Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with business this morning, I wonder if I might indicate some sort of schedule for this morning, notwithstanding what may be on the sheet before us.

I thought perhaps it would be wise to proceed now to deal with government notice of motion 4 on the Order Paper, following which we would do the second readings which have to be attended to this morning; that is, Bills 135, 139, 140 and 133.

After the second readings have been completed we would then go into committee of the whole House to do what work we have to do in committee, ending up with Bills 96 and 163. We would then come out of committee just before the luncheon break.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon. F. S. Miller moved that the authority of the Treasurer of Ontario granted on March 29, 1979, to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing April 1, 1979, be extended to October 31, 1979, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Mr. Nixon: I doubt that the Treasurer will have any particular statement on this. I understand he had a busy evening last night consulting with the interns and that my colleague from Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), who is not in just at the moment, made an equal impact on those fine and outstanding young people. I am delighted the Treasurer is here to defend the motion.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is now a standard procedure and one which is very acceptable. It is a vehicle for considerable debate if time permits and if the opposition parties want to make use of it for that purpose. I am delighted myself that it is now established as custom and requirement in this Legislature that a single motion does not provide the funds to pay the day-to-day operating expenses through the whole year and that the Treasurer, on behalf of the administration, properly comes to the Legislature for interim supply of this type.

The only thing that I might say before I resume my seat is that our procedure for a careful scrutiny of the estimates of expenditure seems somehow to be degenerating. I think both sides take responsibility for this, since matters of public importance, perhaps more urgent than the immediate discussion of the estimates, seem to be coming forward and you, Mr. Speaker, and our colleagues in the Legislature know what a broad spectrum of matters this involves, employing the time and mental capacity of the committees and their membership.

I think perhaps this sort of motion may occupy more of our time in the future when we attempt to have a discussion of spending procedures and the efficacy of the policy behind them debated more in this chamber than in the individual committees, which in our evolving experience occupy more and more of their time on specific policy matters. We have no objection to the passing of the resolution at this time.

Mr. Laughren: In keeping with tradition, I understand that the government motion does provide for a fairly wide-ranging debate, if the members so desire. It is not my intention to do that this morning, but there is one thing that bothers me a great deal, and I think should be of concern to the Treasurer, and certainly the ability of this government to pay its bills is greatly affected by the issue which I want to speak about for a few moments. That is the impending increase in the price of oil by $1 a barrel, which the federal government has just announced, which would take effect on July 1, with an interim period of 60 days, I believe, for the existing stocks to get down.

Mr. Kerrio: Got to do something about those feds.

Mr. Laughren: I think the Treasurer has an obligation to tell us what his position is on the announcement and to tell us what he thinks the impact of that increase is going to be on the Ontario economy. We know that every time the price of oil goes up $1 a barrel it roughly causes the rate of inflation to go up by approximately one per cent. Certainly the ability of this government to pay the bills, which is implicit in the government motion, the Treasurer should be very concerned about that.

The competitiveness of the Ontario economy and the industries within it are at stake here, and it is very strange that the Treasurer would be silent on the announced increase in the price of oil, because of the enormous impact it is certainly going to have on the Ontario economy.

The former Treasurer had worked out figures which indicated what a $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs Ontario in terms of jobs and I would assume that this Treasurer has done that computation as well. If he hasn’t, he sure should have. We would like to know on this side of the House what studies the Treasurer has done to indicate what the effect of this $1 price increase is going to be, both in terms of the rate of inflation and in terms of the rate of employment, and unemployment in the province of Ontario, and in general what it does to Ontario’s competitive position.

We know, in looking at the figures, that unemployment is still at an unacceptable level. I come from a community where the unemployment rate is almost 16 per cent and the Treasurer gets up in this House and thumps his chest and says the rate of unemployment has dropped specifically because of the policies of the federal government, or of his government.

If he wants to take credit for a 16 per cent unemployment rate in the district of Sudbury let him stand up and say so. I would like to hear him take credit for a 16 per cent unemployment rate in parts of northeastern Ontario -- or St. Catharines, down in the Niagara Peninsula, with one of the highest unemployment rates in all of Ontario and yet it’s one of the industrial and farming heartlands in this province. The Treasurer stands up in his place just a week ago and thumps his chest and says he’s proud of the unemployment rate in the province of Ontario.

That’s without the $1 increase in a barrel of oil which his federal counterparts have just announced. I’d be very interested in having a response from the Treasurer on what he sees is going to be the result. What’s his position on this? Where are we heading in terms of the price and supply of oil and gas in the province of Ontario?

Mr. Peterson: I’d like to address a couple of remarks to this. Again, I don’t want to prolong this debate, because I realize there are more pressing issues, but given the latitude one has, I just want to take this opportunity to mention a couple of things.

The Treasurer last week, as I recall, with as much flair and flourish as he could summon up, and that isn’t a lot at best of times, came into the House and made a statement about paying off the treasury bill offering of this province and, in fact, he was proud of the fact that he is not going to use the treasury bill float of $325 million odd to finance the deficit in this province, at least in the short run.

You will recall the history of that, Mr. Speaker. That has been used at various times to finance deficits when the Treasurer has misforecast. He manipulates that amount of money, which is really a debt obligation of this province. In the original instance, they had $10 million or so a week. Just after this Treasurer was appointed, they snuck in an extra $15 million a week to increase the net amount of public debt by $15 million a week, which translates into something like $195 million a year. That was in the wake of some very strong commitments by the previous Treasurer that there would be no more public borrowing.

I want to make that very clear. This Treasurer snuck that extra treasury bill float in, that extra $195 million, and changed the wording when he did so, saying there would be no more public debenture borrowing. It was a clear violation of the budgetary statements of the previous Treasurer. It was done casually, it was done with the manipulation of a word here and a word there, but in fact a principle that had been brought to this House and laid before this House was violated. This Treasurer has now found sufficient cash through an accelerated cash flow, through, presumably, better than expected revenues.

We all hope that, Mr. Speaker, because we had record growth in the first quarter of this year, something the economists are finding very difficult to understand. It may be just a cyclical aberration. It may be a quarterly aberration. I hope it’s true. I hope the over six per cent real growth figure that came about is a real one and will be sustained for the rest of the year. Most people feel that won’t be sustained.

I’m not sure why the cash flow for the province turned out better than the Treasurer previously anticipated, although I have my suspicions and I think they can be confirmed in this budget.

What happened was that the Treasurer, in his first budget of this year, borrowed far more from long-term requirements, from debenture borrowing from the pension funds essentially, than his net cash requirements. As I recall the figures, even though his net cash requirements were forecast to be just over the billion dollar mark he borrowed from the internally generated pension funds, teachers’ superannuation, Canada Pension Plan and various other funds, over $1.5 billion.

I just want to make this very clear: while we have not altered the deficit position of this province we have just again played the old shell game, the old transfer game, transferring short-term obligations to the long-term obligations and back to short-term obligations and now back to long-term obligations. In fact, as best as I can determine it -- we have not seen the first quarter statements -- there is no real improvement in the cash flow. There has been no real improvement in the deficit position, the net cash requirement position or anything else one wants to call it. I think that should be brought to the attention of this House.

[10:15]

Unless the Treasurer has a more worthwhile explanation, I think his statement of last week didn’t really shed a lot of light on that aspect of the budget that concerns many members of this House; that is, the very significant debt that has been accumulated by this government over a period of time. Mr. Speaker, I won’t take any more time. I realize the time pressures this morning. Thank you for the opportunity to make that brief contribution.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I thank the three speakers for being brief. I think they did touch on useful parts of the discussion. I feel no one was unnecessary.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you very much.

Mr. Laughren: We’re so pleased that you are pleased.

Mr. Peterson: That’s very condescending of you.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is, absolutely. You say nice things about me most days too.

Mr. Peterson: Last night I did.

Mr. Martel: Do you want to make this wide open?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Let’s go back to the question of oil pricing, brought up by the member for Nickel Belt. The arrangements for the $1 a barrel price increase were made some while back. I believe it was February when they were confirmed. The arrangement, as the member knows, was between Alberta and the government of Canada. We are expecting that $1 a barrel increase on July 1 and expecting a second one on January 1.

I would say my major concern is whether those will be all that are demanded by Alberta now that world prices of oil have started to escalate at rates that were not expected when these two increases were agreed to. Ontario, as a province that imports almost all of its oil, almost all of its natural gas and almost all of its fossil fuels in total, has to take the position of opposing a rapid change to world price.

Mr. Makarchuk: Why the increase in natural gas prices?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m going to explain. Ontario does not negotiate; Ontario offers its advice. This is the key issue.

Mr. Mancini: I thought Joe Clark was going to change all that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Ontario’s advice will continue to be that, in the interests of Canada’s economy, not just Ontario’s, there is a real need to keep a differential between the price of oil in Canada and in the United States and world markets. That differential, as of July 1, will be in the range of $2.30 a barrel lower in Canada than it is in the States. That differential must be maintained if our industry is going to remain competitive in world markets and, therefore, if jobs are going to be protected in Ontario.

There are studies -- the members asked about them -- I recall seeing them. I’m afraid to regurgitate the cost of jobs per dollar-a-barrel increase, but I recall some figure in the range of 30,000 jobs every time the price goes up $1 a barrel. That’s a rough guess, because in this kind of estimate that is all one can do. I think perhaps what is more important is the relative price of oil rather than the absolute price, when it comes to industrial use.

Ontario does have the highest per capita oil consumption in the world and therefore we are probably more vulnerable than any part of the world to outside pricing. We have to continue to stress to the federal government that the interests of the Canadian economy, not just the Ontario economy, are best served by such a differential.

Canada has to recognize that for many years when the shoe was on the other foot Ontario did worry about the other provinces and did involve itself in the arrangements for redistribution of wealth with the federal government, always on the principle that the wealth of this country needs to be shared among the have and the have-not provinces.

The member touched briefly on unemployment. I would think exceptional circumstances applied in the city of Sudbury in the last while. I hope those circumstances have passed. I hope we will see something closer to a normal rate.

Mr. Martel: Maybe you’ll get some policy.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Any unemployment is excessive. I can only say our trends for the next year are encouraging and would indicate there will be a downward movement.

Mr. Laughren: What are you going to do about it?

Mr. Martel: How about some policy?

Hon. F. S. Miller: When I get to the other member’s comments on treasury bills, I would say that the member for London Centre, who is not listening to me, should recognize that the increase in treasury bills, because he was talking to his neighbour from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: And probably misunderstanding that as well.

Hon. F. S. Miller: If you can teach the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk anything about this House, I will take my hat off because I consider him one of the experts in this House, and I might say, one of those who respects this House.

Mr. J. Reed: If you had listened to him years ago this House would be a lot better.

Hon. F. S. Miller: See, I told you, Bob, if you were brief I would be nice.

An hon. member: Stand up and take a bow, Bob.

Mr. Nixon: It wasn’t what we agreed on.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would say that last year’s temporary reduction in the Ontario retail sales tax caused a drop in the originally budgeted revenues of the province and required us to have more cash and therefore we used the treasury bills for interim cash requirements. In the meantime, short-term rates on treasury bills, which historically had been a bit lower, tended to move above the long-term rates of interest available, so therefore there was no real saving to the province to be in the short-term market and our cash position improved. Therefore we used them as a balancing act.

One must remember that we have managed to increase our spending levels over many years to much higher levels than they used to be, through inflation, through new programs, while at the same time reducing the percentage of cash required to manage those by very carefully projecting cash requirements and investing in securities to counter-balance short-term surpluses. Almost always, if we had the money invested, we were earning more than we were paying on the treasury bills on a given day. However, that vehicle was no longer needed and we happily vacated it, knowing there always could be a future need to return to that kind of cash market and believing that it is available when needed.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for the resolution standing in the name of the provincial Treasurer, government notice of motion number 4. Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

INCOME TAX DISCOUNTERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved second reading of Bill 133, An Act to repeal the Income Tax Discounters Act.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, the order has now been switched once more. I am having difficulty keeping up with the order. I just have a list that was sent in to me and that one’s down. It certainly is not the next one. I thought the police bill was next. I will try to arrange to get my critic.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s why I called it. I saw the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. M. N. Davison) just a few minutes ago.

Mr. Martel: I am without him, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: We might be able to speak for a time without that member. In order to assist us in that, I just want to say that as far as our party is concerned we really have no choice but to support the bill and mostly because of the legal situation. I understand that the government of Canada has very properly moved into this area of regulation and under our constitution, when the area is occupied by the federal government, it simply means that we are dispossessed and we have no alternative but to withdraw our legislation.

I think that it’s a good idea that only one jurisdiction has the legislation and an argument may be made -- and I am sure the minister would be delighted to make it -- that our legislation is better than theirs, but in this instance it doesn’t make any difference, so we certainly support the bill in principle and in particular.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. The order of legislation seems to be different from the sheet I was handed just moments earlier. Excuse me if I appear a bit disjointed. The New Democratic Party was responsible for this legislation coming into place in the days before the federal government moved to protect consumers in this area and we think it is still a good piece of legislation. It is much superior to the legislation that is currently in place at the federal level.

The biggest difference is the amount of money these loan sharks in disguise can charge to the consumer when they are performing this service. In the days before the bill came into being they were charging 50 per cent and more of the income tax return to the consumer. Under this new bill we followed the lead of a number of other provinces and said it would be wrong by law for these income tax discounters to charge more than five per cent of the return, which works out to something like an annual interest rate in these cases of 20 per cent, which is about in line.

Under the federal legislation, unfortunately, the federal government not being pressured by as large a number of New Democrats I suppose, the legislation permits the loan sharks in disguise to charge up to 15 per cent of the tax return. That can well equal an annual interest rate of 60 per cent, and by anybody’s standards that has to be gouging.

The minister, in the compendium he so thoughtfully supplied when the legislation was introduced, commented on the fact that the Ontario legislation was no longer needed because the federal government had moved in with legislation which was working. While I can’t find the compendium to quote directly from it, there was an interesting sentence that said in this last income tax year the income tax discounters had not reappeared in the province of Ontario.

That is totally wrong. That was not read into the record of the House, as I recall, or I would certainly have challenged it. At any rate, it wasn’t read in when I was around. I haven’t had a chance to look over Hansard for the day the bill was introduced. I brought to this minister’s attention two cases in the city of Toronto that came to my knowledge from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reporter Nancy Durham.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It came to me first, the two in Toronto, so keep the record straight.

An hon. member: The point is, they haven’t disappeared.

Mr. M. N. Davison: If they came to the minister first and the minister didn’t even move against them, that certainly gives room for censure. I don’t think the minister should be proud of the fact that they came to him 24 hours before they came to me.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Since the word “censure” has been used --

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of privilege here. It doesn’t constitute a point of privilege. It is a difference of opinion. We are getting too many erroneous points of privilege. The member for Hamilton Centre will continue.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I agree with you completely, Mr. Speaker. No matter how provocative the minister is when he stands up to speak, I promise not to rise on a point of privilege.

Mr. Kerrio: What are you going to rise on, a stepladder?

Mr. M. N. Davison: The fact is that the government, through the minister, has said that in the 1978-79 tax year these discounters had folded up their tents and disappeared from the Ontario scene. That is wrong. It is just not factually true. The CBC found those two cases right here in Toronto. There have even been cases in other parts of the province.

One of the problems is that I don’t believe the federal government is acting with utmost speed on these cases. It is certainly not acting with the kind of speed we have come to expect from this Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I would say to him, one, he has a better bill than the federal government has; he has a good bill. Two, this ministry has shown, at least in this particular area of consumer protection, and in some others, that it is more prepared to act with speed to defend consumers when they are being ripped off.

[10:30]

I would think, therefore, that we would be very wrong today in this House to repeal this act in the dying hours of our time here this spring. I know the government’s position, as the minister will probably indicate, is that there is a constitutional problem involved, that because there is a provincial statute and a federal statute supposedly dealing or allegedly dealing with the same problem in the same sort of way, the provincial government feels unable to move against these income tax discounters, and indeed hasn’t over the past little while.

That is unfortunate, because in a case like this it would seem to me it would be up to the courts to make the final decision as to the question of jurisdiction. If somebody doesn’t like being forced to live up to the obligations and responsibilities of the Discounting of Income Tax Refunds Act, then let them take the ministry to court. Let’s not make that decision here. We have a better piece of legislation and I would hope the minister is more prepared to move on it than the federal government is. Don’t just throw it out the window because someone may take offence at the minister prosecuting under it. I think he should go ahead and do his job with it.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I can recall that two former ministers ago, the Honourable Sidney Handleman -- and the name of his riding slips me at the moment -- said when we first urged him to bring in such consumer protection legislation that no, he wasn’t going to do it because there was a constitutional problem, with the greatest of respect to the former minister. The problem was there was a lack of will to move to protect consumers, and if we hear again this phoney argument, this phoney constitutional jurisdictional argument, all it hides behind it is a lack of will to protect consumers.

