work, the benefits would be staggering? Are 80 per cent of welfare recipients able-bodied? Are they in a position to undertake, in the minister’s view, 20 hours of community work in Ontario? What are his figures with regard to welfare recipients in Ontario, and is this government policy?

Mr. Foulds: What is the Liberal policy?

Hon. Mr. Norton: First of all, I would like to indicate that the speech is not a representation of government policy.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As the minister stated in his speech.

Mr. Swart: Isn’t he a cabinet minister?

Mr. Martel: It didn’t take him very long.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I believe that was clearly stated by my colleague in his speech.

Mr. Warner: Is that why he is not here today?

Mr. Kerrio: Are you going to excommunicate him?

Mr. Martel: The acting Premier fired him already.

Hon. Mr. Norton: With respect to the question of the degree of consultation, which I believe was another area of the question, I was aware that the minister did intend to make that speech yesterday.

Mr. McClellan: Did he check the figures with you?

Hon. Mr. Norton: That was the extent of consultation. In terms of the figure of 80 per cent, the data which I have available to me would indicate that of the total case load of general welfare assistance and family benefits assistance recipients in the province of Ontario, approximately 12 to 12½ per cent are persons who are employable and able-bodied.

Mr. M. Davidson: You mean he was totally wrong.

Mr. S. Smith: Given the fact that at most perhaps there are 12½ per cent who might find themselves with the availability for 20 hours of work, and given the fact that there has been general agreement that if jobs are available these people should take those jobs, how does the minister respond to the notion that these people should be out doing whatever work is dreamed up by various people in municipalities?

Are they to be treated as prisoners? Are people who are receiving this amount of assistance, who should take any real job that is available, to be treated as prisoners and given make-work projects of various kinds? Is this government policy? If not, will the minister repudiate it very clearly and stop casting a slur upon the people at the very bottom of our society?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: At the bottom?

Mr. S. Smith: Economically speaking, they are at the bottom.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You said “at the bottom of our society.”

[2:15]

Mr. S. Smith: The Minister of Education and of Colleges and Universities claims for a moment to have misunderstood the meaning of my statement. I want to clarify it. They are at the bottom of society in income terms. In terms of socio-economic income, they are at the bottom. In fact, if you want to know who I think are at the bottom in certain other terms, I look at a good many of them across the floor from time to time.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You said “at the bottom of our society.”

Hon. Mr. Norton: Now that that matter has been cleared up, I am sure the honourable member will retract any implication in his statement that I or government policy was creating in some way a slur upon a particular group of society. That certainly is not the case.

Mr. Wildman: Only the Minister of Correctional Services is doing that.

Hon. Mr. Norton: In terms of what the position is on matters of employment availability for those who are in receipt of public assistance, I think I have made my position on that quite clear on more than one occasion.

Mr. Foulds: Make the government’s position clear.

Hon. Mr. Norton: At the provincial ministers’ meeting in Nova Scotia in September of this year, I presented to my provincial colleagues from other provinces, a proposal relating to work incentives for persons in receipt of public assistance, a program which would provide support to persons during the transition period into employment. That proposal was received unanimously by my provincial colleagues.

I carried that proposal to the members at the federal-provincial meeting in Toronto last week and received from the federal Minister of Health and Welfare an undertaking to explore changes to the Canada Assistance Plan which would allow the kind of flexibility that is necessary, but does not exist at present in the Canada Assistance Plan, to enable us to introduce those kinds of support and incentives for people to move into full-time employment.

Mr. S. Smith: You have our support for that.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Now that the minister has put the situation in perspective, can he assure the House that there will be no further such outrageous proposals by his colleagues in the cabinet, and can he inform the House what specific measures of job creation --

Mr. Rotenberg: We have democracy over here.

Mr. Cassidy: -- at provincial, municipal or other levels he has proposed to cabinet in order to ensure that people who have been forced on to welfare can have meaningful and decently paid employment this winter?

Mr. Foulds: Create the jobs.

Hon. Mr. Norton: To the first part of the member’s question, I would have to answer no, I have no intention of restricting my colleagues so they are not free to express an opinion which is different from mine.

Mr. Wildman: Even to the facts? You are not going to restrict them to the facts?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Or even in terms, if the member wishes, of putting up a trial balloon, or whatever the intention was.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, it is a trial balloon.

Mr. Foulds: It is a lead balloon.

Mr. Martel: What a game you are playing.

Mr. Cassidy: What a game you play.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Perhaps that was an unfortunate choice of words, but I have no intention of restricting my colleagues in the expression of their opinions if they should happen, at times, to disagree with me or disagree with current policies.

Mr. Nixon: What about cabinet solidarity?

Mr. Renwick: Even the former Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Drea) is blushing.

Mr. Wildman: Just get his prisoners to work. Let him leave the welfare people alone.

Hon. Mr. Norton: On the matter of the member’s second point, I trust he realizes that my ministry is not primarily responsible for employment creation. But on the other hand, we have a number of programs for work readiness across the province, involving a number of people who are in receipt of public assistance, to help them prepare for re-entry into the work force.

Mr. Mackenzie: You already have job programs down the drain.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Also, we have some specific programs operated by municipalities and also some that are not operated by municipalities, geared towards the single parent, or the single --

Mr. Wildman: Quit while you’re ahead.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- the mother-led families is what I am getting at, to assist those mothers who are supporting children and are currently in receipt of public assistance to make the transition to full-time employment.

Mr. Deans: I wonder if I might ask the minister if he can recall a number of years ago when the then Minister of Correctional Services, John Smith, made similar idiotic statements and his speeches had to be vetted by the Premier’s office before he was allowed to make them?

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: Would the minister be prepared to make a similar recommendation to the Premier now with regard to the present Minister of Correctional Services?

Mr. Martel: It didn’t take the Minister of Correctional Services long. Two weeks.

Mr. Wildman: There must be something about that ministry. They take that kind of demagoguery as a joke.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I must have a very short memory. I’m not sure I recall the earlier incident the member refers to.

Mr. Makarchuk: You wouldn’t have done anything like that.

Mr. Martel: What kind of games are you guys playing?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No game at all.

WATER POLLUTION

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll direct my second question to the Minister of the Environment. Returning again ad nauseam to the Port Loring matter, can the minister explain how he could tell this House that “at all times the staff of our ministry has been on the side of the residents,” when no one from his ministry advised the people to have blood tests taken -- he may be familiar with the report in the Toronto Star that says there is a high lead level in one of these people -- the residents are still carrying buckets of water after two years’ time, the ministry has failed to issue an order of repair under section 17 of the Environmental Protection Act against the Gulf Oil company and no legal counsel has been provided to these people by the ministry?

An hon. member: What’s the question?

Mr. S. Smith: Should we advise the residents of Port Loring simply to give up, or is the minister prepared to guarantee that the water will be there before freeze-up, that they will have a lawyer paid for by the ministry and that the company will be forced to bear the cost of the cleanup?

Hon. Mr. Parrots: Yes, the cost of the cleanup will be borne by the company. No, I think we are not logically expected to supply a solicitor for those people who want redress in the courts. That constitutionally has been their responsibility and it should remain that way.

I agree with the member that we have discussed this at some length. Without the help of the Ministry of the Environment, a well would not have been drilled. It is there. I think the member opposite knows that the point now in dispute is not whether or not the pipe should go in, but who will run the system once it is in. There is no local municipality to take over the communal water system, so it has to be done by someone.

Mrs. Campbell: The residents.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think the residents are going to have to accept that responsibility as a co-operative approach among themselves. I hope the member opposite will realize a private citizen not involved in the supply of that water is not likely the person to run a communal water system. There is one well. There are going to be several residents tying into that well. It, therefore, requires someone to supervise its ongoing maintenance. That seems a reasonable responsibility to put into the hands of those people who will be using the water.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since quite obviously it was Gulf that spilled the gasoline that ruined these people’s good wells -- and if the minister thinks that is incorrect, I would like him to explain why it is that Gulf is going to pay for the cleanup -- why should Gulf not maintain for these people the cost of these pipes and maintain the existence and continuity of the pipes going across the highway, which is a difficult matter?

Will the minister table in this House the internal reports he has dealing with a provincial strategy for the compensation of victims of pollution? Are we going to have a mini-Dow Chemical situation here?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think what the leader of the Liberal Party knows and is not quite prepared to put on the record is that the gasoline is not owned by Gulf. It is owned by a person by the name of Buchanan. It’s in his tanks.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right, and the tanks were put in by Gulf and have leaked.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Wait for it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Without significant pressure from the Ministry of the Environment to persuade Gulf to do something which, in my opinion and in the member’s opinion, it had a moral obligation but no legal obligation to do --

Mr. Renwick: Well, get a bill in here to make it a legal obligation.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- that happens to be the fact.

Mr. S. Smith: They put the tanks in the ground and they leaked.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: They put the tanks in the ground some time ago.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, and they leaked.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: They were not leaking at that time. There has been a long history of this; there’s no doubt about that. The present ownership is by a man named Buchanan and he, therefore, has the legal responsibility. I don’t think the member will deny that the legal responsibility in this instance is with this gentleman in question.

Mr. Renwick: Get a bill in here to make it legal.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There is a moral obligation on the company, on which we used all of our powers to accept that moral obligation to help the people because they were innocent victims. Without the pressure of the ministry, they would have been combating a man without resources to supply the water that was so necessary.

If the honourable member will put all those facts together, I think he will see that the reasonable and practical thing to do was to use our ministry to persuade Gulf to get water there.

We have the additional problem of the distribution -- that was the point I was trying to clarify for the honourable member today, and indeed we will continue to press that --

Mr. Lawlor: You’re fumbling.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The pipes are in -- and I am disappointed with the time as much as is the honourable member, but he seems to fail to recognize that we do not have a clear mandate in the legal sense to do what he is asking. Therefore, it has to be by persuasion and by pressure, and that is what we have done.

Mr. S. Smith: You haven’t even tried, Harry.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why doesn’t the minister bring in a bill that gives him the legal authority instead of just using persuasion?

Mr. S. Smith: He has it under section 17.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, I don’t think in this instance section 17 gives us the full power. I do accept that we should have that authority, and I believe that kind of legislation will appear towards the end of this session for first reading or, if not, at the beginning of the next session.

Mr. S. Smith: You haven’t even tried, Harry; it’s your responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I take issue with that, Mr. Speaker. To say that we haven’t tried, or that I haven’t tried -- and that is a direct quotation of the leader of the Liberal Party -- is just not correct. We have made a considerable effort. He has put on the record that we have tested a well. Not so. We have tested 16 wells and at a considerable number of times. It is that kind of misinformation --

Mr. S. Smith: I didn’t say you tested one well. I never said that. The Star said that.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, indeed he did. That is the inference from his report, that we tested one well. The member says we haven’t tried. Indeed we have.

Mr. S. Smith: I have the results of the ministry’s tests here.

WELFARE RECIPIENTS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services arising out of a statement he made yesterday, which was as wrong a statement as any member of cabinet can make in its reference to welfare recipients.

Mr. Deans: It was also quite inappropriate.

Mr. Cassidy: Now that the minister has been so clearly repudiated by his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services, can the minister say where he got his figure indicating that 80 per cent of the recipients of provincial and municipal assistance could go to work? Can he say whether he intended that children and unemployables should be forced out to work in order to get their welfare cheques? And can he say why he deliberately used phoney statistics in order to back up his claim to make the public feel they are being ripped off by people who are genuinely in need?

Ms. Gigantes: He is a nasty man.

Mr. Havrot: That’s lasagne and you know that.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction on the part of the New Democratic Party whenever any kind of new idea comes along.

Mr. Wildman: That’s the pot calling the kettle black if I ever heard it.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Talk about the reactionaries in this House; the true reactionaries are over there. They are the ones who, every time there is an idea that comes along, the first thing they have to say is: “We can’t do it. We don’t want to hear any new ideas.” That is the kind of thing they are doing.

Some hon. members: New ideas?

Mr. Cassidy: Where did you get your figures from?

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you go out and kick somebody?

Hon. Mr. Walker: The members opposite have read into this all kinds of statements that are not accurate at all. To say that I am proposing child labour is entirely wrong. To say the mothers are going out to work is entirely wrong.

Mr. Cassidy: And you raised it.

Hon. Mr. Walker: If the members opposite would read the speech, they would find it is a lot different from what they are suggesting here this afternoon.

Mr. Breithaupt: They are not sure.

Mr. S. Smith: Only Lorne Henderson in the cabinet is applauding with you, Gordon.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition doesn’t have the floor.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In his speech the Minister of Correctional Services said: “Since the beginning of this year in Ontario 659 people have been placed on community services orders. This is 659 people who might otherwise have served time in a correctional institution.” He went on to say “this concept of making repayment to society is equally applicable to able-bodied welfare recipients.”

My question is, what crime have welfare recipients committed in this province that they should be subject to penal servitude?

Mr. Havrot: What a bunch of nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, that’s exactly what I was saying a moment ago -- the same kind of reaction. The fact of the matter is that there is no connection between a criminal element and welfare recipients.

Mr. McClellan: You’re the one who said there was. You’re the one who made the connection.

Hon. Mr. Walker: And for the honourable member to suggest that there even is --

Mr. Martel: That’s a cheap shot.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The only reason that analogy was used was to show that there is community work that can be done by some people, that it is available and that it is possible to do it. The member is trying to impute motives to me that are just not there. I resent that he would try to do that.

[2:30]

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: You knew exactly what you were doing.

Mr. S. Smith: Your motives are clear enough.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Can the minister answer my initial question which is why did he use phoney statistics to indicate that 80 per cent of welfare recipients could work --

Mr. Turner: That’s not what he said.

Mr. Cassidy: -- when in fact only 12½ per cent of those can work, according to the figures we had today from the Minister of Community and Social Services? Where did he get those figures?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, if the good member would be kind enough to read the speech I think he would find that I did not say that 80 per cent could work --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He cannot read.

Hon. Mr. Walker: -- I merely said that if 80 per cent could work --

Some hon. members: Ah!

Hon. Mr. Walker: -- it would mean something. Read the speech. Let him read the speech and he will find out.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I read the speech, now let the member get a copy of the speech and read it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I resent that the member would come in here and impute these kinds of things to me.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Supplementary: Perhaps if the minister had qualified the clause in that particular part of the question, he would now table the sociological study to back up his proposition that if, because of default of this government, people are out of work for six months, they have lost the ability to work.

Interjections.