I would say to the minister and his party, and I would say to the Liberals, let’s look at this again. It is not the time to remove this consumer protection legislation. It is much better than any other protection the consumer has in this area, and I don’t think we should sell them short by taking away this good piece of consumer protection legislation. Mr. Speaker, I and my party will oppose this move. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There is no question that the Income Tax Discounters Act 1977 could continue, in theory at least, to co-exist with the federal legislation. There is no argument about that whatsoever, in theory. I hope that the member votes against this today, I hope he votes not to support this, because when he does he is opening the door wide open to total return of the tax discounters across Ontario, and I would have thought that some of his legal advisers might have cautioned him.

Since he has challenged the constitutional matter, I have several citations here from various definitions of inconsistency. I want to go in at some length on the doctrine of paramountcy. In practice, what would happen is, these two things living in theory so beautifully, the moment that we laid a charge the person who was charged would immediately go into the courts to challenge our ability to charge, and we don’t have much doubt that at that moment the courts would be left with no decision other than, in terms of the charge and the prosecution, that the federal government has very clearly occupied the field and that, therefore, the province of Ontario, with the Income Tax Discounters Act, 1977, was unable to proceed.

In practice that would mean, because there is a difference between the two pieces of legislation, that the tax discounter who wanted to operate would immediately violate our act so that he could be charged under our act but still be legal under the federal act and have the prosecution removed from the courts. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the first time that happened you’d have a tax discounter on every street corner from December through to March, which is the time period they operate in, and I’d be perfectly prepared to call that the Davison doctrine.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It’s taken the province a year and a half. If it’s such a big problem why did it take so long?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Let’s go through the history of these two acts. There is no question that my predecessor -- and I was his parliamentary assistant at the time -- the member for Carleton, did prod the federal government to introduce the very legislation it eventually did. In fairness to the federal government and the federal minister of the time, the sanctions that the federal government intended to take against loan sharking or this type of operation, were contained in draft legislation called the BDPA, the Borrowers and Depositors Protection Act.

That was draft legislation. It was intended to operate on a national level, taking into account the differences between provinces in the way that loan sharks and other people offering funds at either extremely exorbitant or, indeed, usurious rates, function within the economic milieu of not only the 10 provinces but indeed bearing in mind the regional differences within those 10 provinces.

It would take too long to mention all the adventures of the BDPA, but it did not have any consensus in any of the provinces and eventually it died. Following that, the federal government did introduce the very legislation that the province of Ontario and other provinces wanted. At that point -- and let’s make this very clear -- we have not commenced a prosecution or a charge under the Income Tax Discounters Act 1977, because we know what will happen. We have become a referral service. If we hear of these cases, or find them out through our own investigations, we go to the federal government and ask that the federal police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, be brought in to investigate to see if charges will he laid.

This act is not only redundant and cannot be used by the province but is indeed very dangerous. If this House today does not support the efforts to remove this statute from the books, I caution that come this fall or the early winter, when income tax discounting as usual pops up its ugly head, it will be open season right across not only Metropolitan Toronto and southern Ontario but very much indeed in northern Ontario.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Why didn’t the minister do it a year ago?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact there was no uproar here some months ago when the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker), who was then a private member, tabled a resolution in the House to get rid of this bill.

An hon. member: We’re tired of roaring up the gangplank.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It never came because of the ballot procedure for private members’ bills or resolutions. As long ago as that, thinking people in this Legislature were concerned about this strange co-existence between two acts, perfectly allowable, constitutionally magnificent, until you laid a charge and opened up in the court and then you were in a position where, in effect, there was no law.

I would urge the members of the House to consider the doctrine of paramountcy, to consider, secondly, the fact that the legislation was introduced in this Legislature with the express admonition that we wished we would not have had to introduce it, that the federal government would have. The federal government did, subsequently. We have to recognize the fact that they have occupied the field.

If there is a quarrel with the federal legislation, then I humbly suggest that it’s not to keep a dual entity on the law books of Canada, one for a province and one for the federal government. The place to handle it is in the House of Commons. I don’t think there is a single valid reason to oppose what is the purport of this bill. It is not only to remove a redundant piece of legislation. It is not only to show that there is provincial and federal co-operation in this country. When the federal government occupies a field, we willingly leave, as we should, not waiting to tie up the courts and so forth.

Finally and I emphasize this, there’s a very significant and potential danger of these two laws, when one charge is laid by us, just opening up the whole field. I certainly hope that no one in this House would say to me as minister, “Mr. Minister, keep the law on your books but don’t charge anybody, because if you do you open up everything.” That is repugnant to me, it is repugnant to this government and I am sure it is repugnant to the entire House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 135, An Act to amend the Police Act.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, we are going to support this amendment to the Police Act. It has been our policy of long standing that such an amendment should have been put forth, simply because the mandatory requirement of a county or district court judge to sit on such commissions has, in many jurisdictions, caused problems of finding such a person and making it convenient for the commission to do its job.

There’s very little to say about it. It’s a pretty straightforward amendment. It removes the requirement that one of the members of the board shall be a county or district court judge, and removing that particular requirement now leaves it open that the head of council and the other two people will formulate the commission, having been chosen by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That is acceptable to our party.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise in support of Bill 135. The content of this bill incorporates an item which was requested by my party a long time ago. I look back to June 9, 1976, Hansard, page S-1659, where my colleague at that time, the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor), raised this concern about removing the judges from the Ontario Police Commission.

[10:45]

Bill 135 is going to comply with this particular request by us in the past. I think it is an important appointment. Now that judges are not allowed to sit on the Ontario Police Commission, I am particularly concerned about new appointments which are going to be made by the Solicitor General when a vacancy takes place.

From Hansard, I note the former Solicitor General, the member for Humber (Mr. MacBeth), raised a particular concern about appointments of judges to the Ontario Police Commission. It was stated that representatives of ethnic communities, representative of community interests, various segments of the community, particularly in the lower income strata, are not represented on those commissions. I think that it is an important principle which should be taken into consideration when appointments are going to be made, if they would like to see commissions working and really representing the needs and the interests of various communities.

In the past, and recently, we had the opportunity to hear complaints made before the Ontario Police Commission, particularly in relation to problems affecting the minority groups in our society. If the Solicitor General is going to take into consideration that the kind of people who are supposed to sit on this commission are supposed to represent these various strata of lower incomes or different ethnic communities, then in my opinion when a complaint is going to be discussed before the Ontario Police Commission their concern is going to be very well taken into consideration.

Therefore, I welcome such a move coming from the government in relation to Bill 135. It is a positive move which has been expressed by the government, even though the New Democratic Party has expressed its concern in the past. Even though such change is going to be made in relation to the composition of the Ontario Police Commission and the people who are supposed to sit on this commission, I would urge that a civilian review board is necessary and should be established in Ontario.

I raised this particular issue during question period a few weeks ago, that the establishment of a civilian review board is necessary. It has been recommended by different reports which were pursued in the past, the Morand report and the Maloney report. The Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) has stated in the Legislature that the establishment of a civilian review board to hear complaints from citizens is not necessary at this point in time. I completely disagree.

While he might have good reasons to have faith in the police, this move in Bill 135 to replace judges sitting on the commission is as I stated before, a positive move, but I think that to make sure that justice is going to be done in relation to complaints from citizens in Ontario the Solicitor General has to move very quickly in the direction of establishing this citizens’ complaint bureau.

If I may conclude my remarks about Bill 135, I would like to receive from the Solicitor General some explanation about section 1(4) of the bill in relation to a reasonable remuneration. Even though it is spelled out that remuneration shouldn’t be less than the minimum prescribed by the regulations, I have some problems understanding what “reasonable remuneration” means when we have clear regulations drafted to deal with this particular item. I look forward to hearing the comments of the Solicitor General and his explanation of such wording as “reasonable remuneration.”

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 135. In doing so, I would like to make one or two comments and suggestions in this regard. I speak as a person who was a member of the police commission for eight years as the head of my municipality. I have found in the past that there are some judges who make very valuable members of the police commission and there are some who don’t. The current judge of the county court is one of those who is a valuable member of the police commission. I would like to point out to the Solicitor General that with the very busy courts we have now, and the pressures under which the judges are working, I think it is right to relieve them of this added responsibility.

In supporting that principle of the bill, I would like to also put in a few remarks in regard to the appointment of not just another resident of the community but another member of the council when that opportunity arrives. The work of the police commissions now, as opposed to what it was some years ago, puts a great deal of stress and time on financial management. That is one of the greatest parts of the work of a member of the police commission. With the increased costs represented in policing, it is imperative that someone who has been elected by the people, in addition to the mayor, can put forth the views of the people.

Most of the things with which the police commission deals, manpower matters, equipment matters, staffing and so forth, have a very important monetary bearing and of course this is what is important to the people of the municipality as well as good policing. Good policing we will have, because all councils want it. We have the police chief present to advise. But I just want to point out it is important, when the time comes for making alternative appointments to the police commission, that we should bear in mind it is the local taxpayer who has to pay for policing in the community and it would be quite worthwhile to have an additional member of council in that place.

Mr. Roy: I have just a brief comment on this legislation. Having had discussions over the last seven or eight years about the role of judges on police commissions, I think, as my colleagues have said previously, this bill is worthy of support.

I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, as you no doubt are aware, at various times over the last 10 or 15 years certain of our colleagues in the Legislature have taken a pretty strong position pertaining to the role of judges on police commissions.

An hon. member: The former member for Armourdale comes to mind.

Mr. Roy: I suppose a number of commissions as well have commented on judges on police commissions. If one were to look at the question of possible conflict one could say technically that any time we have a judge on the police commission there is that possibility of conflict. As members can understand, if there is a judge -- and in this case we are talking about a county court judge who sits on a police commission -- who sits in judgement of an accused charged by the police force of whose commission the judge is a member, technically one could say that in such a situation there is a conflict of interest.

The problem is that we cannot work in a vacuum. If one were to look at ulterior motives, or conflict of interest, in a variety of situations one could not operate. My colleague the Solicitor General has two hats on; that could be considered a conflict of interest in some circumstances.

Mr. Conway: Two hats on one head is not an inconsiderable accomplishment.

Mr. Roy: There are circumstances, obviously, where one has to weigh the pros and cons and say, is the contribution made by these judges on police commissions of such a nature as to far outweigh any possibility of conflict? I think that is a decision most of us have arrived at, having thought this matter through over a number of years and discussed with various police commissions across the province the useful service contributed by a county court judge on a police commission.

The judges themselves have been a much- maligned group on this. I can recall there was some talk that judges were serving on police commissions because of the extra remuneration involved. That was taken away a number of years ago, and judges over recent years have served without additional remuneration on these police commissions.

One of my colleagues expressed interest earlier as to whether subsection 4 is a message sent to council that there be some remuneration over and above what a county court judge gets from the federal government. I would like the Attorney General to comment on whether this possibility is open under subsection 4.

I would like to say that the amendment is important in the sense that it takes away the obligation of having a county court judge on a police commission. That is important. In various areas there must be the flexibility to have that choice. My experience in the Ottawa area has been that we are dealing with three or four police commissions. From my discussions with them, people who sit on these commissions feel that it is a necessity to have someone with the kind of training, background and judgement that a county court judge has, but it may very well be that in another area they feel it is not necessary, that sort of expertise may come from somebody else -- my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would say from one of the legal profession; that may be, I know he is always supportive of that group. That may be an alternative.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t mind lawyers, I just don’t like the profession.

Mr. Conway: We need a few more optometrists.

Mr. Roy: Or a few more chiropractors.

Mr. Nixon: Talk about going into the lion’s den.

Mr. Roy: I support the amendment as proposed by the Attorney General and I would like briefly to take this opportunity to commend the useful service that has been given over the years by county court judges to police commissions. I think it has been a worthwhile service, an important community service, and their contribution should be recognized after so many years of being maligned by reference to conflict of interest.

Some of these people, and some are in the Ottawa-Carleton area, have continued to serve without remuneration, putting in long hours of useful service on these police commissions. Their contribution, from my discussions with various chiefs of police, mayors and so on, has been very worthwhile.

On balance, I think I am supportive of the amendment and I trust we will give individuals who have made such an important contribution an opportunity to continue to serve, but that we take away the obligation. I think it’s a worthwhile compromise and deserving of support.

[11:00]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in the debate? If not, the honourable minister.

Mr. Conway: Never has this Attorney General enjoyed such unanimity.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Briefly in response to questions in relation to remuneration, the member for Dovercourt asked what “reasonable remuneration” means. It is up to the local council. We provide for a minimum of $1,000 a year for communities over 500,000 people and a minimum of $500 if it’s less than that, which I think is a reasonably modest minimum. It’s really up to the local council, depending on the workload. We think this is a decision that should be made by the local council, in relation to the workload of the police commission. As far as the judge’s remuneration is concerned, there is no change in that.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I wonder if I might be permitted to add one further remark in response to something that was asked of me a few moments ago?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All right.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The member for Wellington South asked me a question and I forgot to answer him. I apologize.

My colleague, the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), expressed concern to me in relation to the size of police commissions. The member for London South (Mr. Walker) expressed some concern as well, in relation to the size of police commissions. Some of the larger communities would like to see them expanded from three to five. We are reviewing this. We regret that we were unable to come to a decision in relation to it this spring, but we will seriously entertain that suggestion to extend some of these police commissions to five members. We hope to be able to have a resolution of that matter in the fall.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved second reading of Bill 139, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. Nixon: I want to say, sir, that this is the first occasion we have had before the House a bill of this type, based on a recommendation of an external board -- in this instance, the election expenses commission. I know when it was first discussed, as to changing the terms of reference and thereby changing the statute establishing the election expenses commission, there was a feeling that not only this House but also, I believe, the citizens of the province have a great deal of confidence in the way that commission has carried out its responsibilities. The fact that this report has come at this time is certainly gratifying as far as we’re concerned. I am very glad that the government has seen fit simply to accept the recommendations of the commission, rather than fiddle around with them. I think this is an appropriate approach by this House. We on this side are supporting the bill.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I want to make only a few comments with respect to the bill. As my friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has said, this is the first opportunity we’ve had to dispose of this sort of problem.

I think it’s going to serve the Legislature well. I think it’s going to serve the province well, because one thing that’s going to occur is that we will not see those gigantic raises in pay which have caused so much irritation and which were distorted to some degree because they came possibly only every three to five years. When we play the game of catchup, the amounts are so great that the public resents it, and we cannot blame them.

The thing I like about what is being done is that the increase has been in that portion which is taxable. I think the public is prepared to accept more readily that members in this Legislature are treated in the same fashion as they are. The commission, in its wisdom, this time increased one section very little, but the large portion of the section that was increased is taxable; I think that will be accepted in a good manner by the public. I only hope that some of the other things that are wrong, in terms of how they are paid out and so on, will be straightened out. I am looking forward to the next report of the commission.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the remuneration paid to the whips. This is a matter I have discussed with House leaders and other people in the past, and I am speaking from some degree of activity or knowledge in that field. The remuneration, the way it has been provided in this bill or the way it stood in the previous legislation, I still consider as grossly unfair. It’s unfair on the basis that in this minority government the whips and the House leaders by and large carry out equal duties. They meet regularly together; their responsibilities, I think, are almost identical or are very similar to a great extent.

Perhaps some larger increase can be granted to the government whip or House leader in comparison to the other whips or House leaders but --

Mr. Kerrio: It has to be worth something to win the race.

Mr. Makarchuk: All right. We will give him $500 to win. But the amounts that are being granted in this bill are as follows: the government whip gets $6,500, the opposition whip gets $4,000 and the third-party whip gets $3,250. In my opinion, the remuneration is grossly unfair in relation to the responsibilities these people have and to the time and effort they spend in the whole government process. This is particularly true in the minority situation -- and I don’t foresee any great change in the next five to 10 years; whatever the government may think, conditions are not going to change.

I hope the commission will look at these figures in the future and bring the remuneration of the opposition whips and House leaders in line with what the government whips and House leaders get. They share the work and responsibility, as all members of the House do, and they should get paid in a fair and equivalent manner.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, there is a part of the bill that bothers me when we are talking about the compensation of members. The leader of the third party does not know I am going to say this, but the differential between his remuneration and that of the leader of the official opposition is outrageous. For the leader of the official opposition, the extra remuneration is $19,500, and for the leader of the third party it is $5,450.

Mr. Kerrio: Worth every penny.

Mr. Laughren: I am not questioning that; the responsibilities are enormous for the leader of the official opposition. I would suggest to my friend that in a situation as we have today, where there is a one-seat differential, to suggest that there is that kind of differential in the workload or the responsibilities of the leader of the third party and the Leader of the Opposition simply makes no sense at all. I suspect the leader of the official opposition would agree, if be were here, that there should not be that kind of differential. I don’t know how one justifies it. Does one say that the leader of the third party does not travel the province as much? Does he not have as onerous a workload?

Mr. Nixon: I remember how concerned the New Democrats were about this when they were the official opposition.

Mr. Laughren: The former leader of the official opposition knows what it is like to be leader of the third party, and I suspect he worked as hard when he was leader of the third party as he did when he was leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Roy: He didn’t cry about it, though.

Mr. Laughren: My leader is not crying about it either. I am saying that I think it is fundamentally wrong to have that kind of differential in remuneration between the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the third party in this House.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be fair comment at this stage to indicate that a copy of the Hansard dealing with this debate will be sent to the members of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses so that they will have the benefit of these views as they continue their review.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved second reading of Bill 140, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 139, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Welch moves that section 7 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) Clause (a) of subsection 7 of the said section 65, as re-enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1973, chapter 151, section 7, be amended by striking out ‘with portfolio’.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 8 to 10, inclusive agreed to.

Bill 139, as amended, reported.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 140, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Welch moves that subsection 1 of section 3(a) of the Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by deleting “with portfolio” in the first line.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

Bill 140, as amended, reported.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 96, An Act to amend the Planning Act.

[11:15]

On section 1:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that section 35(a)(4), as set out in section 1 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(4) No person shall undertake any development in an area designated under sub-section 2 unless the council of the municipality or, where a referral has been made under subsection 10, the municipal board has approved one or both, as the council may determine, of the following:

“(1) a plan showing the location of all buildings and structures to be erected and showing the location of all facilities and works to be provided in conjunction therewith and of all facilities and works required under clause (a) of subsection 7;

“(2) drawings showing plan, elevation and cross-section views for each industrial and commercial building to be erected and for each residential building containing 25 or more dwelling units to be erected which are sufficient to display:

“(a) the massing and conceptual design of the proposed building;

“(b) the relationship of the proposed buildings to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior areas to which the members of the public have access; and

“(c) the provision of interior walkways stairs and escalators to which members of the public have access from streets, open spaces and interior walkways in adjacent buildings, but which exclude the layout of interior areas other than the interior walkways, stairways and escalators referred to in clause (c), the colour, texture and type of materials, window details, construction details, architectural details and interior design.”

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I have not had the opportunity to see the amendment. I tried to follow along with our own proposed amendment to the same clause. I wonder if the minister could deal with subsection 4(1) in his amendment, since the wording seems to be quite different and I would like to understand the implications of it. I regret I am not the critic. He is here now and he can speak to it. Sorry.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the member for Waterloo North wish to speak to this amendment proposed by the minister? In the meantime, we will hear from the member for Riverdale and then we will come back to you.

Mr. Epp: I will let Mr. Renwick speak to it, and then I will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I think we welcome the proposed amendment put forward by the minister. Since the bill was introduced and the implications of the omission have been understood by the members of this House and all of the interested parties concerned with it, there have been significant and substantial negotiations going on, both openly and behind the scenes. I understand this amendment is now entirely acceptable to the city of Toronto, which is my major concern. I know there are many other municipalities throughout Ontario very much interested in it.

It is my understanding this particular amendment now meets the very serious deficiencies which were inherent in the original bill, and I am glad that after such hemming and hawing on the part of the ministry it has finally seen the light and is prepared to introduce this kind of an amendment.

I would suggest that when the time comes to make any other amendments to the Planning Act, the government, if not the minister, take seriously into consideration the proposition that a little discussion beforehand, with the members of the parties in this House and with the municipalities across Ontario, might save the government and that particular minister a lot of headaches.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we were most disturbed last week when the government decided to delete subsection 12 of section 35a of the Planning Act. As you know, this was a very important section and one that required a lot of effort in the first place to have it included.

Second, without sufficient notice the government decided to delete and without, I thought, sufficient clarification in the bill. It took some time before municipalities and the opposition were aware that it was being deleted and it was done without any real discussion as far as the various municipalities were concerned.

We know the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on numerous occasions has set a very good example for his cabinet colleagues in trying to consult with municipalities. He hasn’t always been consistent with that promise, but that has generally been the case. We only hope the Minister of Housing will take this to heart in the future before he brings in an important amendment of this nature and that he will go the consultative route, as is the case in many other areas.

As a result of this particular procedure we have had to do a lot of work, and the civil service has had to do a lot of work in the last days rushing about trying to get clarification on exactly what these various words mean, so municipalities would be protected by any changes that might ensue.

Mr. Chairman, we will support this amendment. We think it has the concurrence of the municipalities and of people who are developing, the architects and so forth who play a major role in drawing plans, present the drawings, et cetera. We think the government was originally in error in trying to omit the word “plan.” It is now included in the amendment. This is obviously an important improvement and we will support the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I just want to make a couple of observations in relation to the comments of the member for Riverdale and of the member for Waterloo North. In our discussions on second reading I indicated very clearly that we had taken the time to consult with the solicitors representing the city of Toronto. We had consulted with the Municipal Liaison Committee, which is the organization which is supposed to have some say in matters relating to municipal problems in their relationship with the province. It wasn’t a matter of having cast aside all considerations for those people.

I also indicated to the member for Riverdale that at the time I had a letter from the mayor of Ottawa which drew my attention to only one section of the bill which was giving their council some concern. To put to rest any fears about consultation with communities, municipalities, regional governments, county governments, I trust members are aware of the fact that in the presentation of the white paper on the Planning Act we have been going on through rather extensive meetings with municipal heads of council and with chairmen of planning board and others who are directly related to those problems.

We have indicated clearly that we are prepared to have some 25 to 30 workshops that will deal with the very specifics of the legislation with members of municipal councils, with members of municipal planning boards, and with staff of those planning operations throughout the province, and with the private sector as well.

Mr. Chairman, there is no indication that we were hemming and hawing or trying to delete something that would be of advantage to a municipality. Obviously, we have taken the advice and suggestions of members of the opposition parties on second reading of the bill, at which time I said we were prepared to move an amendment. I also put to rest any fears that we are not going through a very in-depth consultation program with municipalities relating to the Planning Act, whether it be this section or the entire new act we are bringing in, we hope, some time in 1980.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The member for Waterloo North had an alternative amendment, which I gather he is content to waive.

Mr. Epp: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw the amendment since the minister has put his motion for amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that section 35a(5) as set out in section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to confer on the council of the municipality power to limit the heights or density of buildings to be erected on the land.”

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The only change, Mr. Chairman, is that the word “bylaw” has been replaced with the word “section,” strictly because the bylaw is not in force.

Mr. Epp: We will support the amendment the minister has put. It is essentially the same as in the present act and was not in the proposed bill. We think the amendment is a good one; the original wording in the act was good. We will support it.

Mr. Renwick: We’re in agreement with the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Epp moves that section 35(a)(6) of the act as set out in section 1 of the bill be struck out, and that subsections 7, 8, 9 and 10 be renumbered accordingly.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this is new to the bill. This section was not in the former Planning Act of June 1976. It is our feeling that it is really not necessary because it provides a certain amount of flexibility to municipalities to have the kind of parking that may be necessary. In other words, now that we’re getting into multi-functional buildings, if that is what you want to call them, where you might have commercial and residential uses combined in one building, the municipality needs some kind of flexibility to determine the kind of parking that is required for that building.

The other thing is that the municipality can, under a zoning by-law, declare what kind of parking they desire. So we feel that if a municipality had section 35(a)(6), to which they had to adhere, they might make that minimum requirement fairly high. Then they may not be able to go below that minimum. We feel that with the flexibility offered by the deletion of subsection 6 they will then be able to make that requirement fairly low, a very low minimum, knowing full well that at a later date, when the developer is in, they can apply section 35(a) and ask for a higher amount. In other words, they have that flexibility.

I think, Mr. Chairman, it’s essential that municipalities be given a little leeway, a little leverage here, to be able to negotiate and deal with the developers as they come in and can ask for parking facilities, as well as parking allocations, or parking restrictions, et cetera, as with other conditions. Obviously, we will support this. We feel that it is a move in favour of local flexibility and local autonomy.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I think the point is very clear. We’re aware of the amendment that is going to be moved; if they had not moved it we were prepared to move an identical amendment providing for this deletion.

The significance of it is simply that in any form of the kind of sophisticated planning a municipality such as the city of Toronto is engaged in, the last thing one needs is to run into an inflexible method, with respect to any provision of off-street parking facilities. There is a certain sophistication involved in the work which is done on all of these planning developments.

I do think we must leave it to the authorities within the municipalities to work out, in conjunction with those interested in the development, the most appropriate method by which the purposes of the overall plans can be achieved. That is not furthered, in any way, when we have a provision such as subsection 6, which imposes an unnecessary rigidity on the whole of the planning process, as related to those facilities.

[11:30]

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the remarks of the member for Waterloo North relating to subsection (6) as presented in the bill this morning as not being in the original section 35(a) of the Planning Act, but obviously the ministry recognized there was a weakness in the act which allowed section 35(a) virtually, as a site-plan control, to become a “zoning via site-plan” section -- virtually everything else it wants to be within the field of planning.

When one finds there is a weakness, one should try to strengthen that particular area in the process of amending a section. I suppose it is also correct to say that two wrongs do not make a right; so that is the reason we brought it in.

The member for Waterloo North said there was flexibility; that it could be accommodated within a zoning bylaw of the municipality. That is exactly where it should be. Parking requirements, density requirements, side-yard requirements or open-space requirements are things that should obviously be within a zoning bylaw. We should not try to take section 35(a) and use it as a catch-all for everything that we might think a municipality would want. They should have a zoning bylaw that clearly indicates what the requirements are in the development of a particular piece of property in their community.

The honourable member said they go for minimal requirements in a zoning bylaw. I am not here to be hypercritical of municipalities, but they go for what they think are the requirements of the community, minimal or otherwise; it is what is essential to accommodate the type of traffic or parking or other things that are needed on that particular site.

We felt it was well that this act should have this section put in. If municipalities want to amend a zoning bylaw to request more parking, it should be done under the zoning. We looked at subsection 6 for some time to determine whether it was really essential. I suppose members of the opposition are saying this morning that municipalities should have a great deal more flexibility. I only want to make this one observation: at some point in time, the developer, whether it be an individual or a corporate structure, has to know exactly what he or she or they are being called upon to do under the section they are dealing with. To say that they can negotiate it every time through an agreement, I don’t think is the fairest way in which to expect land to be developed.

I recognize there are complexities in the field of planning and development today that we did not entertain five or 10 years ago in this province or in any community of this province. We still think that section 6 could serve well. We think that municipalities have the competence and the capability to amend their zoning bylaws to accommodate the amount of parking they require in any given zone or block of zoning in their community. It is not a section that is going to stop up the Planning Act or the planning of this province, by any stretch of the imagination. However, we think that what is good for the municipality also to some degree has to be good for the individual who has invested his money in buying a piece of land that can be developed, and he should have some understanding from the day he buys it as to what the ground rules happen to be that he is going to be called upon to observe for servicing that piece of land.

We are not at the point where subsection 6 has to stay in the bill. If it means we are going to get bogged down for a period of time here this morning on this subsection 6, I am prepared to accept the amendment by the member for Waterloo North and to allow the subsection to stand aside, and in the process of developing our white paper we will look at it again.

I just make the point very clearly that I don’t think we should try to get into two areas of trying to zone one piece of land. To have an agreement that says you will do a certain thing on a piece of property that you own -- site-plan improvement -- is one thing. But to try to have this section 35(a) virtually become the overall zoning bylaw of a municipality, I think is wrong. There are property owners who are entitled to some consideration as well as the elected people, remembering they both represent the same cause.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that subsection (6), as renumbered, of section 35(a) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by inserting after “plans” in the first line “and drawings” and by inserting after “plans” in the fourth line of clause (c) thereof the same words “and drawings.”

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, this is essentially a clarification of some of the points here, and we will support it.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, we agree with the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that subsection (9), as renumbered, of section 35(a) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by inserting after “plans” in the first line, in the seventh line and in the 13th line, “or drawings.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(10) Where the council of a municipality has designated a site plan control area under this section the council may by bylaw

“(a) define any class or classes of development that may be undertaken without the approval of plans otherwise required under subsection 4; and

“(b) delegate to either a committee of the council or to an appointed officer of the municipality identified in the bylaw, either by name or position occupied, any of the council’s powers or authority under this section except the authority to define any class or classes of development as mentioned in clause (a).”

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, does the minister not want to comment?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, this amendment came about as a result of some requests by, I would say, the city of Ottawa in particular. Where plans had been approved by a municipality or council, rather than waiting to go back to council if there had to be some small changes in it, they felt it would be more advantageous to have an individual officer or a committee of council designated as the authority to make those minor adjustments. That is basically why this amendment is being proposed this morning.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we agree with the amendment. I was speaking to a planning director just this morning and he was telling me he felt this amendment was very important from his standpoint and from the standpoint of all municipalities. As the minister has pointed out, if you had for instance, a bylaw which said a development required 10 birch trees, and the developer later came along and wanted to put in white pine trees, he would then have to go back to the city council to have the bylaw amended in order to make that change. That is, to say the least, ludicrous. So, in concert with this particular amendment, the municipality can now pass a bylaw giving to a committee of council or to an individual that authority, either in whole or in part, as they see fit. We endorse the amendment for that reason.

Mr. Renwick: We are in agreement with the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“2. Notwithstanding section 1, section 35(a) of the Planning Act, as it exists on the day before this act comes into force, shall be deemed to continue in force in respect of any bylaw passed under that section prior to the day before this act comes into force.”

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have a new section 3, Mr. Chairman. Do you wish me to deal with it separately?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Yes, I would think that would probably be easier.

Are there any discussions on the proposed amendment for section 2?

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“3. Every agreement entered into by a municipality after the 15th day of December, 1973, and before the day that section 35(a) of the Planning Act as re-enacted by section 1 of this act comes into force, to the extent that the agreement yields that the facilities and matters mentioned in subsection 2 of section 35(a) of the Planning Act as it exists on the day before this act comes into force, is hereby declared to be valid and binding.”

He further moves that the present sections 2 and 3 be renumbered as sections 4 and 5 respectively.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Correct.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any discussion in regard to the proposed amendment for a new section 3?

Mr. Roy: I just want to thank the minister for the amendment.

You will recall that in committee the city of Ottawa had proposed what was called Bill Pr9 which would have done much of what is proposed by the minister in Bill 96. Yesterday in committee we deferred and agreed that section 8 of Bill Pr9 not be proceeded with on the basis that the minister would proceed with Bill 96. The one concern the city of Ottawa had, and I think it’s recognized by the minister, is that there were existing agreements and, on the basis of these existing agreements, the city of Ottawa had inserted in their bill the subsection 9 which did basically what the minister is now proposing in the amendment of subsection 3. I think that will plug that loophole and will be appreciated by municipalities which had existing agreements.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as renumbered and amended, agreed to.

Section 4 and 5, as renumbered, agreed to.

Bill 96, as amended, reported.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT

Consideration of Bill 163, An Act to reform the Law respecting Residential Tenancies.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I would like the consent of the House to change my seat and also for the accommodation of my advisers.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: In committee, that is granted, sir.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I need just a little bit of advice.

We have distributed, I hope, to all the members of both parties who need copies, our amendment. We hope they have them and we’re hoping to be able to deal with them somewhat expeditiously. We are proposing a new section and a new part to deal with one of the amendments. Do you have the amendment, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I don’t have the amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party. The Liberals just asked to withdraw their proposed amendment, which they have done.

Mr. Renwick: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, I thought they had been distributed to the table.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: No, this is an amendment proposed for section 1.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, you will note there are nine amendments before you. If you would be good enough to look towards the end of the package you’ll see the last one is headed, “New section, new part to follow part VII.”

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Yes, I have that.

[11:45]

Mr. Renwick: I assume, Mr. Chairman, subject to your guidance, that it would be appropriate for me to move that at the time we have completed section 69, which is the end of part VII. If the amendment were to carry there would be consequential redesignation of the various parts. Is that agreeable to you, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: It is agreeable to me, unless the committee thinks otherwise. It would appear to have the consent of the committee.

Mr. Renwick: There is a further one which I have marked “section 111a, new section.” I assume I would move that one just after 111, if that is agreeable.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: You also have an amendment to section 119, haven’t you?

Mr. Renwick: Yes. If it is in order, Mr. Chairman, I will move my amendment to section 1 of the bill.

On section 1:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection 4:

“(4) For the purpose of this act, the earliest reasonable date on which a tenant or subtenant may be evicted by order of the commission is a date at least 15 days after the date on which the commission’s order was made.”

Mr. Renwick: By way of explanation, we have been concerned that with the best will in the world, since an eviction is very much a Draconian result of a landlord-tenant dispute, regardless of the merit of the particular problem, there be something called a clear period of grace before an eviction order would take effect. That is not in any real sense inconsistent with the present provisions under which procedures are taken. It should be quite possible, I would think, for our colleagues in the House to recognize the reasonableness of continuing that particular provision.

We have selected 15 days as being a fair and reasonable period within which there should be, after an eviction order has been issued, a waiting period. Later on you will note we have tried to make a provision in one special instance, although that’s not the only reason for this amendment, where if an order is issued in the absence of the tenant, and the tenant after service has made an ex parte application within seven days, it would be possible for the order to be quashed if it merited that treatment. This is only one example. I do believe it is essential for all of us and for the members of the commission in particular to be told by the statute that there is to be a 15-day period of grace because of the severity of the eviction procedure.

Mrs. Campbell: This particular amendment, somewhat differently framed, was before the committee. I believe, if memory serves me, the amendment was put for 30 days and that was subsequently withdrawn. Certainly on the face of it, and if one looks at the experience of the past, the 15-day grace period is very similar to what we have at the present time. The difficulty is, of course, that in dealing with this bill we are dealing with a whole new concept.