Mr. Renwick: Where is the study? Or does the minister want to qualify that?

Mr. Warner: He should never have made the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have a response?

Mr. Warner: Why doesn’t the minister just resign? Get it over with.

Mr. Warner: Totally incompetent.

An hon. member: It’s not funny.

Mr. Martel: Big joke.

FOOD PRICES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about the problem of food prices. Since we were told yesterday --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: This is a turkey talking about turkeys.

Mr. Mattel: A lot of fat little plump ones around.

Mr. Havrot: Not another one of those turkey questions.

Mr. Cassidy: Since we were told yesterday by the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity that profiteering throughout the food industry and the beverage industry has been a cause of the dramatic rise in food prices, and since the minister suggested yesterday that we boycott turkeys if the price seems too high, does he suggest today that we should boycott food entirely?

Interjections.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Did you ever hear anything so stupid?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, having glanced very briefly at that report, it does not mention the word “profiteering,” it talks about the increase spread by processors in this year. There are a number of reasons for that. I am not happy with some of them, but obviously in the field of essentials such as food and beverage on an overall basis, unless he is prepared to walk on water, as he tries to do occasionally, I would suggest that the leader of the New Democratic Party is being entirely facetious when he asks me a question of that calibre.

Mr. M. N. Davison: What are you going to do, Frank?

Mr. Foulds: What are you going to do about protecting the consumer?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since in its submission to the first ministers’ conference the government as a whole indicates that large relative price shocks in food are a major problem that must he contended with, and since the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity has been enthusiastically supported, at least by other ministers within the government, does the minister not think it is time to have the ministry monitor food prices on a regular basis and make this information regularly available to the public?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I always give credit where credit is due. I was hoping the member would ask me that question. I was hoping he would have phrased it in another way so I could have made the announcement, but the answer is yes.

Mr. Foulds: Are you going to?

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Since I heard the minister saying on the radio today that the wholesalers in turkeys had not made much money last year, and they decided to make their money this year, may I ask, in regard to so-called profiteering in food prices, how it is they could make a decision of this kind? Has the minister referred to part V of the Combines Investigation Act, section 32, and asked the federal government to look into possible offences under that particular section?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, people in my office had certain discussions with the people in the office of my federal counterpart today. There was no discussion of any application of the Combines Investigation Act. It had to deal with the question of the processors’ markup. Quite frankly, I haven’t pursued that. If we watch it, perhaps there will be no need for that type of thing, if we watch the prices come down as I expect they will.

I would like to correct the leader of the Liberal Party. I am sure he didn’t like to leave that impression. I don’t get out of that report the word “profiteering.” I want to make that very plain. There is a question here of the wholesaler, whether you want to call him a processor or a wholesaler, who had extremely low margins in 1977, obviously attempting to recoup in 1978.

I know of no definition for profiteering. It has to be taken in relationship to margins last year. I happen to think the sudden squeeze upon turkey because of an artificial market in the 12th month of the year is unwarranted. There are other price spreads by processors that quite frankly are warranted. It depends on the commodity at the time, what happened last year and so forth.

Mr. Breaugh: You can say this and you can say that, but you can’t get away from it.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the food basket which was formerly collected by the Ontario Food Council was never made public, can the minister say precisely what mechanism his ministry has in mind to correct food prices? How will that information be effectively, accurately and promptly made available to consumers on a regular basis?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I haven’t got the exact details of how we intend to replace not only the old food basket, which was done by this ministry in the past, but also some aspects of work that is currently being done by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and which will soon be transferred to us. I haven’t got exact details of how we are going to collect the information. I will tell the member, the information will be collected.

I think the most expedient manner in which to distribute it across the province is in this House when it is meeting, and when it is not meeting, to disseminate it through the media. That’s obviously the way to do it.

The fact of the matter is, if we want an orderly, fair marketplace, without a collectivized society, the balance in the marketplace is a well-informed consumer; and that’s precisely what we are going to do.

POLICE RATING OF JPS

Mr. Stong: I have a question of the Attorney General. Can the minister tell us what circumstances in Ontario contributed to the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges at its annual meeting -- which meeting, by the way, was attended by at least six provincial judges of Ontario -- passing the following resolution: “The Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges is to actively engage in the protection of the independence of the provincial bench and to promote the understanding of the concept that the provincial judges are in fact part of the judicial arm of government and not civil servants”?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not sure I understand the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The question is: What prompted them to say such a thing?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no idea. We are talking about a Canadian association. I am absolutely confident the provincial court judges in this province are quite secure in their independence of the executive arm of the government.

Mr. Sargent: They are all Tories, to start with.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, that’s not so, Eddie. Talk to Albert, he will tell you differently.

Mr. Stong: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister could confirm that it arose out of, perhaps partly, the questionnaire being circulated among the police officers concerning the North York traffic tribunal. The police officers are being asked by Mr. Howard F. Morton, director of the crown law office, to rate the performance of the justices of the peace in that North York traffic tribunal. They are being asked to do this anonymously.

They are being asked to report on such things as follows: “In terms of the police officer: The justice of the peace listened to my evidence; listened, but did not consider; ignored my evidence. The justice of the peace was very biased; neither biased nor impartial; very impartial. The justice of the peace was very friendly; neither friendly nor hostile; very hostile.”

Mr. Speaker: I think the honourable member has quoted sufficiently to indicate his point.

Mr. Stong: Could the minister confirm what use is going to be made of this and whether that tied in with the resolution?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I doubt very much if that had anything to do with the resolution because the justices of the peace are not members of that association to begin with. The sitting justices of the peace in this province operate under the direction of the provincial court judges.

I was not aware of this particular questionnaire. I doubt very much that such a questionnaire would have been circulated without Mr. Morton having discussed it with the chief judge of the criminal division of the provincial court, but I will make inquiries and report back to the honourable member.

Mr. Stong: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister said he would inquire and report back. A new question.

RURAL POLICING

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Solicitor General. As a result of the tragic incident near Thessalon which led to the serious wounding of OPP Constable Phil Duffield and subsequently to the death of Mr. Robert Kehoe and the wounding of his wife, is the minister prepared to institute a policy requiring that two officers be assigned to each OPP cruiser --

Mr. Havrot: This will be good propaganda in your riding when you get back home.

Mr. Wildman: -- on night patrols in rural areas? In answering, could the minister address himself to the fact that in rural areas often the nearest OPP car that could be radioed for assistance is too distant to be able to provide meaningful backup? This apparently was the case when Constable Duffield stopped a suspected stolen car.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I intend to be discussing this tragic occurrence with the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police. If there’s going to be any change of policy I will certainly advise the House accordingly.

Mr. Martel: What is your position?

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: In discussing that with the commissioner, is the minister going to point to the fact that the suspect finally surrendered to the police at a roadblock when he saw that two officers were manning that blockade? Would that not indicate to the minister that the whole incident might have been averted if the suspect’s initial contact with the police had been with two officers rather than Constable Duffield by himself?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m not aware of all of the relevant details surrounding this tragic occurrence.

Mr. Makarchuk: We would think you would find out.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think it wouldn’t be very helpful for me to respond until I am more aware of all the details.

EMPLOYMENT OF HANDICAPPED

Mr. C. Taylor: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Martel: Here we are. He is going to get in the cabinet. Bette, he is after your job.

Mr. C. Taylor: Considering a statement has been attributed to him that he is going to hire physically disabled people in the Liquor Control Board of Ontario stores, when will that program take place and how much will it cost to redesign many of the stores to take care of those people who will be employed there?

Mr. Eakins: Get your application ready.

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, I’m not going to hire anybody. The Liquor Control Board of Ontario is a crown corporation. It’s independent. It has a complete personnel office.

Mr. Breithaupt: You’re just going to tell them what to do.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to tell them what to do.

Mr. Breaugh: That’s beautiful. You already did.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The decision by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario to start a very intensive campaign to provide additional or new job opportunities for the handicapped is a decision by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. It’s a decision that is concurred in by Mr. Bosworth, the chairman of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

Mr. Bosworth has several ideas as to exactly how this can be initiated in the immediate future, such as going to organizations that have provided sheltered workshops for the handicapped for long periods of time, asking them to submit the names of people who were in that sheltered workshop whom they think are now ready if provided an opportunity to enter into part- or full-time employment.

Mr. McClellan: Who are you arguing with, Frank? Who’s the argument with?

Mr. Martel: There is no resistance coming.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If there are problems with such things as washrooms, then yes, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario will have to change the washrooms or provide additional facilities. I would think it behooves the 12th largest corporation in Canada -- albeit a government monopoly -- to do certain things we have always been talking about and to show they can be done. I don’t think there will be any additional costs, quite frankly, because they will be paid the exact same wages and benefits as any other employee either temporary or permanent.

[2:45]

Mr. Sargent: This may be a new gleam of hope here. Would the minister go so far as to say that even a Liberal or an NDP paraplegic could get a job in a liquor store now?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I think I am well known on the other two sides of the House as someone who has never asked what somebody’s political persuasion was.

Mr. Deans: You don’t do the hiring.

Mr. Breithaupt: You don’t do the hiring.

TOURIST CENTRE

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Government Services. In light of the continuing decline in employment opportunities in the town of Fort Erie, can the minister indicate to the Legislature when the ministry will be calling tenders for the construction of a new tourist centre at the entrance to the Peace Bridge, Canada’s largest port of entry?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the honourable member for bringing this to my attention. There will be temporary quarters open at the end of the first quarter of next year. Tenders will be called for the quarters, for the permanent building, at that time and we hope construction will be started by midsummer. The member knows what the construction business is. We will be calling tenders for this building, possibly in March 1979.

Mr. S. Smith: Have you never heard of the Peace Bridge?

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary to the minister: When he is giving consideration to calling these tenders, would he also give consideration to calling tenders for the new courthouse in the city of St. Catharines?

Mr. Speaker: No. That’s not a supplementary.

CHRONIC HOME-CARE PROGRAM

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question of the Minister of Health, concerning the provision of chronic care for the people of Ontario.

We’ve had a great deal of publicity during this session about the provision of chronic care. The fact remains that Gladys Spenler in Wallaceburg still has to pay upwards of $200 a month for the provision of oxygen in her own house. Donald Green remains in an active treatment bed in Scarborough; even though he doesn’t want to be there and we acknowledge that he shouldn’t be there, but there’s no place else to go. According to a coroner’s report from Brampton, a man by the name of Ernest Mason died from an overdose of medication prescribed by a doctor because of poor communication. Finally I guess we have the ultimate, a veteran refused admittance to Sunnybrook Hospital. The man’s name is Douglas Phillips. He was refused admittance to that hospital, supposedly because there was no space available. Yet we all know there are whole wards available there.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, I do.

Mr. Speaker: Would you please put it?

Mr. Breaugh: I’d like to ask the minister how high will the body count have to go before he provides sufficient chronic care services?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think all reasonable members of the House should take exception to that kind of inflammatory statement.

In every instance the member has described the people in question received care. The concern he has that he would like to see chronic home care province-wide is maybe something about which we would all agree, and we look forward to introducing legislation at some point in the future when the money is available to do it.

I take particular exception to the last illustration, when we have an inquest underway which isn’t even completed yet. A lot of information has been bandied about from different sources, but the member has already arrived at the final conclusion. Even the coroner’s jury hasn’t completed its review of the facts and finished hearing arguments to state what happened and to state some recommendations.

The fact is that each year we do add more and more in the way of chronic units, chronic home care and various alternatives to traditional care; but don’t forget that on any given day, while there are a great many people occupying active treatment beds who are chronic patients when they are in those beds they are getting treatment. We would like to see a different mix of the services, but they are getting treatment.

Mr. Breaugh: Would the minister explain to the House how it can be that where he has initiated chronic-care programs the medical practitioner fees are considered part of the OHIP benefit and in other places they’re not? How can that be?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, I didn’t understand the question.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, in the minister’s release of October 6, 1978, announcing a now chronic-care program for Haliburton, Kawartha and the Pine Ridge health unit’s home-care program, a part of the minister’s statement is that the medical practitioner fees are considered part of OHIP benefits. How can it be the case in that instance and not in places where the ministry doesn’t have chronic home-care programs?

Mr. McClellan: Is OHIP universal or not?

Mr. Breaugh: How do you call that universal access?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The practitioner’s fee, if he is making a home call or home visit, are covered across the province. The additional costs involved which, in that case if I remember correctly are in the order of $150,000 or $175,000 for the last quarter of the fiscal year for that health unit, have to do with the other services involved in support of those people who are looked after in their own homes on the chronic home-care program. They are not the physicians costs. Physicians continue to be compensated out of the OHIP plan unless they’re on salary with a hospital or with a health unit.

So it is, in fact, universal, Mr. Speaker. With respect, the member is confused a bit about it.

Mr. Warner: What about those who are left?

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Burlington South with a new question.

Mr. McClellan: It is universal if it is there, but if it is not there it is not universal.

BURLINGTON GO STATION

Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Would the minister bring us up to date on the scheduling of the proposed new GO station on Fairview Avenue in Burlington? When will the construction commence and the new facilities be ready to replace the outdated and inadequate shelter and parking area that presently exists at Brant Street?

Mr. Ruston: It’s the same answer as during rehearsal; it sounds like an election.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe I can give my friend the exact date as to when construction will start or when it will be completed. I can say, however, we have been successful in obtaining the necessary site, which did delay us for some time. We’ve also had some difficult negotiations with the CNR regarding improvements to be made. We attempted to co-operate with Via Canada for the joint use of the proposed new station, but we have been advised now that Via will not be interested in the joint use of the station.

The chairman of TATOA, at a recent meeting, advised me the conclusions have now been arranged as to the track work that has to take place with the CNR. I believe TATOA officials will be meeting with municipal council in the very near future with the thought to show them the final plans. Hopefully the station will be built in 1979.

Mr. Kennedy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: While the minister is checking this out will he determine the status of the modification contracts for the shelters at the Clarkson and Port Credit GO stations to determine when they will be completed?

Mr. Sargent: Have you guys caucused this thing?

Mr. Speaker: That is not supplementary. The original question was very specific.

Mr. Kennedy: It concerns the GO Transit system.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BEAMISH STORES

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, recently the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) asked about Beamish Stores and their apparent takeover by the Giant Tiger chain.

I have been advised that the 22 Beamish Stores in Ontario went into receivership in early August, 1978. Of those 22 stores, two have been closed, one has been sold to an individual, two have been sold to the Giant Tiger chain and 17 have been sold to the Army and Navy Stores chain in Cambridge, Ontario.