One of the provisions of the bill is that the commission shall have an absolute responsibility to attempt arbitration, for example, in the course of the proceedings. The matter that bothered me, and I think it bothered a good many, was the actual cry, I would suggest, of those small landlords on whose behalf the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) spoke so eloquently in committee. That is the situation of the person who has someone in a shared accommodation in the sense that the landlord lives in the house and rents a flat, for example. In several instances they pointed out their problems with what they termed “the professional rent evader.” They were able to adduce some reports -- I must not call it evidence, because they were not under oath, but at least they spoke to the committee -- about these problems. I would like to just put this into context.

First of all, we do have the arbitration process. Secondly, we have provision in the bill that no eviction order can be made or should be made where, notwithstanding the grounds are there, there would be unfairness to a tenant to make such an order. Having those two things in mind and then looking at the kinds of cases where a person would have an order made, whether it be for vandalism, whether it be for nonpayment of rent, it seems to me that with the provision for an appeal enough is done to cover those very serious cases.

While I normally do want to see some period of grace, I think these small landlords have certainly indicated that in the past it has taken them months to go through the court procedures. I must say that while that time may be circumscribed somewhat by this bill, nevertheless it could be a lengthy period of time.

For that reason, in committee we were not prepared to accept the amendment of 30 days and that amendment was withdrawn. I am afraid we cannot support this amendment at this time.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, just a word of comment: I can always rely on my colleague, the member for St. George, to raise the “bad apple” theory, that we spend all our time here going through all of these bills simply for the purpose of making certain the bad apple will not take advantage of the system. I don’t happen to believe in that particular theory.

Mr. Mancini: That’s not what she said.

Mr. Epp: She didn’t even mention an orchard.

Mr. Renwick: I regret there are always those who cause immense difficulties regardless of the procedures followed at any time. This is a law of general application in the province --

Mr. Ruston: Talk to the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Renwick: -- under which there will be legitimate disputes and differing views which will go through a course of being heard before a commission which we expect -- we will be surprised but we expect, on the assurance of the minister -- will provide a speedy method for resolving disputes between landlords and tenants. We recognize -- indeed, it was my colleague the member for High Park-Swansea who, as the member for St. George said, clearly brought them to our attention -- the very real concerns of the small landlord, not only in his area but in the area I represent, the area the member for St. George represents and the area my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) represents, where these problems are very real.

We have attempted in the bill to deal with those questions. That doesn’t alter the fact that where you repose in a commission, and, I may say, an inquisitorial commission, the right to order the eviction, and if in its discretion it decides to do so and terminate the tenancy that way, it seems to us to be eminently reasonable that whenever there is a provision in this bill for the termination of tenancies -- for example, “Where on the application of the landlord the commission determines that a tenant has breached the obligation” and so on, “it may make an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant on a date specified by the commission” -- the commission has got to make that determination. All we are saying is there must be a 15-day delay because of all of the problems inherent in the relocation of any family living in rental accommodation, particularly in the kind of rental accommodation in the areas represented by my colleague from St. George and by myself.

I would urge the government, if the Liberal Party is not prepared to support us on this matter, to consider supporting this very reasonable request.

Mr. Mancini: I would like to speak to the amendment moved by the member for Riverdale, who, it appears, makes it seem as if a tenant can be evicted almost the next day just because the landlord seems to want that done. Having had a chance to sit through the committee hearings since January, and having a good knowledge of what the bill does, I can say that the tenant in no way is going to be evicted immediately, such as is the impression given by the member for Riverdale.

First of all, the landlord must have a good reason for evicting a tenant, either because the tenant is not paying his rent, or because he is causing vandalism or something of that sort of a serious nature. The bill itself says the tenant cannot be evicted unfairly, and that gives the commission any leeway it would need to make a good decision and ensure a tenant is treated fairly.

Secondly, a tenant has to be notified that the landlord does want to evict him. Then there is a mediation period in which the problem may or may not be resolved. This will take a certain number of days. Next, a hearing date is set up, which will take a further period of time. In addition, this new commission we are establishing will then either decide in favour of the tenant or of the landlord and give a specified date as to when the tenant must leave, if indeed that has been the decision of the commission.

I think we do have a certain period of time which will be ample. I believe tenants will be treated fairly. I think the extra 15 days requested by the member for Riverdale, and which was mentioned before when we were in committee, although at that time it was 30 days, are not necessary. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The members for St. George and Essex South have very accurately described the consensus in the committee. That is also the position of the minister.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Sections 2 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.

[12:00]

On section 33:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 33(5) of the bill be deleted.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, a brief word of explanation. All that subsection 5 states is that subsection 3 does not apply to rental units that are exempt from rent review under part XI. Part XI are those units which will be exempt from the rent review procedures and those units are all of the units constructed and occupied after the end of 1976, all units where the rent is in excess of $750, together with some other exemptions which are provided.

What we have asked for throughout the hearings was a central registry. By central, we mean centralized on a regional basis, with a commission where any prospective tenant or a tenant in the province in that area could go and look for and obtain information about the rent being charged for comparable accommodation elsewhere in the area.

For reasons explained to us in the committee, which did not seem to have any rationale behind them, the minister has made a dichotomy between those units in the province which are exempt from rent review and those units in the province which are subject to rent review. For those units which are subject to rent review, not only do they post the information which we are speaking about in the residential complex, but they are required that “every landlord shall at least once in every 12-month period give to the commission a copy of the schedule maintained by him under subsection 1.”

We wish to have that made applicable to all units throughout the province. It seemed reasonable to us that over a period of time that kind of information should be generally available on a regionalized basis. It did appear at one point in the committee that we had perhaps reached an agreement, but as is so often the case, each of us heard what we wanted to hear and didn’t hear the other part of it and it fell apart in this strange dichotomy.

I do want to emphasize that under the bill as before us, in section 33(1) there is provision for posting up in every residential complex the information which is required. Our concern has been to see there is elsewhere, on a rationalized basis under the aegis of the commission, the information for all of the units across the province, and not to perpetuate this strange dichotomy between those units which are subject and those units which are not subject to rent review. It again, Mr. Chairman, appeals to us as essentially reasonable and consistent with the position which we have taken. I commend it to my colleagues in the other parties and to the minister.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, being very reasonable and consistent, we obviously will not support this amendment, simply because it does something which is not in concert, which is not consistent with what this Legislature committed itself to back in 1975. That was to exempt those units built after December 31, 1975, or as of January 1, 1976. It is our feeling that to have those units which were built since that day participate in a central registry and then have to submit all the rents and everything to that central registry, is a subtle way of involving them in rent review, a move this Legislature said should not be done.

We think that having an in-house registry, giving the tenants who have a unit or the potential tenants who are going to obtain a unit, the opportunity to be able to go to the manager, administrator, supervisor or superintendent, whoever that person may be, to see the registry, and to see the rents within that unit, is proper and right. To suggest then that we should go that extra distance and have that registry filed with a central or regional office and, therefore, have someone go over it to see if all the rent increases are six per cent or five per cent or four per cent or whatever they may be is not something this Legislature committed itself to. In fact, it suggested they be exempt.

We on this side of the House obviously cannot, will not and must not, to be consistent, support the amendment.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I wasn’t able to sit in committee to listen to many of the presentations.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Did you say “fortunately” or “unfortunately”?

Mr. Riddell: I would have liked to learn a little more about it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I wouldn’t have wished that on anybody.

Mr Riddell: I must admit that rent does not pose much of a problem in the riding I represent -- not that I shouldn’t be interested in rent review as it affects all people throughout Ontario.

I would like to know if the government housing at the Huron industrial park, which is owned by the Ontario Development Corporation, falls under rent review legislation? If not, I wonder if there aren’t reasons for having it included. The reason I say this is that recently I received some complaints from the tenants at the park that there is a move under way to evict some of them. This is for no other reason than that there is an industry coming in there, and the industry has in some way negotiated with the administrator -- again, this is some information I have been given and I haven’t checked into it -- to evict tenants to make room for those people who will be coming along with the industry to move in.

If that is the case, I simply do not think that type of thing should be permitted. This is the reason I am asking if the government housing at Huron industrial park is included in this rent review legislation.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I am not altogether sure of the answer from the description of this particular property. It’s not really a question of rent review the member is asking about; he is asking if it is covered under the existing Landlord and Tenant Act --

Mr. Riddell: Right.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- or, if this bill goes through, the Residential Tenancy Commission. I don’t really think it would be, to the best of my knowledge, unless someone from the Ministry of Housing can tell me differently.

The question being raised by the honourable member is dealt with in this act, as it is in the present Landlord and Tenant Act, in that there would have to be an application made stating the unit -- let’s leave it at an individual unit rather than a group -- the individual unit was required by the landlord for his own use or that of his spouse, a very direct use. Obviously that would not be the case. But, by the same token -- and I am sure the honourable member would recognize the validity of this -- there is a section that states where a unit is required for purposes of employment, agricultural or other, the tenant of the unit could be evicted if he ceased employment with the concern.

In the case you mentioned, granted it is hypothetical, it seems to me the landlord, which in this case is the Ontario Development Corporation since it is not subsidized public housing, would have the gravest of difficulty, either in the present act, the Landlord and Tenant Act, the courts, or in the future, if this bill goes through with the Residential Tenancy Commission. While there is an obvious benefit to an employer where he provides housing as a term and condition of employment in that when the person or the occupant ceases employment, obviously, he has to leave, there are also some provisions for students. It’s a pretty rational position.

I would think the corporation would, indeed, have to get into considerable negotiations with the individual tenants before they even applied to the commission because what they would basically be applying to the commission for would be that these units that were heretofore entirely residential, had suddenly changed status and the particular number of units was directly tied to employment with the particular commercial concern coming in. So I would think, reasonably, if the Ontario Development Corporation had any ideas of entering into a situation like this, they would almost inevitably have to deal in some manner for an equitable resolution with the existing tenants.

I hope that would answer the concerns but it isn’t tied to rent review. It’s tied to the Landlord and Tenant Act, and so on and so forth, and it is basically their security of tenure which is being affected.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if the minister is straying from the amendment and if these questions should more properly be directed when we come to section 134.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I would think section 33 covers a number of instances and is very broad.

Mr. Riddell: I thank the minister for the explanation. To familiarize him with the Huron industrial park, it used to be the old Centralia airbase.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, I know.

Mr. Riddell: It was taken over by the Ontario government when it was phased out and the houses belong to the ODC. The administrator, of course, rents the houses out on behalf of the ODC. I must say this came about at the time when Charles MacNaughton was the member representing the riding. By way of trying to attract industry into our part of the riding, which we dearly need --

Mr. Nixon: Those were the bad old days.

Mr. Riddell: -- he decided maybe it was a good thing for the government to take it over, and they got it for a nominal fee from the federal government. The story I’m getting from the tenants is that the administrator is looking for very picayune ways of getting them out, such as, he’s now saying there is no way they can park their trailer on the lawn in front of the house, or they can’t park it in the laneway, or something of that nature. It looks as if he might be looking for very trivial ways of getting these people out to make room for the people who are coming along with this new industry coming in. The tenants are wondering what kind of protection they have if this is the case. That is simply the reason I asked if they would be covered under this bill.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I might suggest to the honourable member that he can afford them a great deal of protection by helping to expedite the passage of this bill, because until the Ontario Development Corporation, with the passage of this bill, certainly changes the status of those units from rental accommodation, they simply are not going to be able to do this. Furthermore, the items you mention about certain attitudinal changes on the project would be very difficult to prove in court under the existing Landlord and Tenant Act but, in terms of the investigatory powers of the Residential Tenancy Commission under this act, a very prompt passage would, indeed, assist the tenants there and ease many of their concerns.

[12:15]

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, getting back to section 33 and the amendment made by the third party, I think all of us in this Legislature should remember that when rent review came into being on January 1, 1976, we made a commitment that all units built after that day would not come under the rent control legislation. We did that so we could encourage the building of more rental units. This province needs more rental units and we need newer rental units. I think any move on our part to renege on that promise would just show the industry that our promises are not even worth listening to and that the commitment we gave through legislation was not worth the paper it’s written on.

As the member for Waterloo North stated, these buildings constructed after 1976 will have their own listing in their own building, so the tenants in those buildings would have access to that information. I think we should stick with the promise we made and try to encourage new rental accommodation to be constructed in this province.

Mr. Renwick: One very brief comment: I say in all anxiety to my colleague, the member for Huron-Middlesex, that if this government happens to be the landlord of any constituents of yours, you’d better be careful and they’d better get the best independent legal advice they can if they want to protect themselves from that landlord. I can well believe from the evidence presented before our committee that any kind of manipulation of the rules is available to that government if they happen to be landlords in the province. So I am glad you raised that point. Perhaps when we come to the appropriate place, the appropriate minister of the crown may stand in his place and relieve your anxiety. Otherwise take them home with you and consult with your constituents.

On the point raised by my colleague, the member for Essex South, about this commitment: first of all, let me lay this to rest. There is no such thing that I know of as a commitment of this assembly. I don’t know of anything that can be done about that.

There was some talk in the committee about this commitment, and the minister gave a lot of credence to the thought that they’d shed part of their blood in order to seal that commitment somewhere, and it was talked about in some way as though it was a commitment of this assembly. I dissociated myself and the New Democratic Party from any such commitment at any time by this party with respect to those exemptions. What the Liberal Party may feel they have done and what the government may have felt they have done, they have done in the names of their own institutions and not in the name of this assembly. This assembly made no such commitment, never has made such commitment, and this party -- this institution, if I may call it that -- has made no such commitment.

Mr. Roy: You are exaggerating when you compare your party to an institution.

Mr. Renwick: We stand committed, not to some Draconian bureaucracy of a central registry, but for the convenience of the informed consumer public of Ontario. We believe there should be, on a regional basis, for any citizen in search of rental accommodation, a place with modern techniques for providing that kind of information. I refer to the type of information they require to be an informed consumer and to do some comparative shopping.

Mr. McCaffrey: The member for Riverdale I think is quite correct when he says he was not party to the commitment that has been suggested was undertaken by the Legislature. He need not feel, nor does his party have to feel they were part of any such undertaking. But what is very clear is that the government made such a commitment, had honoured it, and will continue to honour it.

Through the course of the committee all members of the committee had shared this desire to see the consumer as well-equipped as possible to make decisions before entering into a rental agreement. It’s very clear in the bill that every landlord -- not just those buildings occupied or built prior to 1976 -- shall maintain and keep a schedule. The difference is a simple one: those buildings built and occupied after January 1976, as per the government’s undertaking made with the builders that they would not have to file that with the commission.

The member for Riverdale refers to it as a strange dichotomy. It is more than that. It reflects an earlier agreement which will continue to be honoured.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Sections 34 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 40:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that the words in subsection 3 of section 40 “or in a breach of the tenancy agreement” be deleted from the bill.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, a brief word of explanation: The bill, as it was originally presented to this assembly for first reading, did not include those particular words in it. The marginal note with respect to this has “overcrowding” as the marginal annotation.

The bill, as originally introduced -- and we ask that it be restored to its original pristine form -- read: “A tenant shall not permit a number of persons to occupy the rental unit on a continuing basis that results in the contravention of health, safety or housing standards required by law.”

I believe it was the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) who introduced this particular amendment, and it was carried in a moment of forgetfulness by my colleagues in the Liberal Party voting with the Conservative members. I would hope on this occasion we could move to delete those provisions.

We here adhere to the proposition that, if there are housing, safety or health standards with respect to the number of persons who may occupy a given unit of living accommodation, those should be the governing standards; a landlord should not be in a position to dictate the number of persons who should occupy the particular residential area by having it as a provision in the tenancy agreement.

I might point out to the House the very real significance of permitting this to happen. There are so many landlords who have standard forms of leases who, if they insert the number of persons in a particular clause, are then in a very commanding position as against a tenant, because they can get an order from the commission requiring the tenant to comply with the obligation or not to breach the obligation again. If the tenant, through no fault of his own, is simply not in a position to comply -- for example, if he has had an addition to his family which brings him over the particular number and he cannot farm out the baby or put it out for adoption some place, or something like that -- the landlord can get an order from the commission requiring compliance. Under a later section of the bill, if he dares to disobey that, the commission, if it sees fit, may issue an eviction order. It seems to us to be quite inconsistent to provide that there should be that kind of imbalance in the relationship between landlord and tenant.

We firmly believe in the adequacy of and the enforcement of the laws passed by representative elected bodies for health, safety and housing standards. I would ask the government and the Liberal Party to support the deletion of those words and to return the subsection to its original wording.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we cannot support this amendment. I sympathize with the example that the member for Riverdale has given, that in the case where a couple might have an addition to the family the landlord could, if he wanted, try to evict that particular family.

This obviously would come under a situation where it would be unfair to try to enforce that section. The member for Riverdale has said “if they see fit.” I doubt very much that the commission would see fit to evict someone because they happen to have an addition to the family.

I think what this particular phrase does is obligate a person to give truthful information from the beginning. I think that’s very important. To omit a section where that obligation was not there would leave all kinds of loopholes where you could give false information and thereby get into a particular building and then try to be evicted, which might take some time. It would not be fair either to the tenant or to the landlord. We don’t feel on this side of the House that this amendment is necessary. We think that as the particular section stands it will benefit both the landlord and the tenants.