Regarding the possibility that employees of the R. A. Beamish Stores Company Limited did not receive severance pay or vacation pay benefits, the member was good enough to forward some information on this matter to employment standards branch officials in my ministry and investigations are currently under way.

OVERTIME PERMITS

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the other day the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) asked several questions regarding overtime work at the General Motors Plant in St. Catharines.

The employment standards branch of my ministry has produced some figures on the average hours of the work of employees at that plant by selecting three employees from each of the plant’s production and maintenance facilities. To do a complete study of hours of work would require a survey of the company’s 7,727 employees.

From this sample it was discovered that the hours of work per week per employee varied from 34 to 55 hours. However, in the last quarter an average of 47 hours per week was worked by these employees. These figures cover the period until the end of September 1978.

The following overtime permits were issued to the company: Following an initial permit for 100 hours, permit 5540 was issued on April 4, 1978 and permit 5558 was issued on May 11, 1978. These permits allowed for work in excess of the legislated 48 hours per week. An audit of the employees’ total excess hours worked since the start of 1978 shows that from 20 hours to a maximum of 275 hours have been worked by individual employees. These figures fall within the limits of the permits.

Regarding other issues raised by the member in a letter to me, now that the ministry’s investigation is complete I am sending a written reply to his question as well. Finally, I might add that the director of the employment standards branch advises me that he is monitoring the overtime situation and will report to me from time to time.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that the security guards at GM in St. Catharines work at least a 60-hour week. Has this been investigated? If not, will the minister investigate it? Is it the policy of the ministry to permit these kinds of hours on a routine basis?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I was not aware of it and it is not routine to allow those kinds of hours. I will take the question as notice and report.

Mr. Martel: Don’t give them permits.

LOTTERIES

Mr. Ruston: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with regard to lotteries. In his licensing of lotteries, can he assure us that all the prizes are given out as stated on each ticket? If they are on a monthly basis, where there are no names on the selling of the ticket, just like Wintario, they don’t give out all the money every month, they keep it until the next month. What does the minister do with a licensed lottery?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is my understanding that the prizes which are drawn have to be given out. All prizes have to be given out. Is the member talking about a draw, or a raffle? I take it from the last part of his question that he is asking that even if the organization’s name isn’t printed on the ticket --

Mr. Ruston: I don’t want to pick one in particular, but I have one here. It’s for a $1,000 a month and so forth. What assurance do we have that each month there is a winning ticket for all three prizes?

Hon. Mr. Drea: There is an accounting that has to be made to the director of the lotteries branch. It has to be reported to him. In addition to that, there is an audit of the organization to show that the prizes were given out.

From time to time, quite frankly, there is some difficulty with the occasional one, but at that moment the director of the lotteries branch and the local police, either the OPP or the municipal police, do move in. On a regular sustained basis, yes, there is a check; just exactly the same as there is to show that the bingo prizes are dispensed in accordance with the licence and the amounts that are put on them. There cannot be a carryover extending beyond certain amounts and so forth. It is all audited.

I would be very glad to put the director of lotteries in touch with the member, if he has concerns about an individual lottery or draw.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. On November 17 in the House, in answer to a question of mine concerning a letter she received from Mr. Dave Butler, president of the Ontario Association of Student Awards Officers, the minister said: “The first inkling I had that student awards officers were disturbed or disrupted in this area was a letter which I received from them, which I first saw yesterday afternoon. I immediately launched an investigation into the entire program.”

I would like to ask the minister how she could have possibly made that statement, when it’s a fact that a weekly newsletter comes out from Mr. Butler and his association that goes to Mr. Clarkson, updating the ministry on OSAP problems, plus the fact there is a weekly meeting that Mr. Butler has with Mr. Clarkson concerning OSAP? How could the minister have made these statements? Is there a problem in the ministry or was the minister not levelling with the Legislature?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: First, I was being entirely honest with the Legislature. Secondly, I don’t think there is a problem in the ministry either.

Mr. Swart: That is routine, is it?

[3:00]

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There were meetings arranged on a regular basis with the student awards officers in order that the ministry and the student awards officers might more effectively work together in sorting out the difficulties which have been perceived in the program.

I still would like the honourable members to know that I was not aware that there was any concerted concern expressed by that association until that letter reached my hands on Thursday of the week before last. That was the first communication which I had had with that association on any direct basis.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: If that is the first the minister knew of the problems with OSAP --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not what I said.

Mr. Cooke: -- how can she possibly say that there is no program of communication when Mr. Clarkson reports to Mr. Kidd who reports to the deputy minister? Is the minister saying that she cannot handle two ministries, and is this not a case for no amalgamation of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities?

Mr. Pope: You always impute motives. Everything has some motive to it. Why don’t you go and have a look at yourselves?

Mr. Warner: We’ll have today’s version. Totally disorganized over there.

Mr. McClellan: And then we will have next week’s version.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, since the honourable member obviously has a severe hearing defect I would be delighted to recommend an audiologist for him. That is not what I said at all.

Mr. Foulds: Give us the name first.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What I said was that the first direct communication that I had had from that association was that letter.

Mr. Martel: Misquoted again.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not being misquoted at all. I am being very direct, as usual.

Mr. McClellan: How come you are always misunderstood?

Mr. Renwick: You said it was the first communication.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That was the first communication which I had received from that association and that is a fact.

Mr. Laughren: You’re not changing your story.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I am not.

Mr. Sweeney: Since that investigation was launched 10 days ago, what have been the results? Secondly, what is the minister doing to prevent this from reoccurring next year, as her awards officers are predicting?

Mr. Warner: It happens every year.

Mr. McClellan: Frank Drea’s never misquoted. Walker’s never misquoted.

Mr. Laughren: Ed Havrot’s never misquoted.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I can report to the House that of the 82,580 applications received to the date November 24, 94 per cent have been processed, and $139,159,516 has been distributed through grants, Canada student loans and Ontario student loans. This afternoon, I think at five o’clock, I am having a meeting with the executive of the student awards officers’ association, which was what I arranged immediately upon receiving their letter.

Mr. McClellan: What are you going to tell them? They will get the next version.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have completed almost all of the investigation to this point and as soon as that is completed I shall report to this House. We are making every effort, and making every kind of activity possible, to ensure that next year there will not be the kind of delay that there has been this year.

Mr. McClellan: Good, we will have another version yet again.

Mr. Cassidy: Every year it is the same situation.

Mr. Speaker: The minister has the answer to a previous question.

Mr. McClellan: Dispense.

Mr. Warner: I hope it is better than the last answer.

APPRENTICE CERTIFICATES

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on November 20 the member for Quinte asked a question which raised the implication that the certification of certain trades, specifically the plumbing trades, was not valid in the town of Oakville, and that the Municipal Act overruled local bylaws which required further work and experience and examinations of local tradesmen.

The Municipal Act, section 383(12)(b) states: “A certificate of qualification referred to in clause (a)” -- that is a certificate of qualification in the trade of plumber--”shall be accepted as sufficient qualification for a licence as a journeyman plumber without further examination.” The same section, however, also permits a municipality to license, regulate and govern plumbing contractors, master plumbers and journeymen. Thus, while a certified plumber can apply for and be given a licence on the basis of his certification, the municipality can still refuse the licence under the terms of the Municipal Act.

Unfortunately, the honourable member was not correct in stating that the Municipal Act overrules local bylaws or that Oakville requires further work experience, but there has been a decision made by the local council that it will license those journeymen within its community.

MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATION

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. I am wondering whether the minister has seen a letter from Dr. Brian Hoffman at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, a letter which is really rather predictable and which outlines at least in this one instance, the serious difficulties that this psychiatrist is experiencing working with the new amendments under the Mental Health Act? In particular, I wonder what the minister is going to say in answering this particular psychiatrist’s question, which reads as follows:

“Should I follow the letter of the law as it relates to the amendments to the Mental Health Act and neglect everything that I have been taught as a physician, or should I use my professional knowledge and skill to help” -- in this case, this particular family -- “but no longer follow the law in Ontario?” How is the minister going to answer those kinds of questions, which seem to be growing with the new amendments?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe I have seen that particular letter yet. Members of my staff have been at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry just in the last five or six days taking part in a seminar to discuss the new act and its application. The member, as one who supported in the act in the Legislature and in committee, will know that critical to the actual application of it is medical judgement. Much more so than the old act, which called for various forms of prediction, this act relies on the judgement of the physician.

My staff has been moving around the province, meeting with psychiatrists and general practitioners on a regular basis so that there is a broader understanding of the new act. We have sent information to every physician on the amendments to the Mental Health Act. I have taken part in a couple of meetings, including one last evening in Hamilton, to discuss it. We are doing everything possible to make sure there is a broad understanding.

I should say, though, that one problem that remains from six months ago, when this matter was being discussed, is the fact that a lot of people have assumed that the old act covered every conceivable situation; it didn’t. In fact, we feel that the new act, as discussed in this House and in committee, is a clearer guide to physicians, both those who are dealing with the public in their offices and those who have to work with the legislation in the psychiatric facilities and psychiatric units.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: To begin with, I want to say the minister knows full well the nature of the support for Bill 19. 1 wouldn’t want him to leave a wrong impression, as I’m sure he wouldn’t.

Will the minister indicate whether he will report back to this House, either at a later date in this session or perhaps in the spring, to let members of this House know what the result of the monitoring process has been, since I think there was a commitment given at the time this was before committee that at some time well into the first year the minister would keep members abreast of any difficulties or the progress of these new amendments?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, I would be glad to. We are putting in place a tracking study of the effects of the legislation so that, particularly as the Ontario Council of Health task force carries out its work in reviewing the Mental Health Act and mental health services, it can benefit from that, as will we; so that, if there is a shortcoming in the legislation, we can be ahead of it with an ongoing tracking rather than having to play catchup ball, as it were, all the time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oakwood with a new question.

Mr. Breaugh: Could I have a supplementary on that one, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Roy: Thank you for trying.

WINTARIO

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Culture and Recreation regarding a statement he made on Thursday last about Wintario.

First of all, I am glad he backtracked on his decision to make the municipalities contribute five per cent of funding to a capital works project.

Now that we know that Wintario is bankrupt -- that is, the amount of money committed by the ministry in grants far exceeds the amount of money that Wintario has generated -- will the minister make a commitment to find out and report to the House as to the extent that the millions of dollars spent or committed as a result of the Deputy Premier opening up the grant gate to the private and, in some cases, profit-making golf and country clubs and yacht clubs contributed to the bankruptcy of Wintario?

Second, is the minister aware that his staff has been advising groups for the past two to three months not to apply for Wintario funding, waiting for his statement in this Legislature?

Mr. Sargent: He’s making a speech.

Mr. Grande: Is he going to consider those groups as duly applied, or is he going to effectively block those groups which were ready to file an application two months ago but on the advice of his ministry staff did not?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I will try to answer to the best of my ability at this point, as many of the questions as have been raised. I believe the member said secondly, but I think actually there were six or seven questions raised there.

In the first instance I would like to say, and I made this point in my statement, that it was never my ministry’s policy and it was never a decision that a municipality had to make a five per cent grant to a non-governmental project before Wintario would match funds. I did say that had been considered, but it has also now been rejected.

Two or three times in the member’s statement he referred to the bankruptcy of Wintario. I would like to say, categorically, that is simply incorrect. I think it would be unfortunate and unfair to many people who are relying on current and future grants from Wintario to assume that Wintario is bankrupt. It is not.

Mr. Conway: That’s from the provincial Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

Hon. Mr. Bath: The decision we have made is a prudent one.

Mr. Breaugh: Balanced payments, that’s where they are taking us.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I also indicated in my statement last week, we will be proceeding on the basis of future priorities in order to determine what gets support and what will not be getting support, and also in order to avoid this possible “state of bankruptcy.”

Perhaps the honourable member opposite would wish to raise a further supplementary here, but I don’t really recall some of the other questions that were raised in that multifaceted one question.

Mr. Speaker: That will be for another day. The oral question period has expired.

[3:15]

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order No. 28 the member for Parkdale has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Housing concerning the Cantrakon project. This matter will be discussed at 10:30 this evening.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 188, An Act to amend the Residential Premises Rent Review Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am introducing this bill to extend the rent review program for one month. As the honourable members are aware landlords are required to give 90 days’ notice of rent increases. With the current legislation set to expire at the end of February the extension is necessary to enable landlords to comply with the law.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved first reading of Bill 189, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: The purpose of the bill is to provide for the appointment of a curator of Queen’s Park. The curator of Queen’s Park will be responsible for advising the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council concerning the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Queen’s Park.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FOREIGN CULTURAL OBJECTS IMMUNITY FROM SEIZURE ACT

Hon. Mr. Baetz moved second reading of Bill 156, An Act to render immune from Seizure Certain Objects of Cultural Significance brought into Ontario for Temporary Display or Exhibition.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, as far as this party is concerned, we are going to be supporting the legislation. However, there are some things I think should he put on the record regarding this legislation and similar legislation that was passed in the House in the province of Manitoba and in the House in the province of Quebec. The United States of America also has similar legislation in order to render immune from seizure certain objects of cultural significance brought into the country for temporary display or exhibition.

I have often wondered why in 1976 the government of Ontario and the people of the province of Ontario had the opportunity to see a display of, as I was told “magnificent proportions.” I am referring to the display from the USSR, the paintings from that collection called the Hermitage Collection. That collection came to the province of Manitoba and was displayed in the province of Manitoba, and was also displayed in the province of Quebec; but for some reason or other it totally bypassed the province of Ontario. I tried to find out the reasons, the motivation behind Ontario not allowing these magnificent works of art to be displayed here in the province for the people of Ontario to see and admire. I found out the reason. The reason, of course, was the minority government of the Premier (Mr. Davis) was very much concerned at that time that the property rights of people in Ontario would be trampled upon.

As a matter of fact he is quoted as saying -- and I would like to find that quote because I think it is a gem of a quote; actually, I don’t have the quote readily available, but I am sure before I finish I will find it. In essence the quote was that this was going to deal a blow to the property rights of the people of Ontario, and therefore he did not introduce, in 1976, legislation to that effect.

I suppose what the Premier did in 1976 was to take a look at the legislation of the province of Manitoba. The particular bill that was discussed was so controversial that the Manitoba Legislature allowed each member to vote according to conscience; and the bill was passed. On the other hand the province of Quebec, because it had a majority government I would assume, passed the legislation in two hours of debate.

One must wonder why, in 1976, this same legislation was a blow to the property rights of the people of Ontario but in 1978 this legislation is no longer a blow to the property rights of the people of Ontario. I think, perhaps, the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) ought to have an answer to that. I suspect, of course, that the motivations are highly political.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the Hermitage paintings came from the Soviet Union. Perhaps there are a lot of people here in the province of Ontario who are friends of the government. The government did not dare to stop the property rights of those people, or their friends, so they would not have recourse to court if they identified a particular art object to be their own.

In this particular instance I wonder how many people will lay claim to the King Tut collection. Therefore it was purely political motivation on the part of government, and that motivation denied the people of Ontario the chance of seeing perhaps the best collection of paintings anywhere in the world.

Mr. Kerrie: I don’t believe that. I can’t share that.

Mr. Grande: I think the government should be answerable for that kind of decision taken in 1976, especially at this time when they bring forward exactly the same kind of legislation. Right now, as far as they’re concerned, it is okay to bring in this legislation.

With these words, pulling that on the record, I wish to say that this party is in favour of this legislation; but we really would have wanted the government to bring in this type of legislation in 1976 so that the people of Ontario would not have been prevented from viewing the paintings of the Hermitage Collection.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, the legislation that’s before us certainly doesn’t require too much debate. It comes at a good time. It comes at a time when there is some cause for concern as it relates to significant collections of artifacts being shown to the people of Ontario. I’m not going to dwell at any length on this. I certainly would make one comment on the suggestion by the member of the socialist party that the people of Ontario were not allowed to see the greatest collection of art in the world. I have to take some exception to that. I can’t believe that we should hold it in that high regard without some personal observation from someone in the art field who probably would be better able to make that kind of assessment.

We’re supporting the bill. It’s very straightforward. It’s going to address itself to the need in this instance and in the future for those kinds of objects and cultural displays being brought to this province without any cause for concern on the part of the people who would have us share the very worthwhile displays that might come to us.

Mr. Foulds: I rise in support of the bill. I’m particularly pleased that the bill does not speak to a specific collection, although it was brought in, as I understand, to meet a particular need in the near future. I’m glad the ministry is establishing this as a principle to be followed in terms of foreign collections of art objects that may be brought to this country for display.

When you get right down to it, almost all collections of archaeological interest that have some valuable statuary, sculpture and paintings do have disputed claims about ownership. The Elgin marbles in the British Museum, for example, are still claimed by the Greek government, probably with some justification -- probably with enormous justification. Nevertheless, we don’t in this jurisdiction, want to get into the kind of a dispute that is basically between two other parties. In other words, we don’t want to become a third party to the dispute. Yet we want, in my view, to allow the citizens of this province the right to view the great art and cultural collections of the world.

I rise to support the bill. I believe that my colleague, the member for Oakwood, has put some very --

Mr. Mancini: Oh he didn’t know what he was talking about.

Mr. Foulds: -- pertinent questions that need answering. I would commend the bill to the Legislature or speedy passage.

Mr. Mancini: Poor speech on behalf of the member for Oakwood

Mr. Kerrio: Gallons of red paint.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there any other honourable member wishing to participate in the debate? If not, the honourable minister.

[3:30]

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I very much appreciate the support which has been expressed for this bill by both opposition parties.

Mr. Mancini: Just trying to help you along.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I frankly feel there is really very little point in regurgitating some of the distant past as to why we didn’t introduce this legislation earlier. I’m also not sure just what the precise reasons were for not introducing the legislation at that time. I’ve heard some comments on it, I’ve heard some more here today.

If at that time our Premier felt that by introducing the measure at that particular time there was a danger of infringing upon the property rights of some of our people, I can only congratulate our Premier for having taken that stand at that particular time.

I do recall there were some real questions at that time. The display in question was the Russian display. I think there were some people living in this country who might have felt they had some rights to claim title to that property. I can only congratulate the Premier for having been sensitive to possible property rights.

I really do believe at this time -- the occasion here being the forthcoming King Tut exhibition -- that there’s very little likelihood that we’ll be finding aunts and uncles and other ancestors or relatives of King Tut coming forward to claim that the property in fact belongs to the family. I would think we certainly don’t have to worry about that.

I do think it is a matter of rejoicing all around that this bill is now to be passed, to become law. As I’m sure many of the members here and others have heard, the King Tut exhibition has attracted tremendous attention in all countries of the world where it has been displayed. It is presently on display in Seattle, where it has drawn record- breaking crowds. It moves next to New York City and from New York City I believe it comes to Toronto. We are scheduled to have it here. This will all be made possible with the passage of this legislation.

We can anticipate the exhibition will come to Ontario in November and December of 1979. I do really think this display is a milestone in cultural history in the province. I do really appreciate the support that the parties opposite are giving us in introducing this legislation at this time.

This point has already been touched on: Under the bill the protection which is afforded a particular foreign exhibition only becomes operative if the Lieutenant Governor in Council determines by order in council that the works or objects are of cultural significance and that their temporary exhibition or display in Ontario would be in the best interests of the people of Ontario. So in a sense this piece of legislation is an omnibus permissive piece of legislation. It will enable the Lieutenant Governor in Council to take specific steps as and when the circumstances indicate they should be taken.

I think that’s about all I would like to say to the measure.

Mr. Foulds: I’m sure glad the Lieutenant- Governor isn’t the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) because she would use the power to censor it.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: No. I think the decisions will be wise ones, if and when they have to be made.

That’s really all I have to say on this piece of legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Baetz moved second reading of Bill 155, An Act to amend the Art Gallery of Ontario Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Bath: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. Before commencing a brief statement about Bill 155, I wish to inform the House that I intend to move three amendments to the bill in the committee of the whole House.

First, I intend to move that section 4(1)(c) of the act, as set out in section 2(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(c) Two persons appointed by the council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, one of whom shall be a person who is both a member of the council of the city of Toronto and a member of the council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.”

Second, I further intend to move that section 2(2) of the bill be struck out and the remaining subsections renumbered accordingly.

Third, I further intend to move that clauses (c) and (e) of the said section 4(3)(a), as set out in section 2(4) of the bill, to be renumbered as section 2(3), be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(c) In the case of a vacancy of a trustee appointed under clause (c) of subsection 1, by appointment of the council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.”

Since I have already arranged to have copies of these three proposed amendments placed in the hands of all members of the House prior to this afternoon’s session, I am sure that all members will be able to follow along.

Bill 155 deals primarily with matters of a general housekeeping nature concerning the day-today administration of the Art Gallery of Ontario, and I believe that the explanatory notes to the bill adequately explain the purposes of this amending legislation.

However, I wish to draw to the attention of the House two important features of the bill.

The first important feature is found in section 2(1) of the bill pursuant to my proposal to amend, whereby the council of the city of Toronto is giving up its two appointments to the board of trustees of the gallery in favour of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

Historically, the city of Toronto has given the gallery annual grants to assist the gallery with its operating expenses. Such financial assistance has been recognized under the existing act by enabling the council of the city of Toronto to appoint two persons to the gallery’s board of trustees.

Recently, the city of Toronto has decided to cease providing the gallery with a direct annual grant. In the past few years, Metro council has substantially increased its support of all the arts in Metro Toronto, including the Art Gallery of Ontario. In 1978, the gallery received a grant of $200,000 from Metro council.

I have been requested by the city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto to amend the act so that Metro council now will appoint two persons to the board of trustees of the gallery. Members will note that the proposed amendment to Bill 155 provides that one of the two Metro council appointees shall be both a member of the council of the city of Toronto and a member of Metro council.

The second important feature of the bill is found in section 3 of the amending legislation, whereby the board of trustees is entitled to conduct a mail ballot of the gallery members on any issue on which members are entitled to vote.

Under this proposed amendment, each of the 17,000 members of the gallery will have the opportunity of voting on issues on which members are entitled to vote without the necessity of either attending a meeting of members or relying on the judgement of another person, through the use of a proxy. The mail ballots will be tabulated and the results announced.

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say at this time other than to request the support of all members of this House for this bill.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, we are going to support this bill in principle. I wonder if at this juncture I should read into the record our amendments or will it be all right if we wait until we go through the bill clause by clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would suggest that the member wait until committee of the whole House.

Mr. Kerrio: Fine. The member for St. George, who has quite an interest and a personal experience as it relates to one of the amendments the minister is suggesting he is going to put, will deal with that particular aspect, so I will not touch too much on that at this juncture. The most significant part of the bill as far as I am concerned is that which addresses itself to the feelings of the 17,000 members of the gallery as it relates to voting their 10 members to the board of trustees. That is one section on which we are going to move an amendment. I am very pleased that in some respects members of the gallery are going to be able to vote on particular matters as well as electing certain of their number to be members of the board.

Going just slightly into the history of the gallery itself, at the outset it was the Art Gallery of Toronto. It subsequently has been funded to a greater degree by the province. These members and the bill see fit to continue to have represented on the board of trustees five members appointed by the college of founders. Ten members are elected from the membership by ballot and then 10 members are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

There has been some talk relating to geographical representation on the board of trustees. I am satisfied that the appointments by the Lieutenant Governor will take those matters into consideration when these appointments are made.

Mr. Wildman: Why not legislate it?

Mr. Kerrio: There seems to be some difficulty because of the fact that there are some 10 meetings a year in drawing from too far a field in order to have good representation. I don’t know if the only way to get around this isn’t the fact that the 17,000 members of the gallery will be able to respond. I hope if our amendment is passed that not only will they be able to vote for the 10 trustee representatives, but will be able to address themselves to some of the very important and significant questions and issues that are raised by the trustees. Given enough time, the membership will then be able to vote and we should have some consensus from across the province.

I don’t think at this juncture I have anything more to say. As I suggested before, section 1 and section 2(1) relating to the representation from Toronto city council and Metro will be discussed by the member for St. George. On that note, I am satisfied with the amendments we are going to put that we can support this bill.

Mr. Grande: I have three amendments, as a matter of fact, which I will be placing in committee of the whole.

Mr. Foulds: That’s if the bill passes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That would be the appropriate place.

Mr. Grande: If the bill passes. First of all, I would like to point out that the New Democratic Party is not going to be supporting this legislation.

Mr. Kerrio: I must be right again.

Mr. Grande: After the short discussion or debate that I am going to involve myself in --

Mr. McClellan: Within your narrow class perspective, you are.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s the best reason in the world.

[3:45]

Mr. Grande: -- I hope that the particular member, the Liberal Party critic for Culture and Recreation, will see fit to vote against this bill, as a matter of fact, and recommend to his caucus that they vote against this bill.

Mr. Ruston: Don’t count on it.

Mr. Roy: You realize that the minute that you vote against, there is an onus for us to go the other way.

Mr. Ruston: That’s enough reason.

Mr. Grande: If that is the case, if you want to be voting continuously with the government, then do so. You have a perfect right to do so.

Mr. Wildman: It is enough to just be called a jerk.

Mr. Nixon: Any time you stand up with them we’ll remind you of it.

Mr. Ruston: Yes, you voted with them the other day.

Mr. Kerrio: We make an assessment of the lesser of two evils.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grande: Let me point out that we have no problem whatsoever in the fact that the city of Toronto is going to be relinquishing the two trustees on the Art Gallery of Ontario and Metropolitan Toronto will have two, with one of those representing the city of Toronto as well. We have no problem whatsoever, since as I understand it in the past years, the city of Toronto contribution to the art gallery has been less and less and Metropolitan Toronto has picked up that tab, to the tune of $200,000 in 1976 I think the minister said. I believe that is not quite correct. However, regardless of that, I would even go so far as to say that the Art Gallery of Ontario is the Art Gallery of Ontario and not the Art Gallery of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Foulds: It should be, but it isn’t.

Mr. Grande: However, the minister feels that little step from having the representatives only from Toronto to having Metropolitan Toronto representatives is a step forward and I agree with him. Nonetheless, I would like to see the art gallery becoming truly the Art Gallery of Ontario, as its name implies.

One of the reasons I am strongly against this particular legislation is the idea or the concept of the board of trustees not having open meetings. I don’t understand why there is this big mystery about the work of the art gallery and the board of trustees. What is it in that board of trustees that they feel compelled to do their business behind closed doors? What is it with that board of trustees that they cannot do their business in openness to the public, having their meetings open to the public so the Art Gallery of Ontario becomes, I don’t want to say a responsible body because I really don’t want to say they are not responsible right now, but certainly there is a particular fear that if we open up the meetings of the board of trustees somehow we cannot do the work we want to do.

What is it about that? I believe fundamentally that those kinds of questions have to be asked. Is it an institution that lives in a democratic society or is it not? I have a distaste for closed meetings of any type. However, there are particular times --

Mrs. Campbell: When public money is involved.

Mr. Grande: -- when in-camera meetings are in order. A particular time when personnel is being discussed, of course, would have to be an in-camera meeting. But at any other time, Mr. Speaker, when the business of the Art Gallery of Ontario is conducted, the trustees should be able to discuss that particular business in an open meeting so that it would precipitate or encourage the participation of the people of Ontario who would like to be at those meetings.

It would be unthinkable, and I think the Minister of Culture and Recreation and the Liberal Party as well would be in agreement, if the boards of education in this province decided that they were going to hold their meetings in camera all the time. It would be unthinkable if a municipal council decided to have all its meetings behind closed doors. Why is it that certain institutions in this province can do that and can do it under legislation and other bodies cannot do it and conduct their meetings in an open, public manner?

Mr. Pope: What about people’s reputations? What about painters’ reputations?

Mr. Grande: As I said, I would hope the Liberal members would see that and would see that it’s moving a little step towards allowing the people of this province to be able to participate, not necessarily in the decision-making process because they would be there as spectators, so to speak, but at least it allows them an involvement in the issues that affect the Art Gallery of Ontario on a daily basis. All the discussion and all the reasoning that somehow we would jeopardize the work of the trustees I think is a red herring and nothing else.

The second amendment I have if it ever gets into committee, and I hope it does not, deals with the regional representation. It is the Art Gallery of Ontario. We should have the trustees, especially the trustees who are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council -- in other words by the cabinet -- reflect a representation of the province of Ontario. The cabinet should make sure those 10 people who are appointed for a three-year term begin to reflect a representation throughout the province of Ontario.