Mr. Mancini: In my opinion, any commissioner who evicts a family that’s had a new addition to that family needs to be fired -- and I hope the minister has heard that loud and clear. The bill states under section 102(2) that “the commission may refuse to accept any application or continue any proceeding where, in its opinion, the matter is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or has not been initiated in good faith.” I think that section certainly would give good coverage to the families which have had a new addition, and my earlier words stand.

Mr. Roy: I just want to make one comment about this section. I’ve been sitting here all morning listening to the member for Riverdale who’s been making comments and proposing amendments on this bill --

Mr. Makarchuk: You’ve been listening to other members as well. There has been some agreement.

Mr. Roy: This may be, but I think I’m still entitled to make comments, especially when I see what’s going on to my left. I think I shall not be curtailed on making certain comments.

Mr. Makarchuk: You want to extend this?

Mr. Roy: All I wanted to say was this: earlier, my colleague from St. George gave a reason why, on a particular amendment, it was going to cause undue hardship on a small landlord. The member for Riverdale said, “Oh, yes, you’re looking for bad apples. You’re trying to make the rule with the exception.” I thought it a bit much that in the proposal of this amendment he reaches pretty far -- he reaches pretty far indeed -- to give an example of a situation where a tenant and a family having an addition might, because of this section, be in contravention of a lease and then a commissioner would say, “You’re in contravention and therefore you’re thrown out.”

I thought that was just a bit much. Even on the widest interpretation or reading of section 40(3) I couldn’t quite understand how that would be considered to be in violation of health, safety or housing standards required by law.

I just thought I should get on the record that when a member is standing here posturing he can’t have it both ways. He can’t, on the one hand, when one of my colleagues brings forward an example, or there’s difficulty with a bill, say that is the exception and then, on the other hand, reach as far as he does trying to say that a particular subsection will wreak undue hardship on a tenant.

[12:30]

Mr. Renwick: I accept the admonishment of my colleague, the member for Ottawa East. What one does is not necessarily what one says that others do in this House. I referred, of course, in most loving terms to my colleague, the member for St. George. Each of us on occasion uses the bad apple theory as it may serve our purpose and I, perhaps, even recall the member for Ottawa East having used it on occasion.

Mr. Roy: Oh yes. I try not to pontificate about its use by others.

Mr. Renwick: I see. I will tuck that away in my memory. I’ll watch closely.

Mr. Roy: I will be silent from here on in.

Mr. Renwick: My only point on the amendment is very clear: where there are actual laws related to health and safety and occupancy of residential accommodations, that’s quite fine. But considering the history of the vexatious nature of the problem created by placing in a tenancy agreement a covenant -- and I draw this to the attention of my friend from Essex South -- a covenant by the tenant that they will not have more than such and such number of persons in order to get in the accommodation, it’s very difficult for anyone to treat a breach of that kind of condition or covenant in the agreement as simply a matter of vexatious proceedings.

Those matters can be enforced and it wouldn’t be the first time a person sitting in a judicial position would say, “I sympathize immensely with what the tenant has said but the clear words of the agreement are this and we must, for consistency’s purpose, allow the order to issue in the particular case.” I would ask for the support for this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I just want to read a sentence into the record so that no one will be confused. First of all, the member for Essex South is absolutely correct in the section which does prohibit vexatious application, among others. In addition, there is also section 6(1). I just want to read in the last part of that subsection, and I think this will make it abundantly clear. “The obligation cannot be enforced unless it is reasonable in all the circumstances.” I think that covers the matter raised by the member for Riverdale and his example about someone giving birth and losing their tenancy as a result.

Mr. Renwick: I am constrained for a brief comment. The problem between accommodation in Metropolitan Toronto where children are permitted and children not permitted is the kind of controversy which is extremely difficult for the commission to rule on in the absence of some kind of public pronouncement on it from an elected body. It’s not that kind of circumstance. Certainly there are instances where it would not be reasonable and I agree with that. There are instances where it would be vexatious. I agree with that. But there are also issues of substance involved in this amendment and the amendment should carry.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Section 41 agreed to.

On section 42:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 42 be deleted from the bill.

I might suggest that the way this amendment is placed just negates the section. Therefore, the proper way to handle this would be to vote against the section when it’s put.

Mr. Renwick: This particular provision is simply inserted for practical purposes, although the minister responsible for the bill may have agreed to put it forward and continue it in the bill. It’s been placed in there because the Minister of Housing of Ontario requested that it be in the bill, It relates to what is known in the confines of our committee as subsidized public housing, which simply means that it’s people who are tenants in publicly owned accommodation. The largest of those landlords, of course, is the Ontario Housing Corporation. I understand they have upwards of 90,000 units now in the province; they are the largest landlord, let alone the largest one covered by this.

This is the only place in the bill where the members of the committee, because of the refusal to take this out, have provided an invidious distinction between people who live in publicly owned accommodation and those who do not live in it, and have inserted in the bill provisions which are in their nature -- if I could use that often-used term -- quasi-criminal in the allegations that are made.

One will find in this section such words as “false statements,” “knowingly misrepresented” and all of the words that are related to some form of criminal charge related to fraud and misrepresentation, with provisions for very significant penalties against any such tenant, culminating, of course, in the termination of the tenancy and an order for eviction of a tenant.

We have taken the position throughout that the tenants in public housing in Ontario are not required to comply with obligations different from the obligations imposed on any other tenant in Ontario except for the purpose of determining whether they are in the economically straitened circumstances, whatever the reason, that require them to have that housing accommodation.

Once the people are admitted to Ontario Housing, the question, and the only germane question, is one relating to need. In the committee, we have effectively dealt with that question under section 55. It had been the position of the New Democratic Party that an adequate way to deal with the one and only distinction that should be made between public housing tenants and other tenants in the province of Ontario was on the basis of what is now contained in section 55 of the bill. To have added these other punitive provisions is, in our view, a very bad example for the government to have admitted into the bill because of the kind of distinction it makes.

I am not going to go over them again, but the number of examples that were presented to the committee of the kind of information required from public housing tenants in order to be admitted to tenancy is picayune, detailed and exhaustive to the extent that it is offensive, and was offensive, to all the members of the committee. The same kind of basic intrusive information in very detailed particulars is required also with respect to the renewal of their occupancy in Ontario Housing. All of those kinds of things are still permitted, will be permitted and will exist.

It is not of help or assistance to us to have had the wording of this particular section amended in such a way as to add “knowingly and significantly,” “significantly makes,” or those kinds of words. That just adds an additional burden on those who have to make a decision whether or not this kind of offensive measure is going to be applied.

On the basis of the evidence that was given before the committee, either by the officials of Ontario Housing in support of their present procedures, by members of the public who are tenants in Ontario Housing, or by those who have represented tenants in Ontario Housing before the courts on these very issues, there is no justification that should allow this assembly to make this kind of distinction, in this kind of bill, against the tenants in public housing.

I cannot do other than to urge that the section be voted against and defeated and not form part of this bill.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, this section is one that has given me a great deal of concern. There is no question that I think every member of the committee present, when the board members of Ontario Housing Corporation came before the committee, was filled with dismay at the attitude of those persons. I say that so as to distinguish between them and the staff person who sat so diligently throughout the committee hearings and who, I believe, tried to be helpful to the committee. I know each and every one of us would have liked to have found a way, right then and there, to deal with the policies, whatever they are and whatever they may be, of that organization.

Of course, when you are filled with that kind of concern, you do want to delete this section and you do want to place those persons who are not able to meet the economic market in rents and deal with them as tenants, as is anyone else.

Then I come to the other side of the coin. Because of the failure of this government to provide sufficient housing for people who need it, I am disturbed with the practical issues which are implied in this section.

We heard there was great dismay by both the ministry and Ontario Housing with the one tiny little step forward the committee made by an amendment to try to protect those, particularly women because they are in the larger number, who are automatically evicted from Ontario Housing, the only reason being their families have grown up. That was one provision to which we were able to address ourselves.

It was agreed in the committee that we could not in this bill deal with the policy issues of Ontario Housing much as we wanted to do. I hope somewhere there will be some recommendation that a committee be struck to deal with the whole of Ontario Housing and its policies because they certainly need to be addressed.

I know of the people who come to me for housing and I suppose I have to think of those people as well, people who have legitimately put forward their needs. Because they happen to be under 60 years of age and working at a minimally paying job, they are not entitled to be dealt with as people.

[12:45]

I guess coming down to it, what I have to say is if there are people in housing who ought not to be there because they do not have the need and they have piggybacked over people by producing the necessary evidence in the point structure of Ontario Housing, then in my view it is not equity for all those who are waiting. I did not bring the figures with me that I think were given by the Ministry of Housing, the deputy minister who appeared before us, but the numbers were in the thousands of people in need who can’t get into housing.

I suppose then I say that I don’t believe basically that this should be in this type of bill and if by deleting it I could somehow be assured that this government would meet the needs of all the people in this province so that this need not be a part of it, then I would in fact of course support the deletion. But at this time it seems to me that it is wrong to support those who get into housing perhaps by trickery or perhaps by inadvertence. Those who get in by inadvertence are protected under this bill.

This is one case where I really am torn. I would love to delete it but, coming down on the side of those whom I deal with daily, those who are seeking some place to live, I guess this has to be here at this time.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, am I to understand from the comments made by the member for Riverdale that if this section was left in the bill it would tend to reinforce the stigma that seems to be attached to public housing or to tenants who live in public housing? Do I understand the member to indicate that this is the case, because I know, going back to the Huron Industrial Park, it has taken us a long time to get rid of that word that has been used time and time again in reference to that place. They call it the ghetto.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It’s not public housing within the meaning of the act.

Mr. Riddell: I don’t know, it’s still housing that is owned by the government, and the ODC has a --

Hon. Mr. Drea: My house is owned by the government -- CMHC has the mortgage.

Mr. Renwick: Your house is not owned by the government and you know it.

Mr. Riddell: The ODC hires an administrator to rent these houses out. All I’m saying is that if there is any possible chance that this section would bring that term back into the Huron Industrial Park, known as the ghetto, then I’m going to have to take a pretty serious look at it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member is perfectly entitled to take a very serious look at it, but I doubt if he wants to go back to his constituents and say that by removing this section of the act there became a reward for a word and a practice that it not dared to be even mentioned in this House; to wit, lying on an official document.

Mr. Renwick: I am glad of the minister’s intervention. There is nothing official about an application to be a tenant in tenant accommodation in Ontario. That’s the particular point I want to make. Is it an official document when you apply for an apartment in Cadillac Development Corporation? No. Does it become an official document when you apply for tenancy in Ontario Housing? Apparently yes.

It’s the bureaucratic mind at work. It has even got through to the minister. It has become official. It’s top sacred. You should have a special filing cabinet with a top drawer, top sacred, with official documents in it and put the application forms for Ontario Housing into it. My colleague, the member for St. George is torn; I wish I could clear up in her mind the invalidity of the argument she used to convince herself.

Section 55 clearly provides if there is any tenant in Ontario Housing who does not have need -- and that is the key word -- then on application by the landlord, in this case Ontario Housing Corporation or any other public authority, the determination can be made: does that tenant have need of this accommodation? If the decision is no, then there is provision of eviction; if the decision is yes, the tenant stays.

That’s fine. That is the one and only distinction we should have to make. We are happy to have made it and we are happy to have that kind of clearcut provision in section 55. But the members seem to indicate that somehow or other, if there is a falsity in the original document, Ontario Housing should have the privilege of exercising the continuous form of subterranean tyranny they now exercise against tenants because of some kind of a statement which may have been false, inadvertently or otherwise, in the original document.

An hon. member: Knowingly.

Mr. Renwick: Yes. But the question is that you can get that tenant before a commission affecting the tenant’s right to stay in that accommodation for determination of that question. The harassment is bringing the tenant before the commission on that basis.

Let’s not make any mistake. We have clear distinctions in this province between fraud and misrepresentation and doing people out of money and all of those things. All of those rights are available to Ontario Housing as landlord in the same way they are available to any other citizen in the province.

If someone has gotten into Ontario Housing and he wins the lottery, or he has failed to disclose his real assets and he has been getting cheap accommodation and it is discovered by Ontario Housing, they have every right -- and we would support that right -- to go to the courts and to claim that money, both in the criminal courts and in the civil courts. Money paid is one thing; bilking of people through fraud or misrepresentation is another thing entirely. I am saying this provision should place Ontario Housing in an advantageous position, rather than in the kind of position every other person in the province is in who has been defrauded.

I have not heard the member for St. George say that regardless of need, if there is a tenant in Ontario Housing who has need of that accommodation, that tenant should be evicted because there is some type of false statement in the original application. That has never been said by members of the Liberal Party, but that’s what they are saying.

We had examples of all kinds of statements; if you were to fill out that application form, you could make any number of statements. The landlord could say, “I happen to believe this statement of yours is significant; you had better come to the commission.” That very threat to those tenants, by having this provision in this act, is the kind of harassment which takes place in Ontario Housing and which we are trying to eliminate.

It is absolutely essential, in our view, that any remedies the landlord, Ontario Housing Corporation, has are the same remedies anybody else has. It doesn’t need any kind of a leg up here, by some specious argument with respect to the method by which people can be evicted from Ontario Housing.

I reiterate: the test is need. If the tenant, in his accommodation in Ontario Housing, can be shown not to have need, he shouldn’t be there. If the tenant has need, he should be there. There is no middle ground for us.

It seems to me we should leave the other remedies we want to have to the operation of the ordinary criminal and civil law, for which there is ample recourse, and not add this additional provision, making again the kind of invidious distinction that we disagree with between tenants of public housing in Ontario and other tenants.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, in the absence of my colleague from St. George, I feel compelled to clarify a distinction which I understood her to make but which, it would appear, the member for Riverdale did not perceive in the same way.

Like my colleague from St. George, I have a large number of my constituents who live in Ontario Housing. I know the pressures of daily living they come under, and there is no way that I, like she, would add to those pressures. Also like the member for St. George, I have a large number of people, almost on a daily basis, appealing for some assistance to get into Ontario Housing.

The point that the member for St. George was clearly making was the point of equity, because there are two factors that are taken into consideration with respect to those who live in Ontario Housing. First and foremost is need. The second one is that the rent paid for that accommodation, once the need is established, is based on income. That’s where the point of equity has to have the second edge. The ability to pay, and the amount that one has the ability to pay, are also parts of the need formula.

My colleague from St. George is clearly expressing her personal anguish -- and I simply want to echo it -- that there are more people in this province who need assistance with respect to subsidized, public housing. That is not the quarrel; that is not the issue. The point is, when there simply isn’t enough -- and that is the situation -- to meet the entire need, then there are two questions and two other issues that have to be included in our own perception of the problem. One is, who has the greater need? The second is, what is the issue of equity at stake here? That’s the point my colleague was making. That is still a valid point, and it’s through her concern and her anguish that she stresses that point, and not whether or not there is need.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee and having heard the arguments, I must say I have been moved both by the member for Riverdale and by his eloquent, very reasoned and legal arguments about taking this section out.

Coming from a riding that has very little public housing and not being involved in it myself, I tried to approach this from the standpoint of more or less a third person listening to the arguments. I can appreciate many of the things the member has said about various serious hardships that are imposed upon occupants of public housing who no longer meet the requirements and are called upon to leave. But I think the remedy for that is in public housing.

We were told by the deputy minister responsible for public housing that his ministry’s mandate is to give such housing to three categories: families with children, senior citizens (those persons 60 years of age and over) and the disabled. If those people are being denied housing by virtue of the fact that someone is in the dwelling who should not be, then we have to weigh the relative merits. I think I have to come down on the side of the law and the mandate of the Ontario Housing Corporation. We may not agree with everything Ontario Housing does, I think all of us agree we need more units, but as long as we live within those constrictions I believe the law must be upheld.

[1:00]

The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) in his very legal way -- and I certainly won’t challenge him in legal arguments -- has mentioned there should be a difference between a tenancy agreement with a private person or a private corporation, and government.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I wonder if we might hear from the House leader for a moment. In view of the fact the original understanding was the committee would rise at 1 p.m., would the member for Kent-Elgin yield for a moment?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I think we have to regularize some procedures from this point on. It’s my understanding we need a little more time to complete the consideration of filed amendments in connection with this legislation. If we could continue to sit between now and 2 p.m. we could complete this bill, save and except for the voting on the amendments, which we could arrange to call for 10 minutes to six this afternoon following private members’ business. I suppose what I have to do now is ask the committee to rise and report so we can get the unanimous consent of the House to proceed on the basis of that understanding.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House to enable us to go back into committee of the whole to complete the consideration of Bill 163 sometime between now and 2 p.m. because we’re going into routine proceedings promptly at 2 p.m. It’s our understanding that once Bill 163 is completed in committee of the whole we will then start the routine proceedings at 2 p.m. This afternoon, following the private members’ business, somewhere around 10 minutes to six, we will have the bell to vote on the matters still before the committee of the whole. May we have unanimous consent to proceed now to complete that work?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the request of the government House leader that the House continue sitting from one until two o’clock. Does the House give unanimous consent?

Agreed.