If we take a look at the representation on the last two boards and on the present board, we find that outside of representatives of Toronto and Hamilton and St. Catharines we have nobody else on that board, at least out of those 10 the province appoints. Again, I firmly believe that if it is the Art Gallery of Ontario we must have, especially out of those 10 people who are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, representation from the different parts of the province of Ontario -- be it northern Ontario, eastern Ontario, Windsor, southern Ontario -- and not leave it only within the environs of Metropolitan Toronto and Hamilton.

The last concern I have about this legislation deals with the proxy voting. Again, it appears to me the intent of the legislation is to say to people who are members of the art gallery: “It’s okay. You don’t need to participate in the meetings. We will send you a letter, you will vote on the issue and you will return it to us.” What kind of participation in the decision-making process is that? If 120 members of this Legislature did not participate in the debates of this Legislature, and you, Mr. Speaker, sent a mail ballot to the members wherever they were and said, “This is the issue we are going to be concerning ourselves with today. Do you vote yes or no on this particular issue?” we would certainly not have a Legislature at work. I hope it will never come to that, neither here nor with the Art Gallery of Ontario or any other institution in this province.

I’m talking about fundamental concerns. As the minister pointed out, this legislation before us is nothing but housekeeping. I would say to the minister it is housekeeping, but it is sweeping the dirt under the rug. That’s exactly what this legislation represents.

With those comments, I would hope, once again, the people from the Liberal caucus will think seriously about these three points I have made. They are basic, fundamental points to the workings of any institution and to the workings of any democratic body. I hope they will think seriously about it and vote against this bill.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to enter into this debate, because while this bill may be brought forward as a simple housekeeping bill it has very far reaching ramifications none the less.

Mr. Mancini: Rueben tried to fool us.

Mrs. Campbell: In the first place, the Liberal caucus is opposed to closed meetings on general principles. However, we do believe --

Mr. Nixon: Going to open up our caucus.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Going to open the caucus.

Mr. Roy: Open or not, you would have a hard time fitting in.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Close the lights and take a vote.

Mrs. Campbell: I would trust that the alter ego of the minister of Comsoc would permit me to continue.

We do believe there are certain matters which have traditionally been dealt with in camera. One of them, of course, is personnel. One of them is on a basic issue of property acquisitions and I want to make our point clear. When one comes to the policy of acquiring art for the art gallery, that to me is something which should be open to the public.

I do have a concern, however, if one is discussing an individual piece of art and an individual artist, because I could see some very real damage being done if that kind of thing is conducted in public.

Mr. Foulds: In terms of acquisition.

Mrs. Campbell: In terms of acquisition. There are those traditional areas where we feel there should still be a provision for in-camera discussion.

The other thing that bothers me a bit about the sweeping amendment of open meetings of the board unless this protection is built in is that under the present legislation this board is able to appoint committees, and if it could then avoid the whole effect of the openness of meetings by appointing committees, then I don’t think we are any further ahead. So I would urge that we have the amendment to take care of those traditional in-camera subject matters -- litigation, arbitration, personnel generally and the specifics in a choice of a work of art or a discussion of a specific artist. Other than that, I concur, and I know my colleagues do, in the position taken by the third party. Indeed, it is our position.

As far as the regional appointments are concerned, one of the problems I have is that while I think it is excellent in theory I have been led to believe that at this point in time, without any adequate provision for some kind of assistance in coming perhaps we won’t draw on those people who have to travel great distances to the art galleries for meetings.

Perhaps the art gallery might do what Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at one time did -- and I am glad it was on my recommendation -- hold at least one meeting a year outside of Ottawa. Perhaps that could be worked out for the Art Gallery of Ontario to move at least once a year into other regions to cut down the problems of those having to travel great distances to meetings.

Certainly if we are going to mail out ballots, it is ludicrous that they should be mailing out ballots without sufficient information upon which a person could cast an intelligent vote. There is no question about that in my mind. It seems to me that in these provisions what the government is really suggesting is that we concentrate more power on the so-called executive or board group, which I don’t think is really what should happen. I would think the trustees, who complain often as individuals that we are not educating the public sufficiently, would be very happy to have all of the participation they could get.

[4:00]

I can recall when I served as a member for the city of Toronto on this board and I want to tell you something; I needed an awful lot of education. It was at the time when we were looking at the hamburger as a work of art, we were looking at the Elvis Presley theatre poster as a work of art, and I want you to know that I was ignorant. I couldn’t see any art in either one of them and there were some very dedicated and very fine people who really tried to help me. I don’t think I was convinced on those kinds of exhibits -- or those kinds of purchases, as in one or two cases we did purchase.

But, I think the more we open the art gallery to the public at large, as with travelling exhibits and the rest, the more people have an opportunity for input into what is now the Art Gallery of Ontario.

I now come to a point which bothers me greatly. I think of this government and the title of the party in power as the Progressive Conservatives. You know, Mr. Speaker, there are some things about conservatism with which I am in accord. One of them is the historical or traditional concept of some of the things we have in this province. I must confess that it fills me with anger to note that the minister has come forward and suggested a proposed amendment without even having the courtesy to discuss the matter, either personally or through his staff, with the city of Toronto.

Let me say this, the city of Toronto had the art gallery. It was established as a city of Toronto art gallery. If the city and its citizens had not contributed all these years since 1906 we wouldn’t be debating this art gallery today at all. I think that that traditional kind of link shouldn’t be tossed aside just because Metro is now beginning to participate financially in the operation of this art gallery.

Let me say that the city of Toronto has already appointed its city representative to the art gallery, I’m informed. For the benefit of the members of the government party, I would like you know that my understanding is that it is one Michael Gee, who is not unknown to the government and the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. Cunningham: He’s certainly not missed though.

Mrs. Campbell: Now, it seems to me that it is not really out of keeping that the city of Toronto should have the right to appoint, notwithstanding the fact that I understand this is the last year of the city’s financial participation in the art gallery -- and I must say that I’m very sad that that decision has been made by the city of Toronto.

I think there should be some recognition of the historical quality of the contribution made by the citizens of Toronto to this art gallery. Certainly, for this government to go ahead with an amendment without even speaking to the city is intolerable to me. Perhaps we can have some explanation as to why, once more, the city should be treated so differently from other municipalities across this province.

I did ask the Premier at a luncheon not long ago what was the capital city of this province. Have we changed it? Is there something different now? He said he wasn’t aware of any change being made. So it seems to me it isn’t unfair, at least, to consult with the city before this kind of change is introduced by a minister into this House.

I would hope this does become truly an Ontario art gallery, and that representation comes from all of Ontario. I think there are practical problems if one has to be present at the meetings to effectively cast a vote on a policy decision being made. But certainly not to afford to the members at large an opportunity to understand what it is they are voting on is to me totally and utterly unacceptable.

Mr. Foulds: I find myself in substantial agreement with the member for St. George, and would like to make a couple of comments. I think it is about time we moved the Art Gallery of Ontario into the 20th century.

Mr. Nixon: But not to North Bay.

Mr. Foulds: As a person who comes from northern Ontario and who never had the privilege of seeing an original painting until I was in my twenties, I frankly resent the fact that most of our cultural facilities are centralized in Toronto. I resent the fact that the Art Gallery of Ontario has not yet truly become the Art Gallery of Ontario; that it has not been democratized either in terms of the openness of the meetings or in terms of the access of the people of this province to that collection.

I get the press releases from the Art Gallery of Ontario on a regular basis, and I remember well the first time the Art Gallery of Ontario moved an exhibition outside of the hallowed walls of the actual art gallery. I remember the newspaper headline was something like “The Art Gallery of Ontario Goes on the Road.” Do you know, Mr. Speaker, to where they moved that first exhibition outside the walls of the Art Gallery of Ontario? Did they move it to Brampton, or to Windsor, or to St. Catharines, or even some far-flung place like Peterborough or Ottawa? Heaven forbid that they would send it to Timmins or Thunder Bay or Kenora. Do you know where they moved it to? They moved it north of Bloor Street to Yorkville. Now that seems to me to indicate their attitude of bringing art to the people of Ontario has been in the part very limited.

Mr. Wildman: They were very parochial.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s not fair, Jim. They were headed north.

Mr. Foulds: They were headed north, but they didn’t even get over to Highway 11 on Yonge Street to really go up north. It really was a bit disappointing.

I find the questions of places like the art gallery a difficult one, because they do a difficult job. It is a touchy business to determine what paintings you invest in, what kind of sculpture you invest in. It is a difficult business to choose what your priorities will be in determining to what exhibition you will give priority in an art gallery. These things are a matter of taste. Often it is the avant garde that is sometimes unduly attacked because the avant garde of today may in fact be the traditionalists of 100 years from now. I’m sure that that has been the history of art from the time of Praxiteles to today.

Mr. Wildman: You can define a conservative as someone who worships a dead radical.

Mr. Foulds: It does seem to me, however, that there should be more openness in the determination of the art gallery board.

Since 95 per cent of the funding for the art gallery actually comes from the province in one way or another I was tempted to suggest that it’s about time we brought the art gallery under public control as well as under public ownership. I know the difficulties when we get a minister like the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) who is saying that a certain film cannot be shown in the schools of the province.

Heaven forbid that the Minister of Education should have anything to do with the Art Gallery of Ontario in any direct ministerial responsibility. That’s why I’m so glad we have the present minister. Even though he has attempted to bring pressure on one of his own agencies with regard to that film, I think he has a broader view of art and cultural objects and he has a broader view of legitimate controversy and debate in the art world than does the present Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities.

It would like to recommend to the government and to the minister that two of his agencies do meet, to some extent at least, the requirements and the aims and objectives that have been put forward by my friend and colleague, the member for Oak- wood, and by the member for St. George in terms of some democratization of their decision-making processes. One of those agencies is the Ontario Arts Council which does make a very good attempt at having regional representation and at having representation on its board from a cross-section of the interests that are involved.

I would suggest also that the much-maligned structure of OECA, the Ontario Educational Communications Authority, does have regional committees that have a genuine influence in debate in terms of the policy of the board of that particular agency. I would suggest that that’s the model that the Art Gallery of Ontario must look to. We are disappointed that in this particular bill we have only taken a small step in the right direction. It’s the reason why my colleague from Oakwood recommended to our caucus that we not approve the bill at this time, simply because it doesn’t meet the actual needs of the people of Ontario and it doesn’t meet the legitimate process of decision- making and the legitimate needs of the population out there.

I also would agree with the member for St. George that when one is debating a particular personnel problem or a particular acquisition or matters that have to do with litigation it is legitimate for a committee of the board or the board itself to meet in camera. But I suggest that the principle the board of trustees of the Art Gallery of Ontario should work on is a principle that is worked on by boards of education in this province. As a general principle, the meetings of the boards of education and their trustees are open to the public. When they get into matters that deal with litigation or deal with particular personnel, they meet in camera for that particular item. It seems to me that is a legitimate process.

[4:15]

The other area of the bill I want to discuss with the minister when we get to the clause by clause stage -- and one that I find I am ambivalent on -- is section 3, which is an amendment to the present section 5(a)(iii). What his amendment appears to do is to enable the board to use a mailed ballot. I gather that is somewhat of a response to the controversy last year over the use of proxies. It doesn’t eliminate the use of proxy, as I understand his amendment, neither does it make mandatory the use of the ballot and the suggested amendment by the Liberals, the proper information.

I think we have not yet quite come up with the proper and appropriate mechanism in allowing members of the gallery free access and participation in the decision-making of the board. I certainly look forward to that clause by clause debate.

Having said all those things that are somewhat critical, I would really like to emphasize the importance of regional representation on the board. I think if we had a representative on the board, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, from Timmins or one from Thunder Bay, there would be a greater likelihood that some of the legitimate artists of the north, such as Carl Ray, Norval Morrisseau or Susan Ross, to name a few, would have a better opportunity. There would be more people putting forward arguments in terms of their representation at the Art Gallery of Ontario than presently is the case.

If we have only representation from a relatively small and inbred group of people from within the environs of Toronto, that simply is not good enough. Whenever we get into a particular field, whether it’s art or drama or the legal profession, the narrowing of the net narrows the interests and narrows the horizons.

I suppose what I am suggesting is that the horizons of the Art Gallery of Ontario need to be broadened so we have representatives from the northwest and northeast of this province on that board as well as from the southwest.

I put to you, Mr. Speaker, the business about the costs involved is sheer nonsense. It is legitimate for the board to pay the $160 plane fare for a representative from Thunder Bay or $183 from Dryden, or $124 from Timmins. It is legitimate they pay that once a month for them to come down to Toronto for the meetings. If that is to be the Art Gallery of Ontario, people from all over Ontario, or at least representatives from the regions of Ontario should be at that board making their voices heard. That does happen, I suggest to the Minister of Culture and Recreation, in his other agencies, such as the Ontario Arts Council and the Board of OECA.

I suggest those are not insuperable barriers. This province, as a province, has benefited from the resource wealth of the north, time and time again, for over a century. It is about time some of the benefits of that resource wealth that has gone into things such as the exhibits of the Art Gallery of Ontario be returned to the people of the north and to other areas of the province.

Mr. Nixon: All that uranium art went to New York.

Mr. Foulds: I would suggest that the minister has missed a golden opportunity in this bill to bring the bill and the Art Gallery of Ontario into the 20th century. He has missed an opportunity, which he should have seized with enthusiasm and vigour, to have representation from across the province on the board. He has missed an opportunity to democratize the board of the Art Gallery of Ontario so that its meetings would be open to the public and less open to suspicion.

For those reasons, unless the minister is prepared to bring in the substantial amendments proposed by my colleague the member for Oakwood, we cannot support the bill at this time.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would hate to let a bill dealing with the Art Gallery of Ontario go by without making some comment as a citizen of this province and having taken part with a limited collection.

Mr. Foulds: For a change.

Mr. Deans: Since you are here anyway, you may as well make a statement.

Mr. Roy: I trust, when I talk about art in very limited and very simple terms, that even my colleagues to the left will understand what I am talking about.

Mr. Foulds: We probably understand more than you do, you middle-class snob.

Mr. Deans: Why would you speak in other than limited and simple terms? I don’t recall you speaking in other than limited and simple terms.

Mr. Roy: You see, Mr. Speaker? I’m talking about something as simple as the Art Gallery of Ontario and the past potential leader of the New Democratic Party gets all excited. I don’t know what is going on to get him that way.

Mr. Deans: I’m not getting excited about that.

Mr. Roy: I don’t try to intimidate anyone. I just want to make very limited comments about this.

Mr. Deans: Look, your plane will be leaving in two hours or so; get on with it.

Mr. Roy: Look at him going on.

In any event, I have had occasion to visit the Art Gallery of Ontario.