House in committee of the whole.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resumption of consideration of Bill 163, An Act to reform the Law respecting Residential Tenancies.

Mr. McGuigan: I just wanted to complete my remarks by saying I believe there is a distinction between a rental agreement with a private person or a private corporation and a rental agreement with governments, because when governments are using public money in all of their activities they have to make certain the public interest is served in the way intended by the Legislature. Whether the Legislature was right or wrong might be another matter, but I think there is a distinction between those two types of business arrangements. That was all I wanted to say.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on section 42?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I just want to draw to the attention of the House that without this section if two people were in need, the unit would either remain in the hands of the one who had it or be given to whoever was the best liar. The intent of this section is to provide that the only real basis upon which a decision is made in most cases for subsidized public housing is either by a points system or something of the equivalent. It is designed to be fair but it depends, quite frankly, upon the honesty of the applicants. Were we to delete this section, when you have two people who are in need one may deliberately exaggerate need; the other may be entirely honest about the need. The deletion of this section would mean, quite frankly, that the one who set out to deceive in order to attain a goal --

Mr. Makarchuk: You automatically assume there are thousands of people out there who want to deceive you.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- for the first time, because of that conduct would receive the prize, which is the accommodation. I don’t think anybody in this House wants that.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: So that we’re clear on this matter, Mr. Renwick’s motion was that section 42 be deleted. The chair ruled that the proper way to handle that was to simply vote against the section.

Shall section 42 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Renwick: The next amendment I have is the one to which I referred at the beginning when I asked for your assistance Mr. Chairman. It would come in following section 69, which is the last section in part VII. If passed by the House it would become a new part, presumably part VIII, with the other parts being renumbered. If it’s in order I would move that.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: That is after section 69, which is the final section in part VII.

Sections 43 to 69, inclusive agreed to.

Mr. Renwick: This amendment is somewhat lengthy but I think the very statement of it will commend itself to the House and require little, if any, elaboration by way of explanation.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following:

“(1) No landlord directly or indirectly, alone or with another, shall:

(a) deny to any person or class of persons occupancy of any residential unit;

(b) discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to any term or condition of occupancy of any residential unit because of the race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry, place of origin, age, sex, marital or family relationship, or physical disability of such person or class of persons, or of any other person or class of persons with whom such person is associated.

(2) The prohibition in subsection 1 in respect of sex and age does not apply to a rental unit in a residential complex where the occupancy of the residential complex, other than that of the landlord, his family or employees, is restricted to individuals who are of the same sex or who are more than 65 years of age.

(3) Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has contravened subsection 1 may file a complaint with the residential tenancies commission.

(4) Where the commission determines that there has been a breach of subsection 1 the commission may make an order entitling occupancy.

(5) Where an owner is found guilty of contravening subsection 1 the maximum penalty that can be imposed is $1,000.”

Mr. Renwick: We gave consideration to such a motion as this with respect to continuing this crusade that’s been going on for so long in the province, which has been very successful in some areas, of eliminating discrimination in housing accommodation.

We gave consideration to the existence of the report of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Living Together, which has been available for some considerable period of time now but which has not been implemented by the government. We do not know what the government’s intentions are with respect to that bill -- not so much with respect to the timing of an introduction by the government of a bill dealing with the discrimination matters, we know that because the first minister, the Premier, has committed himself by indicating that bill will be presented to the assembly in the fall of this year -- we do not, however, know anything about the content of that bill. We do not know what its substance is and we felt it wise, with this act, to make certain the act itself contains provisions with respect to anti-discrimination legislation.

The second reason that constrained us to put this amendment forward was that in the evolution of anti-discrimination legislation as part of the fabric of the province and the need for the Ontario Human Rights Commission to have been the focal point for that kind of legislation to become effective in this province -- certainly with respect to housing accommodation -- there is every reason to believe that kind of problem, given the intimate information and knowledge which the commission will gain over a period of time, is precisely the kind of information the commission itself, under this new act the Residential Tenancies Act, can deal with, rather than having it dealt with by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

It did seem to us if we were attempting in one single bill to provide a uniform law related to landlord and tenant matters, there was on balance at least some justification, if not a compelling argument, that the anti-discrimination provisions be incorporated as part and parcel of the bill.

It was with that in mind that my colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner). placed this amendment in the committee. It failed to pass in the committee. I would commend it to the detached view of those persons in the House who were not with us in the committee, for their consideration in the hope that this essential part of the kind of quality of society we want to maintain in Ontario in housing matters should be a permanent part of this bill, so that anyone looking at a bill in Ontario related to landlord and tenant matters can say, “Here it is; it’s all here. It’s all in the one place, a fundamental part of my rights as a citizen to gain access to accommodation is not to be found somewhere else but is to be found here before a commission.” A commission which, with its accumulated knowledge, and we hope wisdom over the years, will be peculiarly adapted towards making certain that discrimination does not play any particular part in our world.

It is for those reasons my colleague the member for Scarhorough-Ellesmere originally moved the amendment and I have the honour of moving it in his place today.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time I am going to be very brief, because we have heard all the arguments before over 15 months. I would just say that we will not support the amendment, although we obviously agree in spirit with what is being done here. I want to emphasize that we agree with the intention, but we do not think it should be included in this bill.

I think that in essence it would undercut what the Ontario Human Rights Commission is doing; if you’re going to include it in every bill you might as well disband the commission. We do not agree with disbanding the commission; we do not agree with including this in this bill. We think it should be dealt with in a separate bill.

The Premier has indicated that bill will be coming forth this fall; we have to accept his word for it. If we want to make amendments to the new bill at that time that is the proper time to do it.

[1:15]

Mr. McGuigan: I think anyone who has been a member of this House or listened to debates in this House over the last two years, at least in the time that I have been here, would realize that our leader, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) has pursued a very vigorous campaign pushing for the adoption of a revised human rights code. It is very much a part of this party’s policy and we can agree with every item that the honourable member has included in his amendment.

As the member for Waterloo North has said, our only quarrel with it is that we then create a situation where people who are aggrieved will not know which direction to go to have the grievance corrected; or they may choose between the sources of correction, deciding that one would better suit them than the other.

We think in the interim, between now and next fall, when surely we will have a revised human rights code, that people will be adequately protected by the officials appointed under this organization and that they will be protected under the terms in fairness.

Certainly the members of all parties, I’m sure, will be heard from if fairness is not made the number one rule of the commissioners. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I would just comment that the resolution was put forward by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and was defeated in the committee on June 12. There has been no change in it except for the mover.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Waterloo North. I don’t think there is anyone in this House who doesn’t subscribe to what is put forward here. By the same token you have the very practical consideration that we have a human rights code, a human rights commission. It should be amended: there’s no question about that. There are commitments that it soon will be, and that is the proper place to deal with this matter.

My concern of June 12 is still my concern today, that by the passage of this amendment there would be a fragmentation and an erosion of the work that has been so successfully done for so many years. Hopefully it will be done even more successfully in the future by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Chairman: As you know, this would add a new section, a new part, to follow part VII. Is it the wish of the committee that the amendment be adopted?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Sections 70 to 106, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 107:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, as the substance of the amendment is related to four sections I assume it is in order for me to place it this way, although I recognize that our alternative was to vote against these particular sections.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that sections 107, 108, 109 and section 110(2) be deleted from the bill.

That’s fine, and it is on the record, I think when the vote comes it probably will be handled in the same way, that is whether these sections should stand as part of the bill or not. But certainly the intent is clear from your amendment.

We are now speaking of 107, 108, 109 and 110; I gather they are similar in content.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairman. The elimination of 108, 109 and section 110(2) really are consequential upon our desire to remove section 107 from the bill. I suppose in one sense this is a matter which can be seen in a legal context, but there is immense substance to it because it strikes at the very heart and nature of the kind of commission we are providing in this bill.

This party has been on the record for a long time as wanting a commission to see if we couldn’t somehow marry the needs of justice in landlord and tenant matters with economy of time and cost. We had proposed a commission that would accomplish that kind of purpose. To our surprise, we find for the first time in the province of Ontario we are enshrining in a statute a commission which may be an instrument of inquisition; it is a commission with inquisitional powers.

I specifically advised the minister and his advisers at the time this was before the House that no other such commission established by the House has the provision that at the hearing the commission shall question the parties who are in attendance at the hearing, as well as any witnesses, with a view to determining the truth concerning the matters in dispute. We are, of course, interested in determining the truth of the matters in dispute; what we are not interested in is a commission which can conduct an inquisition and which will relegate to itself, under any form of inquisitorial proceedings, command over the whole of the proceedings which will be carried out.

Again, in questioning in the committee, we endeavoured to get some sense of the nature of the commission. We were able to get some sort of structural changes, which may or may not do something to alleviate another concern which we had about the commission. Let me say that the course to be followed by this commission is first of all to inquire into any matter in dispute between a landlord and a tenant and assist the parties to the proceedings in an attempt to settle the matter by agreement, the so-called mediation provision. We are not particularly concerned about that initial process.

It then goes on to say that when an application is made to the commission, where the commission has inquired into the matter and is of the opinion it is unlikely it can be resolved, the commission shall notify the parties and hold a hearing. It is the nature of the hearing, and the inquiry leading up to the hearing, that causes us immense concern. It should cause every member of this House immense concern, because there was no clear statement by the minister, or in the committee, with respect to their understanding of the nature of the provisions which will govern this commission in its procedural form.

I may say without harking back too far that in the history of the law as we understand it, in the struggle which took place in England between the supremacy of the common law and the supremacy of other forms of executive versions of law, such as the Star Chamber and others, the common law won. We eliminated, for practical purposes in the province of Ontario, by inheritance from England, we eliminated the inquisition as a method of determining the truth. There are some relics of it, of course, in the coroner’s inquest, which is for a different purpose; but no one is going to be threatened in their personal capacities with respect to that, that’s for the determination of the cause of death and many people have differing views as to whether the inquest is still the best way to do that. But in the fundamental nature of the kinds of decisions which we make in our civil courts or in our criminal courts, we adhere very clearly to the kinds of hearings which are our version of judicial in form, in substance and in content.

The rules are designed to allow parties to come before the judicial body to make their presentations in their own way and with their own convictions before the person sitting in judicial capacity. The judge on that occasion takes into account the evidence brought forward on each side by the two contending parties, draws whatever inferences of fact that should be drawn from that evidence, applies the law to it, then exercises the decision which is going to be made. It is known in most circles as being governed by the rule of law.

We think that is the kind of commission we should have in Ontario. It’s the only kind we know. It seems odd that we should, at this point in the history of the province, introduce a form of commission which is unknown to us, for which we have seen no draft rules of procedure, for which we have seen no flesh on the skeleton which is introduced by section 101 adduced by the ministry, there is not even an inkling that they understand the problems which are raised by the introduction of such a section. It seems to me this House should very cautiously consider this before they ever adopt a provision such as section 101.

I have a couple of very brief quotations -- I happen to have been an admirer of The History of English Law by W. S. Holdsworth for a long time. In volume five he deals with the problems which arose with respect to the Star Chamber and the way it conducted its proceedings, and the way in which over the course of time it was in battle with the common law courts, with the common law courts winning the ascendency.

There are in particular two or three sentences which I think reflect, in language we can all understand, the very concern which we have about this kind of commission: “Then, as now, the official mind cared more for the working of the system which it had established and for the production of the results which it thought it ought to produce, than for any consideration of justice to the particular individual. Then, as now, the procedure of judicial courts designed to do justice to individuals produced results disconcerting to the official mind.”

I am going to repeat it so the minister perhaps will pick it up this time, if he can avoid his usual luncheon-time chitchat. I repeat for the benefit of the minister and his advisers, whose attention we had a great deal of difficulty getting on occasion in committee, what I have now said. I quote again: “Then, as now, the official mind cared more for the working of the system which it had established, and for the production of the results which it thought that it ought to produce, than for any consideration of justice to the particular individual. Then, as now, the procedure of judicial courts designed to do justice to individuals produced results disconcerting to the official mind.”

I have a funny feeling that a good deal of the educational process of the members of the committee in listening to the debate in the presentations on this bill was to indicate there still remains in the tenancy of this province a very real concern that in some kind of way this commission will become an adjunct of the very structure of the landlord-tenant relationship which has caused such difficulties in the province over so many times. I say if we are going to move to a new form of commission, I think we should have first of all tried the traditional form.

[1:30]

Perhaps so that the distinction may be somewhat more clear, I would like to quote very briefly from a justice report going to law, a critique of English civil procedure in which there were some comparisons made between the procedure in England and very substantially similar procedures in Ontario, with observations about the differences in these matters. Of course this kind of inquisitorial system which the minister is introducing is part of the French system, it is pretty much their form. I want to draw attention to the distinctions which are made, because they apply to the way in which this commission is going to operate.

In France the procedure of fact-finding and pleading culminates in a hearing or an audience. While that is very similar to ours in general terms, there is a fundamental difference. It is very rare for any findings of fact to be made at the hearing. Investigation and proof of facts takes place under the guiding hand of the juge de mises, the principal judge in the particular case, by means of examinations of witnesses before the judge and reports based on investigations by experts appointed by the court. The record of all these processes, that is the fact-finding, is not normally verbatim. Together with the pleadings or conclusions which continue to be exchanged prior to the hearing, it is compiled into a dossier along with a summary by the judge, and normally forms the whole of the evidence before the court at the hearing upon which the advocates for both sides will base their argument.

The fact-finding devices already mentioned serve the purpose of investigation as well as final proof. One or more witnesses will be called for oral examination by the judge who will have been informed of the issues for which clarification is sought.

The parties’ lawyers will normally be present and may suggest questions, but the questions may only actually be put by the judge. Even though a party has called for an inquiry and specified the questions with which the inquiry is to be concerned, this does not prevent the judge from interrogating the witnesses on other matters which he thinks important. He may also call a witness not asked for by either party.

All this points out very dearly that when we introduce into our law a provision which says that at the hearing the commission shall question the parties who are in attendance at the hearing, and any witnesses, with a view to determining the truth concerning the matters in dispute, it is quite clear the commissioner sitting on that commission is the one who will control the whole of those proceedings. He will be able to adopt, if he wishes to so adopt, that dichotomy between the investigation and the fact-finding on which he will hold his hearing, and the hearing will become very short because the facts will have been found by this method, which is not a customary one and indeed is inimical to our system of law.

The minister always squirms a little bit and chatters sotto voce with those at the table when he is really worried about a matter which is of immense concern to the members of the opposition. The whole question before the assembly is whether or not in this bill, for the first time in the history of this province, we are going to depart from the traditional method of ascertaining the truth and institute a new method known as the inquisition method of inquiry. Perhaps in some traditions it has been honed and fashioned in such a way that it meets the sense of those societies for justice and right, but it is inimical to our proceedings and reinforces the very concerns which were expressed before the committee by the tenants, that somehow or other this institution of government is going to become part of the official bureaucracy, and because of a very lengthy tradition in the province with respect to the imbalance in favour of landlords and against tenants will become part of the very system which requires a constant fight. That has been expressed by many people.

I am really surprised at my own profession -- not surprised, because it doesn’t usually happen in any event; or if it does happen it’s very late in the day -- that they didn’t at least make some kind of a submission to us with respect to it.

I am very surprised that we were unable to extract from the minister anything related to the kind of process which was involved -- nothing to indicate that the commissioner will not take such a hold on the proceedings that he can say to such and such a tenant or such and such a landlord and their representatives, “You just sit down here; I’ll conduct the questioning. If you have some questions you want answered, submit them to me and I will ask them if I see fit. In addition to that, I may call some other witnesses of my own in order to question them. And, of course, I will also have the benefit of speaking by telephone and using other means to gain other information which I can use for my particular purpose in controlling the whole of this operation.”

With those very brief comments, expressing a very deep concern on my part, which one can discount as the bias of a person brought up in our particular tradition of law to the extent that one wishes to -- and I don’t mind disclosing my prejudices; it very seldom affects the validity of the arguments I put forward -- I just want to say to the minister and to his advisers, and the minister had very good advisers, that this is an area where there has been a total vacuum in the understanding by the members of the committee of what is intended in the nature and the kind of commission we have in front of us.

For those reasons, we are going to vote against section 107 and, consequentially, against sections 108, 109 and section 110(2).

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I shall make it very short and very sweet. After all the smart remarks, I want a fair amount of attention on this one, because it is going to cause some great delight in the caucus some time later this afternoon.

This bill evolved from a committee that studied a green paper and made, if I recall correctly, 37 recommendations. Some of those recommendations were dissented from. Number 15 was not dissented from. I want to read number 15: “To assure fairness to unrepresented parties, the proceedings should be directed by officials of the tribunal who can conduct their own examination of witnesses.”

I would humbly suggest, before the next harangue about the inquisition, that the honourable member consult with his own caucus as to their thinking about powers and procedures. As is the case with every tribunal bill in this province, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act applies. That is hardly the inquisition, unless the honourable member finds fault with that as well. Sections 10(a), (b) and (c) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which basically involves the rights of parties to counsel, to examine witnesses and so forth at hearings, is quite explicit in this matter.

I want also to draw attention to the fact that, at least as I understood it, one of the overriding concerns of the committee, which heard this bill very exhaustively, was what was to be the protection of either a landlord or a tenant who appeared before the commission and did not have counsel. That is another reason these particular sections are in there.

Finally, I would like to read into the record that all of these things were said by the honourable member on May 29, when he moved this amendment and the series of amendments in committee, and when it was defeated in committee on May 30. The only thing that hasn’t been said today was his great eloquence, at great length in any event, on the question of truth or fact or what have you, a very philosophical dissertation. It’s exactly the same as occurred on those two days, Mr. Chairman, and I think the result today will be exactly as it was on May 30.

Mr. Renwick: I have only one comment and I guess this is the only place that it would be appropriate to say it. One of the things that has bedevilled the bill is that because of the constitutional nature of the division with respect to the appointment of judges the bill has had to be fashioned in such a way as to meet the constitutional requirements and has to that extent been of necessity to disregard some of the protections which ordinary citizens have. I expect and anticipate that there will be a constitutional challenge to this bill at some point in the not too distant future.

Mr. McGuigan: If, as the member for Riverdale fears, we’re returning to the days of the Star Chamber -- and my history isn’t that good to tell me how long ago it is, but it must be 300 to 400 years since we had the Star Chamber -- I think in the interval we have adopted a system of democratic government which is, at least in the views of most people, quite responsive to such bad apple situations as the one he outlined.

It seems to me if his worst fears are realized -- and I appreciate the history that he’s told us about -- people will be standing in this chamber and screaming about it and the government just could not live with such a situation. I feel that our times are different and that the remedy, if these fears are realized, lies right here in this Legislature with the opposition parties and with the government party to immediately correct the worst situation that might develop.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments? If the committee is agreeable, to maintain a continuity in the manner in which amendments are placed, I would like to first place the question, shall sections 107, 108 and 109 stand as part of the bill, and then after that the amendment that subsection (2) of section 110 be deleted.

Shall sections 107, 108 and 109 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Sections 107 to 109, inclusive, stacked.

On section 110:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 110(2) be deleted from the bill.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

On section 111:

Mr. Renwick: My next amendment is in arrangements made with the member who was in the chair earlier, a section following section 111.

Mr. Chairman: That’s adding a new section, 111(a).

Mr. Renwick: Do you want to deal with the other intervening sections? Or are there any?

Mr. Chairman: There are none.

Mr. Renwick: There aren’t any. We have to deal with 111, I guess.

Section 111 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“111(a). (1) No landlord shall evict or attempt to evict a tenant where:

(a) the landlord is in breach of his obligations under the tenancy agreement of this act;

(b) a reason for the eviction is that the tenant has attempted to secure or enforce his legal rights;

(c) a reason for the eviction is that the tenant is a member of an association the primary purpose of which is to secure or enforce legal rights of tenants or that the tenant is attempting to organize such an organization;

“(d) a reason for the eviction is that the rental unit is occupied by children, unless the occupation by the children constitutes overcrowding or unless the residential complex is not suitable for children;

“(e) in the case of a tenant of subsidized public housing the tenant has ceased to meet the qualifications required for occupancy of the rental unit but continues to be in need of subsidized public housing.

“(2) Where on an application by a landlord for an eviction order or by a tenant for rescission of an eviction order, the commission determines that the landlord has evicted or is attempting to evict the tenant for any of the reasons set out in subsection (1) the commission shall refuse to make or shall rescind the eviction order.”

[1:45]

Mr. Renwick: In the original bill which was before the assembly these clauses -- items (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) -- appeared in the bill as subsection (2) of what is now section 111. In the original bill it was section 108(1), which was one section, and then the five itemized headings appeared in section 108(2).

The present section is now section 111, and the new section which I wanted to add as a separate and distinct section is 111a, which I have just moved. We obtained a significant improvement in the operative part of section 108, which was subsection (1), by removing certain restrictive clauses. We now have a clause in section 111, which was just passed, which provides that the commission shall refuse to make an eviction order where the commission is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would be unfair to evict the tenant.

The unfortunate part of the problem was that these very essential protections of the tenant in his accommodation were related to a question of whether there was a determination of whether it was fair or unfair. So far as basic rights are concerned, of course, we always consider that they should be entrenched in such a way as to make certain that they’re not subject to that kind of nebulous distinction about fairness or unfairness in all circumstances. We therefore moved the deletion of section 108(2) and proposed a new section. Unfortunately, the deletion was not accepted; the new section did not pass.

The new section is important in two respects. One is that all of these matters are designed to give a sense of assurance to people living in rented accommodation in the province of Ontario that they can collectively act together. It seems quite a far cry from trade union times, but there was an immense problem about people ever acting together or in concert for any purpose which could be considered to be unlawful or illegal. We’ve got a kind of a remnant of that still within the philosophy of the province of Ontario. It is absolutely essential that this bill contain provisions which clearly point out to the tenants of this province they cannot be evicted if they’re attempting to enforce their rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act, that they cannot be evicted if they are members of an association whose primary purpose is to enforce their rights or that they’re attempting to organize such an organization. Those are two very fundamental provisions so far as we are concerned.

We also do not think the tenant should be evicted if, in fact, there is a correlative reason, whatever the reason may be, if the landlord is in breach of his obligation under the tenancy agreement or under the act. We do not think that kind of last-step punishment, that can be meted out under this statute, should take effect when one of the sides, or the opposing side asking for the eviction, comes before the commission with something less than clean hands.

The other item that we believe must be entrenched, is this next question of adult-only buildings, and the problems involved in it -- that whole question. We therefore wanted to leave in it the fourth item, which was in the old section 108(2). We also wanted, of course, to put in the fifth item, which relates to the tenants of subsidized public housing to get away from this subtle distinction about the qualifications to get in as distinct for the need to remain once you are in. We fought that battle in committee, and of course we alluded to it when we were dealing with section 55 of the bill.

But the operative provision doesn’t rely on anybody’s view about what is fair or unfair, and all the circumstances. It simply says that “where on an application by a landlord for an eviction order, or by a tenant for rescission of an eviction order, the commission determines that the landlord has evicted or is attempting to evict the tenant for any of the reasons set out in subsection (1), the commission shall refuse to make or shall rescind the eviction order.”

What could be clearer, Mr. Chairman? What could be so eminently fair? What could be so necessary in our law, as it progresses toward a point in time where this sense of apprehension and concern amongst the people who are tenants in the province needs this kind of assurance from this assembly? Not to have it, in our view, is such a fundamental default in principle by the assembly that we have moved this amendment in the hope that we can get it back into the bill in the proper form again.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, we have had extensive discussion on Bill 163 in committee. We all know how pressed for time we are today. I am sure all of us, maybe even the member for Riverdale, would like to have the bill passed. But sometimes he goes to such extremes, Mr. Chairman, to prove just how learned he is in the law, that he not only bores all members of the House. He talks about having a bill that is one of common law that everyone in the province of Ontario can understand. Then he drags up all of these historical cases from Europe and England, and every other place imaginable. Anyone who is interested in knowing the position the member for Riverdale took will find it’s already in Hansard from the committee that sat since January.

Mr. Chairman, our position is in that Hansard as well and I will say no further.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any members wishing to speak further?

The question before the House is the amendment placed by the member for Riverdale, adding a new section 111(a).

Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Shall this be stacked?

Amendment stacked.

Sections 112 to 116, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 117:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that the following subsections be added to section 117:

“(11) Where the commission makes an order terminating a tenancy in the absence of the tenant, the tenant may within seven days after service apply, ex parte, to the commission who set aside the order.

“(12) The commission may hear an application under subsection (11), notwithstanding the issuance or execution of the writ of possession pursuant to the order terminating the tenancy.”

Mr. Renwick: It’s not often I’m harassed by members of my own caucus. The reasoning behind the first additional subsection is obvious. If there’s an order terminating a tenancy made in the absence of a tenant we simply want the tenant to have the right to come back within seven days and make an application to have the order set aside. What could be more reasonable?

Mr. Martel: I agree with you.

Mr. Renwick: Item 12 would not have been necessary if the particular shady practice of Ontario Housing had not taken place which led to the editorial in the Star and that is --

Mr. Nixon: I thought you weren’t dealing with rotten apples.

Mr. Renwick: -- that the application under subsection 11 be available notwithstanding the issuance or execution of the writ of possession pursuant to the order terminating the tenancy. I ask for your support.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Section 118 agreed to.

On section 119:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 119 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) Notwithstanding subsection 1, where the commission makes an order terminating a tenancy and evicting a tenant, an appeal from that order shall stay that order pending the hearing of the appeal.”

Mr. Renwick: This is simply to reverse an odious provision in the bill, which says that in order to have a stay of an eviction order, even though you’re going to appeal, you must make an application to a commissioner to get permission to do so. In the dredging case the other day, for example, you found that all you had to do in those cases was to file the appeal and you were released from jail. All we are saying in this particular case is that if there’s an eviction order then before that order can be executed there is an automatic stay of it if an appeal is filed by the tenant. We think it is a reversal which should take place.

Again I commend it to my colleagues in the House.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments on any other sections? On what section?

Mr. Warner: The tenants have lost today.

Mr. Renwick: The last section.

Sections 120 to 140, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 141:

Mr. Renwick: Just before section 141 passes I would like to do two things. I would like to first of all commend the members of the minister’s staff who sat with us and advised us during the course of the hearings. There were a number of them there, but the famous law firm of Kumer, Fram and Beecroft, whose names should not go unrecorded in legislative history, were in all ways patient, informed and skilled in what they tried to do to deflect the obvious amendments that we wanted to place before the committee.

The other point I want to emphasize is that in the learning process all of us are indebted to a number of organizations. I’m going to risk omitting one or two, because I don’t necessarily have them all, particularly the legal services which were involved. I refer specifically to the Federation of Metro Tenants’ Associations, Metro Tenants’ Legal Services, Parkdale Community Legal Services, Neighbourhood Legal Services, the Federation of Ontario Tenants’ Associations, Osgoode Hall, Community Learning Awareness Service Program, the Law Union of Ontario and the University of Toronto law professor who is an association in himself, Professor Richard Gathercole.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I gladly join with the member for Riverdale in commending the officials of not only the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations but also the Ministry of Housing and the other ministries that gave legal advice and service during the 15 months or so this bill has been out in the open, including the previous white paper -- which in actual fact was in a red cover as you probably remember.

[2:00]

Without limiting my comments to a few groups who made their presentations, I think it should be remembered there were many tenants’ organizations, landlords and interested individuals who made presentations. I think we must have heard about 300 or 400 presentations in the last 15 months on this particular bill. We are grateful for their contribution and the assistance they have given. I think I can speak on everyone’s behalf and say we are glad this thing is finished.

Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Chairman, I just want, in a public way on behalf of all the members of the committee, to pay a much-deserved compliment to the chairman of the standing general government committee.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Section 141 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: A number of votes have been deferred. It is my understanding the vote will take place at approximately 5:50 p.m.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Maeck, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to commend all honourable members for the very excellent spirit of co-operation that has prevailed over the last few days. I hope it will continue for the balance of this session.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

Mr. M. Davidson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: In today’s Toronto Sun a column written by Claire Hoy indicates that we in the New Democratic Party are in favour of assault and threats against workers of the Ontario Workmen’s Compensation Board. He goes so far as to say, “intimidation and assault may be justifiable to the NDP, but it certainly shouldn’t be to normal people.”

Mr. Speaker, I would refer both yourself and Mr. Hoy to the March 27 Hansard of this year, page 357, during the committee hearings for the Workmen’s Compensation Board, when the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) said: “I would certainly agree, Mr. Chairman, that the employees of the Workmen’s Compensation Board should not have to face threats and abusive, profane language.”

Mr. Speaker, as usual, Claire Hoy is wrong again.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I recognize the Minister of Health, I would like to draw to the attention of all members the fact we do have a very distinguished guest, Sir Billy Snedden, who is the Speaker of the Parliament of Australia. He joined us for lunch and we learned he is a very knowledgeable parliamentarian. We are so pleased to have him, accompanied by Lady Snedden, in our gallery. Will you welcome them please.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to table today a copy of a new agreement signed this morning between the government of Ontario and the Ontario Medical Association.

Mr. Martel: Beautiful timing. I want to congratulate you on that one.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As members will see, this new agreement provides a unique arrangement for determining future benefits provided under OHIP for medical services in Ontario. Under this agreement, the ministry and the OMA will each appoint three members of a committee to negotiate the overall increase in future agreements between the government and the medical profession. The unique feature I referred to is in the appointment of a chairman who will have power to act as a fact finder.

Now that this agreement has been signed, I expect to announce the name of the chairman within a few days. The committee can begin negotiations immediately afterwards, working towards a new agreement for the coming year.

While the chairman will not have a vote on the committee, he or she will be able to assist and guide the committee in areas of disagreement during negotiations. In the event of an impasse, the chairman can be asked by either party to take on the fact finder role to help the two parties to a mutually acceptable level of compensation. His or her report, which must be completed within three weeks, becomes the basis for resumed negotiations. Thus there is no prolonged delay and the report can be made public on reasonable notice by either the government or the OMA. I am optimistic, sir, that this process will go a long way to ameliorating the concerns of the profession in Ontario.

This agreement is a reflection of the high level of trust and co-operation between the government and the medical profession in Ontario, who share a common goal of maintaining the high level of health care we all enjoy in this province.

PUBLIC SERVICE DENTAL PLAN

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, on April 20 members were advised that a settlement had been reached in negotiations between the government and Ontario Public Service Employees Union. The settlement included a dental plan which provides for basic dental health care, as well as some additional services. The plan will pay for 50 per cent of services covered and the employee will pay the remaining 50 per cent. The same benefits were negotiated with the OPP bargaining group and have been made available to employees in management positions and employees excluded from the bargaining unit.

In accordance with standard government practice, public tenders were called for the underwriting and administration of the plan based on specifications drawn up with the assistance of private sector consultants specializing in this field. Quotations received from nine companies were analysed by the joint insurance benefits review committee composed of representatives from the government and OPSEU with the assistance of the consultants. Two companies with the best bids were interviewed by the committee, which unanimously agreed that the Great West Life Assurance Company could provide the required coverage at the lowest long-term net cost, and accordingly recommended to the government that this company be selected as the carrier.

The government has approved the recommendation made by the committee and the contract has been awarded to Great West Life Assurance Company. The dental plan will come into effect on July 1, 1979.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPORT

Hon. Mr. McCague: Later this afternoon I will be tabling the report of the Civil Service Commission for the fiscal year 1978-79. I would like to take this opportunity to note that our latest figures of total staff strength reflect this government’s continuing efforts to reduce the growth of the public sector.

During the fiscal year there has been virtually no growth in the classified staff. In terms of the total public service, the figures show an actual reduction of 668 staff between March 1978 and March 1979.

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I would like to take this opportunity to bring honourable members up to date on the Vietnamese refugee situation and my ministry’s part in it.

As honourable members know, one of the most infamous acts of racism in contemporary times is being prepared in Vietnam at this moment.

Vietnamese authorities are forcing some of their countrymen, mostly ethnic Chinese, to leave Vietnam. The ethnic Chinese, of course, are people whose genetic roots lie in China but who are Vietnamese nationals. Some ethnic Chinese families have been settled in Vietnam for three generations.

It has been estimated during the last year 500,000 refugees have either fled Vietnam or been expelled from the country. To this day it is estimated that 3,000 are leaving every 24 hours. We believe that more than half of them are dying in the process.

As members know, the government of Canada, in consultation with us and the other provinces, has undertaken to accept up to 7,000 refugees from southeast Asia during this year. We estimate that half of these men, women and children will settle here in Ontario. Once they get here my ministry, along with local school boards and the federal immigration department, is responsible for helping them get settled.

The job, of course, started last November when the first refugees from the freighter Hai Hong, “the boat people,” started arriving in Ontario. Since the Hai Hong incident, the federal immigration department estimates 3,600 Vietnamese refugees have come to Canada. More than 1,500 have settled here in Ontario, and more than half of them -- 842 -- have settled here in Metropolitan Toronto. We are encouraging communities all over the province to help, and they are helping.

My ministry helps these refugees in two ways. First, our own excellent staff at the Toronto International Airport and at such facilities as Ontario Welcome House helps them directly. Second, and more important, we provide financial and professional help to such community organizations as the Vietnamese Fraternal Association and the Ottawa-Carleton Immigrant Services Organization. I say this help to community organizations is more important than our direct help, because the initial settlement of the refugees is their first step on the road to becoming full and equal citizens. They are settling in communities -- Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, London, Windsor; if the people of those communities help them settle in the first place, they will know each other as neighbours and their communities will be the better for it.

Everybody who is helping the refugees to settle is aiming to help them in very basic, practical ways. At Welcome House in Toronto, for instance, they find warm human contact with people who speak their own language, people ready to meet whatever their immediate needs might be: we teach them how to use public transit; we show them how to shop; we show them how to use a stove; we have a clothing depot; we have English classes and a pre-school nursery.

Mr. McClellan: Bully for you.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The people of Ontario, through their own voluntary efforts, through community organizations, and through their Ministry of Culture and Recreation, have been helping the Vietnamese refugees since last November. I am happy to report that our efforts seem to be bearing fruit. There are all kinds of encouraging stories.