Mr. Deans: For heaven’s sake, so have I.

Mr. Roy: I want to say to the minister that some of the things I have seen at the art gallery should make us proud of our heritage in this province and how we have been able to accumulate some very fine paintings from very fine artists, not only in this province but from around the world.

I recall an exhibition two or three years ago dealing with how the Art Gallery of Ontario has been able to accumulate what is probably the best collection of not only Moore’s sculptures but also his drawings and graphics before the sculptures took place.

I think somebody -- the directors or people there at the time -- had great foresight to be able to accumulate such wealth and such fine art, because there was not universal approval of some of his work.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall the great division within the city of Toronto when the former mayor of the city acquired a sculpture to be placed on the front of city hall and the great debate that took place on that occasion.

The foresight of the individuals involved in seeing the merit in acquiring that type of art, and of the Art Gallery of Ontario in acquiring possibly the best collection in the world from such a renowned artist, who now is universally accepted, is something to be proud of in this province.

I have also had occasion at different times to see expositions of artists such as the Group of Seven and others.

I do want to say that I was bothered by some of the comments made here this afternoon in relation to meetings of members of the art gallery. There was some suggestion by the member for Oakwood -- and I think my colleague from St. George mentioned something about this -- that as a general principle we want meetings to be open. This is a public institution; the public has a right to know what is going on. I think anyone involved in that type of enterprise who has the best interests of the gallery and, in fact, the best interests of the heritage of this province at heart, must realize that all of these meetings cannot be open all of the time.

There are discussions that take place, whether they affect personnel or artists or otherwise, which would be impractical and, in fact, would be very negative if this type of discussion took place publicly. In fact, if it was public sometimes decisions, because of their repercussions out there in the public, directors or people participating could not express an objective interest at the time for fear of having their comments reported, for fear of doing damage to either individuals who are dealing with personnel or individual artists.

Take, for example, if it was known that the Art Gallery of Ontario was interested in any particular artist; the fact that the Art Gallery of Ontario, which has acquired certain prestige, will acquire the works of a particular artist can affect the market. It can affect the market right across the country for that particular art. Reciprocally, if the Art Gallery of Ontario and some of the directors, people knowledgeable in the field, in discussing the works of a particular artist decide that a certain artist has no value, they feel that his work does not warrant or merit exposition in the art gallery, again that can have a negative effect not only on the sale of his works but, in fact, on his reputation right across the country.

We in the Liberal Party feel that the bill warrants approval and support. My colleague from Niagara Falls is discussing presenting an amendment but we, having discussed this matter, have some reservation about saying just holus-holus that all meetings are open. What would happen, in fact. is that it could not work. I say to some of my colleagues that if we were to open our caucuses to the public, I think we would run into a problem as well.

Looking at the amendments proposed in Bill 155, we are in favour of the bill. My colleagues will be discussing a proposed amendment which we think is a workable proposition. I am sorry to say that not all our colleagues in the Legislature have an appreciation of the problem that may be caused if, for instance, it was written into law that all meetings were public. I think their motivation may have some merit, but the result, in my opinion, would make it unfavourable for an institution which is slowly but surely acquiring a very fine reputation in this province.

From what I have been able to observe, I think we are arriving at a point where the Art Gallery of Ontario does reflect a gallery that has works of arts that reflect quality not only for artists in this province or country but across the world.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Niagara Falls has spoken.

Mr. Kerrio: This is for clarification.

Mr. Speaker: This is second reading.

Mr. McClellan: No questions on second reading.

Mr. Foulds: You can’t speak on second reading.

Mr. Kerrio: I will present the amendments when we have third reading.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to second reading of this bill? If not, the Minister of Culture and Recreation.

[4:30]

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I am assuming that when we get to clause-by-clause we will have an opportunity to address some of these points in greater detail. I would first of all like to say that one of my really deep concerns is that the bill with the proposed amendments, as has been pointed out by the opposition parties, would be really something more than a housekeeping bill. I think particularly the question of open meetings, the other question of regional representation, mailed ballots -- the amendments in those regards would really make this more than a housekeeping bill. That is what we started out having, a housekeeping bill; we make no apologies for that.

I personally would be very deeply concerned and troubled, and would plead for some understanding from the members opposite, if we were to impose upon the trustees and the members of the Art Gallery of Ontario some measures which would not be wise measures. I would be concerned about that, because frankly we have not consulted in any great detail with the trustees about the question of open meetings nor the question dealing with regional representation as has been indicated will be coming in the amendment from the third party. So that is my initial concern -- that we get into something here which goes far beyond this being a housekeeping measure.

Mr. Foulds: You can’t introduce just housekeeping measures.

Mr. Wildman: Will you please designate certain days as housekeeping days?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The other question was raised by the NDP representative, who said, “What is really the difference? Why shouldn’t we open up the Art Gallery of Ontario? Let the general public see what is going on there.”

Mr. Wildman: Fresh air.

Mr. Cunningham: They only see what goes on in cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: “What is the difference?” This was the question asked by the NDP. “What is the difference between the Art Gallery of Ontario and the board of education?”

Mr. Foulds: Tell us.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Gentlemen, I suggest there is a fundamental difference.

Mr. Foulds: Tell us.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The Art Gallery of Ontario is directed by volunteers who give freely of their time --

Mr. McClellan: They are not elected.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- some of whom are appointed, some of whom are elected.

Mr. McClellan: As opposed to democratically elected trustees.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: They are giving of their services without charge. So I think there is a very fundamental difference.

Mr. Foulds: Just because they give it free they should not be accountable when public funds are at stake?

Mr. McClellan: Whatever happened to accountability? Don’t you believe in accountability? That is ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I have been told that most of the board of trustees contribute as much as three and four days of their time to the work of the art gallery; a very substantial contribution when you recognize some of the outstanding people of Ontario who are serving, and have served for a long time on that board. To simply say, as has been suggested here, that we can pay their way to come from Timmins, or pay their way from Ottawa or from Lambeth or wherever they come from --

Mr. Foulds: Thunder Bay, Kenora.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Thunder Bay, or Ottawa -- I would suggest that in most of these cases, as I look at the names, the cost of their transportation to and from Toronto in that day is nothing compared to the lost income these people would have if they were to charge for services rendered, or for income lost.

Mr. Foulds: They give it voluntarily.

Mr. Wildman: It is an elitist group. Get some workers on the board.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for Port Arthur has had his say on this bill.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I would like to speak to this further when we get into clause by clause, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Grande: As long as you keep that attitude, art will always remain where it is now.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: But certainly, I think we have to very seriously consider the difference -- and there is a fundamental difference here. Even though it gets substantial support from the province and from the municipality of Toronto and other public bodies, this is still essentially a voluntary organization --

Mr. Foulds: So are the boards of OECA and the provincial arts council.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- and I think that makes all the difference in the world.

I also think as has been pointed out by members of the Liberal Party and as two or three of their speakers have indicated, that if we were suddenly, through an act of this Legislature, to open up and to expose the meetings to the general public --

Mr. Foulds: Expose?

Mr. McClellan: Expose? What goes on in those meetings?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- at least two or three things would happen. Number one, in all likelihood one would find that some of those people who have been elected or have agreed to serve and are serving as volunteers would resign.

Ms. Bryden: Why?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Unlike those of us who come to this House who are elected, who lay our heads on the line and who may wake up any morning reading headlines which severely criticize us or which report in a great and flagrant manner who we have been fighting or debating with friends of ours or members opposite, these people who serve in this kind of capacity in the Art Gallery of Ontario just don’t want to be subjected to that kind of publicity.

Mr. McClellan: They’re too refined.

Mr. Foulds: Are they such shrinking violets?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Frankly, they would leave, and the Art Gallery of Ontario would be a lot poorer for it and the people of Ontario would be a lot poorer for it.

Mr. Foulds: How many left after the big controversy last year?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: There is another problem with this kind of sudden exposure -- and that is what we are proposing here by suddenly telling them they must open their meetings --

Mr. Germa: It’s called fresh air.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- as has been suggested over here. Do members know what would happen?

Mr. McClellan: This is really incredible. In your CCSD days were your board meetings closed?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: This board deals with matters relating to personnel. This board deals with matters relating to acquisition of art and the sale of art. This board is a working board. It meets nine times a year. If suddenly everything done at those board meetings would be public, one would find the agendas would change overnight.

Mr. Grande: They would refuse to meet.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: All the important decisions would be made by the executive committee and the officers for fear that this would create unnecessary publicity.

Mr. Foulds: Are you indicating that all of those gentlemen are unsavory?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: What the members opposite are attempting to do here is to democratize, to expand public participation and greater public input into the decision-making process in the Art Gallery of Ontario.

Mr. Martel: Right on.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I can tell the members they would have the opposite effect.

Mr. Foulds: That’s not very much of a vote of confidence in the board.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The agenda of the board -- and it has already been suggested -- would change very drastically. I suspect the board meetings would become largely a pro forma exercise and we would have gained nothing by it.

Mr. Germs: Shame on the board members.

Mr. Grande: And those are the pillars of Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: You are not giving them a very vigorous defence. Come on, defend them more vigorously.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Another thing I suspect is that if members wish to have all the discussions that take place in the board of trustees’ meeting at the art gallery publicized, I would guarantee that inside of several months it would become a very politicized body.

Mr. Germs: It is now.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The members opposite have said many times, and so have we, that we want to keep at arm’s length from these agencies, whether it’s the Ontario Arts Council or whether it’s the Art Gallery of Ontario. I frankly don’t know and I don’t want to know what discussion or what factors went into a decision to buy a certain piece of art or not to buy it.

Mr. Foulds: We accept the argument of the member for St. George.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I don’t think that it is necessarily in the best interest of this House to know that. If it is, then I can see the day coming very quickly when I would be asked to defend the purchase of what somebody over there might regard as a foolish piece of art. We would get into these kinds of discussions and these kinds of debates in this House when it is really none of our business.

Mr. Handleman: Remember Elie’s kids.

Mr. Martel: That’s right. Yes, I remember Riopelle. It still looks like a bunch of spaghetti. I wouldn’t even show that.

Mr. Grande: You weren’t asked to defend them here.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I feel that the people who have been appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to serve on that board of trustees, those who have been elected by the membership of the Art Gallery of Ontario and those who have been appointed by the founders in aggregate are an outstanding group of Ontarians.

Mr. Germa: Tories.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Surely we should have enough confidence in these people to say --

Mr. Grande: You don’t.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- to them, “You make your decision without the whole wide world looking in on it, make a wise decision on our behalf and we have some confidence and some trust in you.”

Mr. Foulds: Not the whole wide world, just the people of Ontario. We are not yet the universe.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: On the question of regional representation, I think all of us would agree that it is the Art Gallery of Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: It should be.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: It is and it is increasingly so. When one takes a look at all of the exhibitions that are going on, the member for Port Arthur should know that 30 per cent of the extension services and exhibitions do go to Northern Ontario.

Mr. Germs: About time.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: There is an increasing amount of this. We have no problem at all with the proposal that there should be some kind of regional representation on the board of trustees, especially with the members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. To some degree, that has happened now.

Mr. Foulds: Is anyone from northern Ontario on it?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: At the moment there is not. There is from eastern Ontario.

Mr. Martel: That is quite a different story.

Mr. Handleman: That’s just as good.

Mr. Martel: I mean from the boondocks.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: If members want to introduce an amendment which would state in a general way that we should take into account or keep an eye on regional representation, I don’t think we would have any great problem with that. Once again, I think we should keep in mind that we must also be practical and that we must get people who can attend these nine meetings a year. Don’t for goodness sake, appoint someone from Port Arthur just because Port Arthur is worthy of a representative on the board.

Mr. Foulds: From Thunder Bay or Kenora. It is common sense. The minister is just setting up a straw man -- pardon me, straw person.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- but who is a person who simply doesn’t have the time to attend.

We would have no great problem with that.

These are some of the very general comments I wish to make before we get into the clause by clause. I really am concerned that this bill, having started really as a housekeeping bill, could in fact turn into something that is far more sweeping and has far greater implications for the Art Gallery of Ontario. I am glad to hear from members -- I think the member for Ottawa East and others have said it -- the Art Gallery of Ontario is an excellent organization. I think we are all very proud of it.

The very fact that the King Tut collection is coming here is another indication and another real sign that the Art Gallery of Ontario has worldwide prestige. It is doing just a tremendous job. There is the fact that the Art Gallery of Ontario was able to raise $26 million and was able to complete its tremendous building expansion program. It is now fully paid for, thanks partly to the grants from this government and from local government, but thanks particularly to hundreds of people who have devoted all kinds of time as trustees of the board and to the 17,000 members of the Art Gallery of Ontario.

I would just plead that we do not introduce something here that will and could stymie or destroy what has been really an excellent organization.

[4:45]

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Baetz’s motion for second reading of Bill 155, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Ashe, Baetz, Belanger, Bennett, Bernier, Blundy, Bradley, Breithaupt, Brunelle, Campbell, Conway, Cunningham, Cureatz, Drea, Eakins, Elgie, Epp, Gaunt, Gregory, Haggerty, Handleman, Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, Jones Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Lane, Leluk, MacBeth, Maeck, McCaffrey, McCague, McNeil B. Newman, Norton, O’Neil, Peterson, T. P. Reid, Rowe, Roy, Ruston, Sargent, Scrivener, G. E. Smith, Stephenson, Sterling, Stong, G. Taylor, J. A. Taylor, Turner, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Williams, Worton, Yakabuski -- 61.

Nays

Bryden, Cassidy, Cooke, M. Davidson, Deans, Dukszta, Foulds, Germa, Gigantes, Grande, Lawlor, Lupusella, Makarchuk, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Renwick, Swart, Warner, Wildman, Young -- 21.

Ayes 61; nays 21.

Ordered for committee of the whole.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before calling the next order, I couldn’t let the opportunity go by without welcoming to the House after such a resounding government victory the former member from St. Joseph’s Island, Mr. Gilbertson.

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McCague moved second reading of Bill 173, An Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, on November 9 I made a statement in the House preparatory to the introduction of Bill 173 later that day. In that statement, and in my earlier statement on November 7 dealing with the resolution of the Samuel Johnston case, I dealt with the circumstances giving rise to the need for this bill and to the objectives of the bill. At this time, I should simply like to remind the members that the wording of the proposed amendment to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act has been based on a reconciliation of two principles.

There should be an absolute minimum of restrictions on the entitlement of an employee to a full and independent hearing on a grievance arising out of a disciplinary matter. There is a principle which the government, and I think every member of this House, accepts. At the same time, where the disciplinary matter involves a third party who is entrusted to the care of the government facility, there must be an assurance to the public that an employee who is found --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, there are a number of private conversations. Please keep them to a minimum.

Hon. Mr. McCague: -- to have committed an improper act as defined in this bill will not be returned to a position in direct care.

Honourable members will know that there has been a good deal of public concern about this whole question. In particular, the government has received representations from the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded. I have given an assurance that the views of the association will be discussed during the consideration of this bill.

In my statement of November 7, I recognized the co-operation that the government received from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union in resolving the Samuel Johnston case. I want to take this opportunity to assure the House that the drafting of this bill has been done in full consultation with the union. I wish to thank the union for their co-operation and, at the same time, to thank the opposition parties for the understanding and co-operation which they have extended to me in the discussions which preceded the tabling of the bill.

In committee I will be proposing an amendment which would include an observation and detention home under the Provincial Courts Act along with the other facilities listed.

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, during the committee stage we will be proposing an amendment to section 1, moving that section 18(3)(a) of the act --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may be more appropriate to move it at that time; in fact, it will be.

Mr. Roy: He can talk about it now.

Mr. O’Neil: I would like to say a word on it, if I may. As I say, we will be moving that section 18(3)(a) of the act, as contained in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out all the words after “facility.”

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member please speak to the principle of the bill before him?

Mr. McClellan: He doesn’t know what the principle is.

Mr. Martel: He is so anxious to penalize the people that he can’t wait.

Mr. McClellan: I am very happy to state our support for the amendment to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

Mr. Conway: Conflict of interest. As a former civil servant, you are disqualified.

Mr. McClellan: This amendment represents a solution to one of the most difficult problems that has been before this Legislature in a long time, the problems represented in the Johnston case.

On the one hand, we had the obligation to protect inmates of provincial facilities, including institutions for the mentally retarded, from abuse. On the other hand, we had the problem of maintaining the integrity of the grievance arbitration process in the public sector.

I think all the parties who participated in the negotiations and in the reconciliation that resulted in a solution to the Johnston case are again to be congratulated.

Frankly, as reluctant as I am to compliment the government, I think this amendment represents a real accomplishment. The government is to be congratulated on it.

I would like to say to my colleagues in the Liberal Party that this amendment represents, as the minister said, a reconciliation of some very difficult and, at one point, almost irreconcilable differences.

Mr. Stong: Stick-handling.

Mr. McClellan: The member for York Centre says it was stick-handling. I don’t think it was stick-handling. I think it was a piece of legislative wisdom in finding a solution that protects the patients from abuse and at the same time protects the integrity of the public-sector arbitration process.

Mr. Stong: It deserves all the priorities.

Mr. Worton: You have to admit that wisdom is rare.

Mr. McClellan: I say to my friends in the Liberal Party that I don’t think that they ought to move to amend the legislation. We will have a chance to discuss that in clause by clause. But the bill as it has been produced is the product of a process of negotiation between a good many parties, including representatives of the public sector union, OPSEU, in this province.

[5:15]

Mr. Roy: That doesn’t matter. We have flexibility. As members of the Legislature we represent the public.

Mr. McClellan: I think it is important to understand that there was a process of consultation and discussion with respect to developing a statute which would maintain the integrity of public sector grievance procedures, and public sector arbitration, and at the same time deal with the problem that the Johnston case represented.

This amendment is that accomplishment, that balance between conflicting agreements. I say very strongly, and with some urgency, Mr. Speaker, that I don’t think it is appropriate to play around with the public sector arbitration process. You are playing Russian roulette.

Mr. Conway: You have never played it. You have never played politics with anything, have you?

Mr. McClellan: One is playing Russian roulette when one fools around with the public sector grievance process in this province, and one is playing Russian roulette when one plays around with the public sector arbitration process; and we shouldn’t play around, Mr. Speaker.

I think that the intention of the statute as it is written is crystal clear. That the grievance settlement board should not have the remedy available to it of restoring a person who has abused the inmate of a provincial facility to patient care work. But they will retain the remedy of restoring a person, in the language of the statute, to employment in another substantially equivalent position, but in a position which does not involve patient care work.

I don’t understand why there is a sense of need to change that. I think it is perfectly adequate and perfectly clear that the Grievance Settlement Board will still be able to have available to it a remedy in arbitration cases, and that remedy should be maintained. But it should also spell out clearly the courses open to the grievance settlement board in an arbitration case; there should be no ambiguity about it. As I said, we will discuss this more thoroughly when we get to the clause by clause, but I would reiterate that we intend to support this amendment as it stands, and I hope that it is passed and supported unanimously as it stands.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on this bill. The only reason I do so is because I had such great concern at an earlier time in this House when the Minister of Community and Social Services brought in a bill called Bill 154, a bill I had very serious reservations about; the whole process that was involved in this legislation. I may say that we on this side are extremely pleased that Bill 154 was withdrawn.

When looking at Bill 173, we know the difficulties of the two conflicting principles. The rights of people working as crown employees were gained traditionally and they want them protected by the Grievance Settlement Board traditionally. At the same time, a very important principle is that be it inmates in institutions or patients within certain other institutions, they are entitled to a certain amount of protection. When these inmates or these patients are abused by some employees, I think we all have the natural reaction that this becomes totally intolerable.

The normal reaction -- and I don’t think it’s a knee-jerk reaction -- of the public is that when one gets involved in the sort of activity that we have seen in the case of Samuel Johnston, that individual shouldn’t be dealing with those patients any more. Those of us who were not all that familiar with the process couldn’t help but deplore the situation where he had been convicted by the courts and apparently under the Grievance Settlement Board’s ruling was given back his position.

Having said this, and I think having expressed the concerns many of us have, we in this Legislature -- and I for one, no matter what the party lines might have been on this issue -- could never have supported a bill like Bill 154, a bill which was directed at one individual, a bill which said retroactively that certain proceedings were no longer valid, which said that a certain decision of a board was no longer valid. I can understand the motivation on the part of the minister to have brought forward that type of legislation, but for those of us who believe in the human rights and civil rights involved in that sort of an issue, then the issue and the principle become far more important than the individual case.

This is why I am pleased to see that in the future we have in Bill 173 the flexibility that is going to be necessary. But to have gone back to what was intended by the minister in Bill 154 was a principle that many of us found most abhorrent.

Mr. McClellan: Some of us did.

Mr. Roy: I personally could not have supported that type of legislation, even though the minister would have had the support of 90 per cent of the public, because the issue, the principle of civil rights, the question of retroactivity, was far too abhorrent for people who really believe that we should never get involved in that sort of process.

Having said this, we are certainly pleased that a compromise was worked out and that now we are discussing Bill 173. I must say, looking at the bill, that even on the basis of this legislation some of my colleagues in caucus have expressed certain reservations, even about this bill. My colleague has mentioned that we may be bringing forward an amendment.

Our concern is as fellows. It’s difficult for us and I think it’s difficult for the members of the public to understand that once you get into a situation where the court, or in this particular case the Grievance Settlement Board, finds that an employee who works in a facility “has applied force to a resident in a facility, except the minimum force” -- in other words, applies excess force -- or “has sexually molested a resident in the facility,” the normal reaction when that takes place in relation to a resident of a facility is that that person should no longer be working. Never mind transferring him elsewhere; he should no longer be working. The employer should have that right, which is a right I think most members of the public would accept. If someone goes that far in relation to a resident, you say, “You’re fired. That’s it. We don’t think you should be employed in the services of the government.” The employer should have that right.

We are concerned that once the board has made that decision that in fact has taken place; we’re not talking about speculation or anything else. I take it the board hears evidence, has a right to call witnesses and so on, and makes the decision that there has been excess force used in a particular case. We have some concern that the board can still turn around and “provide for the employment of the employee in another substantially equivalent position.” There is a problem there. I think most people we represent have some difficulty understanding that if an employee is involved in that sort of activity, the worst he can get is that he may be transferred to another job.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It’s not the worst; it’s the least.

Mr. Roy: I think those of us representing the public have some concern. What we’re saying basically is that we don’t feel that the latter part of section 1 of this particular amendment is really necessary. We think the board has that flexibility within the act now.

If the general process takes place, as it did in the Johnston case, generally speaking you have a criminal trial and at that point a decision is made, and then it goes another step further; it comes before the grievance board. But if you had a situation where two tribunals came to the conclusion that there was excessive force, that there was molestation of a resident by an employee, then at that point, why should the employee just be transferred?

The employer should certainly have the right to say, “Look, I think this individual’s employment is terminated.” That is our concern. That is the concern that many of us have about the legislation.

The reason we take that approach and feel we can come down hard on that position is that the rules are set up for the future. We are not going backwards. We are not saying, “What you did last week we feel you should be punished for.” That is what we found abhorrent about Bill 154. We are setting the rules down for the future. We are saying basically that the latter part of that section is not necessary because it exists in the act now. The board does have that discretion and it is not necessary in this legislation.

We certainly wouldn’t want to unduly emphasize the principle, that if one is found to have used excessive force, to have sexually molested someone, that what happens to him is he leaves that job and gets another equivalent job in the government. We see some conflict about that approach. We put it to the minister whether that is necessary in this legislation.

I have listened to the member for Bellwoods who seems to say to us that members of the Liberal Party shouldn’t touch this bill at all because this was a compromise agreement. We were never party to it. As members of the Legislature, as legislation comes forward, it is our duty to look at it and as elected members it is our duty to respond objectively to what we feel is in the best interests of the citizens of this province. To be told that we shouldn’t touch a piece of legislation, I find somewhat presumptuous of the whole process. That is not how the process works.

I am sure the member for Bellwoods didn’t mean this. But he is one who has participated in bills here. He has had amendments put forward. A couple of weeks ago in fact, we supported one of his amendments. I think he would have been somewhat annoyed if someone turned to him and said, “Look, don’t touch that bill. We think the bill is in the best interests of people of the province and you shouldn’t tamper with it. This is a basic civil right. It is an agreement we have arrived at and you shouldn’t tamper with this bill.”

I am sure the member’s connotation did not have the connotation we see coming from the other side sometimes -- a bit of blackmail, “Look, don’t touch it or we won’t proceed with the bill.” I am sure the member didn’t mean that.

Certainly those of us who look at legislation, who are not privy to any agreement made by someone outside this Legislature, are entitled to look at a bill, to study it, to discuss it in caucus and to propose amendments we feel best reflect objectively, not only our conscience, but the people we represent.

The member for Quinte, when he talked about the amendment, had this in mind. He objectively proposed something which he felt would make this bill, or would make the principle of the amendment as proposed, something reasonable and acceptable to the public and equitable in all the circumstances.

So, Mr. Speaker, certainly we are in support of the bill in principle and I can say again, I am very pleased to see that the issue did not come down to a vote on Bill 154.

I just wonder if my colleagues to the left, who I am sure were involved with the conflicting principle, had any reservations. I didn’t hear anyone from that side say too much, but I for one would have had serious reservations. I shouldn’t say I only had serious reservations, there was no doubt in my mind that I could not have supported a bill which dealt retroactively with one specific individual in this province. It would have been a terrible precedent for this Legislature and I am pleased that, by having Bill 173, we were able to avoid that problem.

[5:30]

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. But I must confess that I am somewhat sympathetic with the view that it is a rather faint-hearted expression in dealing with situations which may be very serious indeed.

Remember that the situations contemplated by this amendment are those which exhibit unnecessary physical force and sexual molestation. I would suggest that both of those would give grounds for criminal proceedings. That being so, the authority provided by the proposed legislation would permit the grievance board to find employment of a similar nature, and also in terms of appropriate reward, in the facility but not in the same setting. Then that person who has conducted himself or herself in such a fashion would be removed from that working relationship with those particular residents in the facility. But nevertheless he or she would be protected in an economic sense.

What really troubles me, Mr. Speaker, is that we see an evolution of loss of direction and authority over crown employees in this province. Now there’s a ministerial responsibility and I certainly sympathize with the minister involved. I will with any minister of the crown. When one has a ministerial responsibility, one must have some ministerial authority. If there’s going to be an accusation and a condemnation of a minister for not taking a certain step, but the power, the legislative authority to rectify that situation is not provided, then it becomes an intolerable situation.

That’s what grieves me, in terms of what really is happening. We have all heard and, as a government have been accused, Mr. Speaker, as you very well know, of having people in ministries, at very high salaries, sharpening pencils because we didn’t know what to do with them. Because you can’t fire anybody and that type of job security, I suggest, is inappropriate to any government.

Mr. McClellan: That could have been what hauled you into court, Jimmy.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: No, no.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: On the contrary, I may not agree with the administrative steps -- if I have in mind the situation the honourable member has in mind -- that were in fact taken. But what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that you can tie the hands of the employer to legislation -- in this case, the government responsible -- so that you place a government that is truly representative of the people of this province in a position where it can’t control its own destiny because of the job security --

Mr. McClellan: They have to deal fairly with their employees. What’s wrong with that?

Mr. Lawlor: The government can’t control its own destiny.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- of employees who may very well be guilty of moral turpitude.

Now as I understand it, and the member for Lakeshore would know very well, being a very keen student of the law, that moral turpitude, in common law, is a cause for dismissal.

Mr. Laughren: What does that prove?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It’s dismissal for reason and, therefore, in common law would provide grounds for the dismissal of an employee. Surely someone who has sexually molested a resident in a facility of this province is guilty of moral turpitude, at least. So while I think the legislation is directionally correct, as many of my friends across the floor believe, I do want to express a deep concern that we must not lose control and direction of government employees so they can go in steps or directions other than government policy.

While I support the bill, I feel it still doesn’t go as far as it might, and in that regard is somewhat faint-hearted. But I appreciate the reasons for treading gently at this time.

Mr. Stong: Very briefly, I rise in support of the principle of the bill as presented. But I, too, have the same reservations about this as the member for Prince Edward-Lennox and my colleague from Ottawa East.

As the former Bill 154 was presented, my colleague covered that very generally but very carefully as well. I agree with his comments about what it purported to do; basically, erode the fibre of our system of justice as we know it. In other words, it took away the rights of an individual by retroactive legislation.

That is exactly what that bill purported to do, and in that sense it was unacceptable. What has been achieved in Bill 173 is a very neat balancing of rights and perhaps priorities. I must tip my hat to the responsible actions and the collective wisdom, I suppose, of the members of the union and the members of the ministry, who obviously have arrived at and preserved the integrity of our system, which is based on the freedom of the individual and the dignity of the individual, as well as the protection of the rights of the individual. That has, in fact, been accomplished here.

However, my real reservation arises out of the act in the sense that it sets down at the most, a guarantee, and at the least, a guideline for the grievance board. In the event someone does breach the actions described in this act and does impose excessive force, the grievance board can be guided by the very last part of section 1 of this bill. This states: “The board may provide for the employment of the employee in another substantially equivalent position.”

It seems to me that we must reserve some order and some strength in management. We should also unfetter the discretion of the grievance board as it is found in section 18 of the present act. I might say that this bill, as it is written up now, provides us with a method whereby a kick in the head to a mentally retarded patient would guarantee a lateral transfer, or set up a guideline for a lateral transfer.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That’s not so. It doesn’t deter it at all.

Hon. Mr. McCague: That’s not right.

Mr. Stong: You are talking about an equivalent position.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, but you are deliberately -- maybe not deliberately, but you are misconstruing it. I have to be careful about using that word “deliberate.”

Mr. Stong: It is open to the board, and it seems to me that the board’s discretion is fettered in this sense. I would think that the board’s discretion ought not to be fettered, any more than it is under the present section of the act. It should be left as it is --

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is not true. It is not fettered.

Mr. Stong: -- so that if the board comes to the decision that this person does not deserve a lateral transfer, then the guidelines ought not to be set out here. It could be construed that the board could read that this person can just be transferred to a position of equivalent authority. Perhaps that’s not what we really want to give the board.

Hon. Mr. Norton: You have even less faith in the board than I do.

Mr. Stong: No, the fact of the matter is that this can be construed by the courts as a guideline and I don’t think that we as the Legislature --

Mr. Martel: They want to punish the guy. In the final analysis what they are saying is, “Fire him.”

Mr. Stong: -- should fetter the discretion of the board in that sense. It is with that reservation that I speak on this bill in support of the fact that we all recognize there are behaviours in society that are intolerable. But the degree of that intolerability must not make a person better or let a person gain by his excess of force. I have grave reservations about that section of the act, although the principle of the act I certainly support.

Mr. Martel: You’re saying, “Fire him.” Holy smokes.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Under some circumstances I would too.

Mr. Martel: The minister just interjected under some circumstances he might fire him. He might fire a lot of people but this doesn’t say “shall.” It doesn’t say the board shall move him over.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That’s right. It’s a guideline.

Mr. Martel: It says he may. What my friends to my right want is that he in fact he terminated.

Mr. Roy: No, no.

Mr. Martel: Oh yes, you can cut it any way you want.

An hon. member: You’ve had your orders over there.

Mr. Roy: You haven’t read the act.

Mr. Martel: I’ve read the act. What in fact you’re saying is that you just want to dismiss him.

Mr. Stong: You don’t know what is in the act.

Mr. O’Neil: That’s not the case at all.

Mr. Martel: Nowhere in this amendment does it say it’s necessary. All it does is give permission. Read it very carefully. It says, “the board may provide for the employment” -- “may provide for the employment” --

Mr. O’Neil: It’s redundant. You don’t need it.

Mr. Martel: -- “of the employee.” No, that isn’t what my friend just finished saying.

Mr. Stong: That is what we’re trying to say.

Mr. Martel: I listened very carefully to what he said and that in fact isn’t what he said.

Mr. Kerrio: You don’t understand, Elie.

Mr. Martel: What he said was, “Dismiss him.” He did it in a nice way, mind you, but in fact he said, “Dismiss him.”

Mr. O’Neil: Elie, that’s not the case at all.

Mr. Martel: There’s no other way of saying it. I listened very carefully.

I would hope there are those of us in the House who feel that somebody has a second chance, that we just don’t dump him, that we move him if need be somewhere else where he isn’t going to be in contact with patients. I agree with the Minister of Community and Social Services on that. We don’t want that type of individual doing those sorts of things to people who for some reason are in one of our institutions. But we’ve followed a very fragile line here to guarantee both ways some justice.

If we remove that clause then I think we’ve virtually removed the sort of justice we’re looking for. Somewhere down the road the guy’s got to work somewhere; it could be a woman, it could be a man, it doesn’t matter who. Somewhere they’ve got to support a family.

I’m saying that if they remove that then they’re saying to the board, “Your hands are tied and you can’t do it.”

Mr. Stong: No.

Mr. Martel: Oh yes, they are.

Mr. Roy: Look at section 3.

Mr. Martel: If they remove it what they’ve done is successfully removed that possibility. I would hope that my friends to the right would reconsider what the member for York Centre just stated. Let them read carefully what he said and they’ll see that I’ve interpreted pretty carefully what he said. I would hope no one would accept that position.

Mr. Roy: Point of order.

Mr. Martel: You have no point of order.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I have a point of order.

Mr. McClellan: Discuss it on third reading.

Mr. Martel: Are you from York Centre?

Mr. Roy: I think that the record should be very clear. When the member for Sudbury talks about asking us, interpreting our words that we would fire the individual --

Mr. Laughren: It’s not a point of order.

Mr. Acting Speaker: This is not a point of order.

Mr. Roy: It’s a point of privilege. He’s saying something about my comments that I didn’t mean. He’s misconstruing my comments.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I’m sorry, this is neither a point of order nor a point of privilege.

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

Mr. Acting Speaker: Each side has made its point.

Mr. Roy: Someone has misconstrued, which is a point of privilege. My privileges as a member have been abused, and that’s what privilege is all about.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Call it a point of personal information.

Hon Mr. Welch: Point of clarification.

Mr. Roy: No, not clarification, privilege.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It’s not privilege.

Mr. Roy: He’s abused my privileges. I know you wouldn’t understand but what I’m trying to say to you is it’s a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It’s a neat way to get into the debate a second time. That’s all it is.

Mr. Roy: No, it’s not. I just want to make it clear that the amendment as proposed is not necessary. There is presently under the act a section 3 which gives --

Mr. Pope: Are you giving a speech?

Mr. Acting Speaker: May I ask the member if he has a point of privilege?

Mr. Roy: We’re not saying he should be fired.

Mr. Gregory: It’s a point of confusion.

Mr. Roy: We’re just saying that it’s not necessary.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Quinte at least knows the rules.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Are there any other honourable members wishing to speak in this debate?

Mr. Roy: Do you know the rules?

Hon. Mr. Welch: When you get back into committee you can continue.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable minister.

Mr. Roy: Oh, you know the rules.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You just haven’t got enough common sense to know what’s --

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order. Would the House leader and the member for Ottawa East please refrain and let the honourable minister continue?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Always sneaking in some way to get around the rules.

Mr. Roy: Oh, sneaking in.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

[5:45]

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members of the Liberal Party for their partial support of the bill and to thank the members of the New Democratic Party for their support of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member for Ottawa East is childish. He’s the biggest child --

Mr. Roy: You ought to keep quiet and let your colleague speak.

Hon. Mr. Welch: He is an embarrassment --

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McCague: It’s odd that the member for Ottawa East should make a big statement about his interest in rights, and yet he doesn’t want those rights to be extended to both sides. As was very eloquently pointed out by the member for --

Mr. Stong: York Centre.

Hon. Mr. McCague: No, it wasn’t him. I’m sorry about that.

Mr. Handleman: Good try.

Hon. Mr. McCague: -- the member for Bellwoods, this bill does give equal rights to both sides.

It might be valuable if the members of the Liberal Party were to check over the dinner hour as to whether the board does have the flexibility to do what they are maintaining they have the flexibility to do. My opinion is that they do not have the right to substitute another job.

Mr. Kerrio: You took two or three of your opinions to court and lost them all.

Hon. Mr. McCague: If they will refer to section 18(3) of the previous bill, I think that will become evident.

If their idea is to shorten the bill -- their amendment talks about striking out the words after “facility” in the 12th line, but what they are really saying is to strike out the words after “employee” in the 10th line; so it would then say that “the Grievance Settlement Board shall not provide for the employment of the employee …”

I would like to point out to the honourable members that they seem to be presuming that in every case that comes before the Grievance Settlement Board, they want to reinstate the people. That’s not the case at all.

The Grievance Settlement Board has heard 27 cases. The dismissal has been upheld in nine. Nine have been reinstated with loss of pay. Eight have been reinstated with no loss of pay. On one there is not yet a final decision.

I just don’t see the point of the amendment at all, but we can get into that in clause by clause.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, before we start our work in committee, I am wondering if we might get some indication from the members of the committee with respect to any divisions.

We are going to do Bill 155, which is the art gallery bill, and then the crown employees collective bargaining bill. During the course of the rest of the evening there may be some other work to do in committee.

I am wondering if the committee might agree that we would defer any divisions until 10:15 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Would the committee agree to that recommendation?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 155, An Act to amend the Art Gallery of Ontario Act.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I understand the minister wants to move an amendment prior to the section that I want to move an amendment to. I wonder if the minister has decided not to move his amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Baetz moves that clause (c) of section 4(1) of the act as set out in section 2(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(c) Two persons appointed by the council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, one of whom shall be a person who is both a member of the council of the city of Toronto and a member of the council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.”

Are there any comments on that amendment?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I will make my comment in a moment.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise the question with the minister as it relates to comments made regarding this section and the request for answers by the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell). There was some concern on the sort of liaison that went on between the minister, Metropolitan Toronto and the city as it relates to the choosing of representatives on the board of trustees. I would ask the minister if he has any comments related to her question.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Chairman, I was going to make a comment on this. I thought perhaps I could do it in a subsequent amendment but I’ll be pleased to answer that question right now.

We have, of course, had considerable negotiations with the city of Toronto regarding this amendment. Certainly former Mayor Crombie was aware of this and realized that with the discontinuance of the city’s grant to the art gallery, and with the money from the Metropolitan area coming from the Metropolitan government, that the appointees would also be coming through Metro Council. There was complete agreement on that. Also, Mr. Arthur Eggleton was aware of the amendment and approved it, so there have been, for quite some months, discussions about this.

As early as 1977 I think, was the last year that the city of Toronto participated financially in the Art Gallery of Ontario, recognizing of course that by dropping that grant and the grant coming via Metropolitan council, their appointment to the AGO would also cease. So I don’t see any problem at all on this. I think there has been full and complete consultation.

We have no reason to believe that anyone at the city of Toronto government level has objected to this. In fact, it seems that from all sides that this was the rational approach. I was rather surprised, I must say, to hear the member for St. George suggest that we have simply gone ahead and made these decisions without consultation.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I hadn’t planned on talking on this particular amendment but since the minister suggests that this was discussed some months ago with the people in Toronto and mentioned the name of the former mayor of Toronto, then why has the minister brought this as an amendment to the original bill, since the original bill was drafted less than two months ago? I don’t understand what’s going on, because in the original bill one trustee was appointed from the city of Toronto and one from Metropolitan Toronto. In your amendment you changed it so that both of these trustees come from Metropolitan Toronto and one of those trustees from Metropolitan Toronto is a city of Toronto representative. If this had gone on some months ago, why was the amendment not incorporated in the original bill you brought in?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I think this particular amendment was simply to tidy up the procedure for the appointments; that rather than having the city of Toronto make the appointment directly the two appointments should come via Metropolitan council. One of the appointees for Metropolitan council is still to be an elected official of the city of Toronto on Metro council. It is a minor change in the modus operandi.

Mr. Grande: However, you made a mistake, didn’t you?

Mr. Kerrio: On a point of clarification, Mr. Minister: you spoke about the involvement of the former mayor. Our real concern was as to whether there had been some communication with the new mayor and council.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: These discussions have been going on for some time. I don’t know in what detail, but I know there have been discussions going on for over a period of some weeks or months. The amendment as suggested here I understand rose as a result of the very last discussion, which may have happened in the last month or so.

Mr. Chairman: If there are no further comments, shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Baetz moves that section 2(2) of the bill be struck out and the remaining subsections be renumbered accordingly and clauses (c) and (e) of section 4(3)(a) as set out in section 2(4) of the bill now renumbered as section 2(3) be struck out and the following substituted therefor: (c) in the case of a vacancy of a trustee appointed under clause (c) of subsection 1, be appointed by council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Foulds: I just want a clarification here. My colleague, the member for Oakwood, was going to move an amendment to section 2(2) of the bill. If that section is struck out, that would not be possible, is that correct?

Mr. Chairman: I’m sorry, the question is?

Mr. Foulds: The minister is moving that section 2(2) of the bill be struck out. Is that right?

Mr. Chairman: Correct.

Mr. Foulds: My colleague, the member for Oakwood, was going to move that section 2(2) of the bill be amended. If it is struck out --

Mr. Lane: It’s already gone.

Mr. Ashe: Too late.

Mr. Foulds: No, it is not gone. That’s exactly why I am rising at this point in time. If it is struck out, it prevents him from presenting an amendment.

Mr. Ruston: You can’t amend it if it’s not there.

Mr. Foulds: What I want is some clarification, because obviously the section my colleague wants to amend which has to do with geographic representation -- the clause where he could hang that -- was left somewhere in this mess of renumbering that the minister is leaving. What I would like is some clarification before we strike out section 2(2). What renumbered section of the bill would my colleague, the member for Oakwood, use on which to propose his amendment?

Mr. Chairman: I appreciate your question. However, I don’t believe it is the duty of the chair to draft amendments. It is the duty of the chair to accept amendments.

Mr. Foulds: I appreciate it is not the duty of the chair to draft amendments, therefore I have got until six o’clock, so we can confer over the supper hour.

Hon. Mr. Norton: You just want to get one more member in the House.

Mr. Foulds: One more member in the House. I really don’t think that speaking about --

Mr. Roy: There is an abuse of the process.

Mr. Foulds: I would suggest that the committee rise and report.

Mr. Roy: Your rules are not my rules.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question if I might, and that is I would like to understand the reason why he is striking section 2(2) of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: To help the member from across the floor, I would suggest that the NDP motion addresses section 4(1)(d) of the act, and he need not have any great concern about it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, it is very difficult to hear with these other conversations across.

Mr. Ashe: It is that guy from Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: He is saying something that is pretty irrelevant anyway. He is just trying to talk out the clock.

Mr. Chairman: There is an amendment before the committee. It is also six o’clock. I can place the amendment or recess.

Mr. Foulds: I would suggest that.

Hon. Mr. Norton: You sure haven’t been saying it.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We can deal with it under 4(1)(d).

Mr. Foulds: You are quite right.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.