One of the most encouraging is the way employable men and women have been finding work. We estimate, for example, that more than 200 refugees from the Hai Hong have settled in Metropolitan Toronto. My officials tell me that two out of every three employable men and women in this group have jobs. The other one third are immersed in training programs that we feel confident will lead them to jobs too. Overall, though, I would say the one thing that encourages me the most is the way all sectors of the community at large are welcoming and accepting these refugees.

It is all too easy for us to get caught up in our own modest efforts and lose sight of the frustrating reality that we can offer only a tiny portion of the help that these refugees need worldwide. Nevertheless, we are confident we have the people and the experience to do our part, today and tomorrow.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question with the Minister of Energy concerning the agreement which was apparently reached between the federal and Alberta governments yesterday on natural gas prices whereby the natural gas prices to Ontario consumers are apparently to go up about 15 cents per 1,000 cubic feet after August 1.

Can the minister explain why he or his representative was not present at that meeting in Ottawa, in view of his statement to this House on December 1, 1978, in discussing the matter of natural gas, when he said: “I have made it very clear to both the federal and Alberta ministers of energy that Ontario expects to be involved in any discussions on matters which might impinge on the interests of the consumers in this province”?

Does the government continue to take the position, which I feel they should take, that natural gas prices do not have to go up with oil prices; that they should be unhinged; and that, given the so-called surplus of natural gas that exists, there is no particular reason for consumers in Ontario to go unprotected in this way?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the House on Tuesday, I think I said I had been talking to the Minister of Energy for Alberta, who indicated that there was no proposal on the part of Alberta to alter the agreement which Alberta had made with the government of Canada earlier this year and which called for a $1 per-barrel increase effective July 1 and another $1 per-barrel increase on January 1, 1980.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s oil. What about natural gas?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Auld: Gas was included in that as 85 per cent of the price of oil. Natural gas would rise by the same proportion since the price of natural gas is pegged at 85 per cent of the equivalent price in oil. I had been talking with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources of Canada earlier that day, Tuesday, on the telephone, and he had indicated they had no plan to attempt to renegotiate the agreement; in other words, both governments considered the agreement negotiated some time ago to still be in effect.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition it’s rather interesting to see where we stand as far as oil and gas prices are concerned in Canada compared to the United States and to the world price.

Mr. Bradley: You didn’t say that two months ago.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As of July 1, after this additional $1 per barrel, the price in Canada will still be about $2.50 below the Chicago price. Depending on what price one takes these days, the world price in some places is, somewhere between $20 and $30 per barrel.

The province has consistently taken the position that the price in Canada of oil and natural gas should not be the world price, it should be a price related to the needs of Canada in Canada, and the need for a sufficient incentive to the companies to continue exploration. In fact we felt this is the only way we would reach self-sufficiency, the target which Ontario has consistently said could be reached in 1995.

We did not agree or disagree with the agreement made by Alberta and Canada, although we said we did not think the increase they were proposing at that time was warranted.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Since the question pertains to natural gas, would the minister not agree that given the large amounts of natural gas apparently available within this country, there is no reason for natural gas prices to go up just because oil prices have been raised on the international scene? Almost one year ago to the day, when I expressed the very same opinion, the Minister of Energy at the time (Mr. Baetz), said: “We have on a number of occasions, in as forceful a way as we can, proposed to the federal government and the government of Alberta the price of natural gas and oil should no longer continue in lock-step, but so far with no success whatsoever.” Deaf ears, he said, just stonewalling.

He referred to our friends in Ottawa; now that they’re the minister’s friends in Ottawa, would he say whether they are likely to dislodge the two prices and allow natural gas to remain --

Mr. Havrot: You have no friends, anywhere.

Mr. S. Smith: -- at an advantageous price for the consumers of Ontario, despite what is happening to the price of oil?

Mr. Breithaupt: The way you wanted it before.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I am so delighted with the change that has taken place in Ottawa that I’m almost speechless. I’m almost unable to answer that question.

Mr. Kerrio: And you have a man with a brain in opposition.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I expect to be meeting the Minister of Mines, Energy and Resources in a very short time. One of the matters we will be discussing, no doubt, is the pricing of gas. We will be discussing that.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the government of this province find what the present Conservative government of Canada is doing with regards to the oil and gas prices acceptable now, given it found it was deplorable carried out by the Liberal government that was in office up until a few weeks ago?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I said again on Tuesday, in answer to a different question, that I believed an agreement was an agreement. I think the Liberal government of Canada made an agreement, and the present Conservative government has decided to honour it.

Mr. Kerrio: They haven’t honoured anything else.

Mr. Bradley: It’s the first thing they’ve honoured so far.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As I mentioned a moment ago, I’m not any more excited about the agreement now than I was when it was negotiated. But I do believe they should be consistent.

Mr. J. Reed: Does the minister have a position on the unhinging of the natural gas price as it relates to oil prices?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’m sorry, I missed the beginning of that.

Mr. Kerrio: He’s got two or three.

Mr. S. Smith: “Do you have a position,” he asked, “on the unhinging of oil and gas prices?”

Ms. Gigantes: He’s unhinged.

Hon. Mr. Auld: My position is very little different from that of my immediate predecessor.

Mr. Roy: Yes? What is that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The Leader of the Opposition just read it.

Mr. S. Smith: What is the very little difference?

Mr. Breithaupt: And which predecessor?

DEATH OF ANDREW STUPARICK

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is with very great regret that I inform the members of the House I have just learned that Andrew StuParick, who is well known to all of us in this House, has in a very recent few moments passed on, I believe from a heart attack. I would like to express the sympathies of members of the House to his family. I was just informed of this a moment or two ago and thought other members would like to know of this very tragic event.

Mr. S. Smith: Of course, that kind of information tends to stun one, and I can appreciate the Premier’s feeling on having conveyed this unfortunate news to the House. I want only to express our regret and our sympathy to members of the StuParick family and to say that Mr. StuParick has served both media and the Legislature for many years; it is with sorrow that we learn of these very tragic circumstances.

Mr. Cassidy: I would simply like to add, on behalf of my party, an expression of our sympathy and our condolences with the family on the very sudden death of Mr. StuParick, a man who had worked for a long time in the public service of Ontario and in this Legislature, and I trust that message will be conveyed to his family.

WINTARIO

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to ask a question of the minister’s predecessor in his present position --

Mr. Breithaupt: Re-incarnation.

Mr. S. Smith: -- as Minister of Culture and Recreation.

Mr. Conway: Oh, that predecessor.

Mr. S. Smith: Can he explain why he has found it necessary to mount a campaign across the province of Ontario against his fellow cabinet ministers, who it would appear from this document are in search of his Wintario money?

Let me read to you, Mr. Speaker, a memo to the council of the township of Kingston from their parks and recreation director, who speaks of the keynote speech given to recreation people from the various municipalities of Ontario:

“Mr. Baetz expressed serious concerns to the delegates relative to the future of Wintario. These were in direct response to some pressures that had been applied by several other ministries in the provincial government requesting accessibility to Wintario funds.”

Mr. Martel: Why aren’t other people allowed that privilege, why can’t we all do it like that?

Mr. S. Smith: “Mr. Baetz asked the delegates to assist him in obtaining municipal support for retaining their Wintario lottery within the structure of his ministry.”

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. S. Smith: One more sentence, please. “He said the Ministry of Health is one of the provincial ministries that have requested access to the Wintario funds.”

May I ask the minister if he recalls making that speech? What other ministries are after his funds, and why has it come to the point where the cabinet take their battles across Ontario?

Mr. Martel: The rest of us get cut off.

Mr. Nixon: Who would do a thing like that?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall that speech in detail.

Mr. Nixon: When are you taking over Correctional Services?

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: Playing games; name him, Reuben.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Do members want to hear my answer? All I can say is that every minister on this side is out there working for his ministry. We are convinced that what we are doing is the best thing.

Interjections.

Mrs. Campbell: Where are the other ministers?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We are very active and very much aware of what is going on. I make no apologies for going out and preaching on the highways and byways to anybody who will listen that we need funds for health --

Mr. M. Davidson: Talk about backing off.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: Come on, be a man; don’t back off.

Mr. Warner: Tell us about Wiseman.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Yes, health too. For recreation, culture, sport, and for everything else. I don’t make any apologies for that.

Mr. Breithaupt: You had better preach to them, not to this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I have no apologies whatever.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a supplementary, since the minister may not be aware of a quaint tradition called cabinet solidarity, is he telling us there is now a new style in which the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Auld) calls for one date for Reed Paper, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) for another, and the Treasurer has yet other advice with regard to the matter? The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) seeks money for more policemen and goes to the public forum. What is happening at cabinet meetings? Did you ask the Premier (Mr. Davis) for permission to go on this province-wide campaign on behalf of your ministry?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I was simply exhorting the recreation and culture workers in communities, who I know are convinced of the value of their work, to tell the whole world about it. People who work in the culture and recreation fields are very often very self-effacing, very modest people and are afraid to tell the whole world what they are doing and what their needs are.

Mr. Bradley: Including your cabinet friends.

Mr. Peterson: If I were you I would be modest too.

Mr. Havrot: Tell us about your solidarity in your party.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I simply told them to get on with the job, be articulate; tell everybody what they are doing and what their needs are. I don’t think I need to apologize as a minister for that kind of stance at all.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: What other ministries are benefiting?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: That has nothing to do with cabinet solidarity whatsoever. I’m all for the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary to my leader’s question: I ask the honourable minister if in his continuing crusade and battle against his cabinet colleagues, is it part of his strategy to try to enlist the support of all the members of the Legislature in the fight against them, and is this the reason he is sending out questionnaires about whether or not he has the support of members about various activities --

Mr. Havrot: Yes, we are very dedicated.

Mr. Roy: -- and that in fact, as I understand it, some of his local people are approaching local members of the Legislature about support for some of his programs? Is that part of the overall strategy to counter the pressure he is getting from cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: First of all, let me reiterate there is no fight against, I am fighting for. I am fighting for more funds for the field of recreation and sports and culture. But to go to the member’s immediate question, the only reason we sent out the questionnaire, which deals with the new priorities and new guidelines for Wintario, is because his party asked us to do that. They wanted to be involved in this thing.

Mr. Roy: We will help you get them.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: So come next fall, if they turn their backs on that questionnaire and don’t want it being reviewed and don’t want to be involved in setting up these new guidelines and priorities, they can be my guests; but I don’t want to hear them complain next fall when we come back here and say here are the new guidelines, I don’t want them to sit there like bumps on a log saying, “Why weren’t we a part of the whole decision?”

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question to the Minister of Health arising out of the announcement of the agreement with the OMA that there would be negotiation of fees. Since the future revisions of the OHIP fee schedule are to be made with the consent of the OMA, and since the OMA is to be made the sole negotiator on behalf of the physicians of Ontario with regard to that fee schedule, can the minister say whether all doctors in the province will be required to adhere to the fee schedule which is negotiated with the OMA, or does the government intend to continue to let doctors who opt out charge substantial extra fees to people who have already paid for the health care through their OHIP premiums?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We intend to retain the system which has served this province very well for the last number of years, including this year. The schedule of benefits that will result from the negotiations, and which I am optimistic, as I said in the statement, will go a long way to ameliorating the concerns of the profession that have been evidenced in the last year or so, will apply to the claims coming from the 82.2 per cent of physicians who opt in all of their claims and to those claims coming from opted-out physicians which are opted in through billing groups, and will apply to the reimbursement of patients who are directly billed.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Can the minister explain why it is that when a trade union acts as the sole negotiator for a group of employees in this province, including some employees who may not even be members of that particular trade union, every person in that bargaining unit is expected to adhere to the agreement which has been reached between that union and its employer? Why is it that is the case under the Labour Relations Act of Ontario, but here, where the OMA is acting as the sole negotiator for the doctors of Ontario, the loophole is left in the agreement in order to allow doctors who opt out to double-bill patients, including some patients who simply can’t afford it?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member, in phrasing his question, has answered it. The key thing is they are not employees. We’re talking about a health insurance plan, we’re not talking about a master-servant or employer-employee relationship. The doctors do not work for the government of Ontario, they work for the people of Ontario as professionals.

Mr. Conway: I understood the honourable Minister of Health to indicate to the member for Ottawa Centre that this is not a binding negotiation; and indeed the parties, the OMA in particular, will not be bound to the negotiations that are concluded. If that is what he said to the leader of the New Democratic Party, can he indicate what he thinks so unique about having a fact finder? Of what possible import are the facts that are likely to be found if, indeed, they are not to weigh in a binding way upon the parties involved?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, and it’s no surprise to the members of the House, there is a great deal of concern among members of the profession that the way the previous system worked was in some way stacked against the profession. We can recognize the fact that for three years we were bound by the terms of the Anti-Inflation Board, and in fact could negotiate nothing more than the distribution of an average maximum increase. Prior to the introduction of the AIB, there was one year when there was no increase in the schedule.

To take account of the fact there is concern about the process, a concern that the process be a fair one, and be seen to be fair in exploring all of the arguments advanced by organized medicine on behalf of their members, we have developed that aspect of the agreement to provide that the chairman, at the request of either party, may during a three-week period assume the function of a fact finder and present to the negotiating committee his or her conclusions based on that in-depth investigation, which report can, at the initiation of either of the parties, eventually be made public.

I think that is rather unique, not only unique to Ontario, but as far as I know it’s unique in Canada.

Mr. Warner: Since the government now appears to be relenting on its attack on the health-care system, does the minister intend, through this new procedure, to seriously put forward the suggestion, which was unanimously agreed to by the select committee on health-care costs in its procedure to negotiate with the doctors?

Since the minister didn’t actively take part in the debate, perhaps I could refresh his memory. That commitment agreed to by the select committee was a multi-year contract based on a fee consistent with the utilization rate in the province of Ontario. Will he now seriously put forward that proposal which had been agreed to by the Conservative members, as well as ourselves and the Liberals?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t recall the multi-year aspect to it. I could be wrong, of course, but I don’t recall that was in that recommendation.

Mr. Warner: It was for more than one year.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I do recall the concern being expressed by the committee about the question of utilization. In fact, when I appeared at the committee on September 15, 1978, we discussed this question of utilization, not just about physicians’ services but any number of extraneous services pertaining to medicine. I expect the whole question of utilization is one which will continue to occupy a great deal of our time in the discussions between organized medicine and the government.

As the member knows, I have expressed some concerns about that particular system as to whether it does provide an incentive to remove unnecessary utilization. The whole question of utilization is one which is occupying a great deal of our time and will continue to do so, I’m sure.

Mr. Conway: Could the minister tell us what we are to do about the implication which would leave us with the impression there really are two parties involved, the government and the Ontario Medical Association, which we know to be inaccurate inasmuch as there are really three groups? There is the opted-in physician and the opted-out physician. What can be done? What does the minister suggest might be done to deal with this anomalous condition which has people coming to a negotiating table who have, from the very beginning, repudiated the very thing he’s trying to negotiate? Has he given any consideration to treating those physicians who have in significant majority numbers accepted OHIP at the negotiating table, in a different way from those who have from the very beginning repudiated this system for all the things they have alleged?

Mr. Nixon: Like the Minister of Education.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, and I might ask the honourable member to tell me what is the position of his party? I have before me a speech given yesterday by the honourable Leader of the Opposition and a press clipping from today that suggests one position, and I have a press release from around one o’clock that suggests another position. I don’t know where his party stands.

Mr. Warner: That’s normal.

Mr. Martel: What else is new?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The three documents leave one wondering just what is going on.

Mr. Breithaupt: You can ask us questions.

Mr. Martel: There will be a third position this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It bears repeating: I really don’t anticipate that is going to happen, I really don’t; not in my lifetime.

Mr. Martel: There will be a third position in an hour.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It bears pointing out that in the last four months we have had a stabilization in the question of opting out. As I indicated many months ago, I anticipated that with the expiration of the Anti-Inflation Board we would see evidence of an increase in the numbers and the percentage of physicians opted-out as the fiscal year ends came up after the effective date of April 14, 1978.

Mr. S. Smith: There was a 40 per cent difference between OHIP and OMA.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am pleased to say that has stabilized over the last four months. In fact, at the end of April the percentage and the number of physicians opted-out declined for the first time in a year and a half. I am optimistic, as I have said, that this process and the result of this process will have a very positive effect on that question.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain why, when the Ministry of Health sat down with the doctors in order to establish this bargaining framework, it was not the number one priority of this government to ensure that before this negotiating agreement was set up the doctors would agree that every doctor in Ontario in fact would adhere to the fee schedule decided by this new negotiating framework? In other words, why wasn’t it the minister’s priority to ensure that no one in this province should pay extra to get insured medical services in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is my objective to preserve the rights of the people and the rights of the profession.

Mr. Martel: The right to pay.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The Ontario Medical Association has no more right than I have under the present law to force every doctor to opt into the plan.

Mr. Martel: You’re so weak-kneed.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have another question to the Minister of Health, arising out of the report of the standing committee on social development, which was prepared yesterday after the committee’s 12 days of inquiry into hospital cutbacks across the province. Is the minister prepared to accept the recommendation of that standing committee that there should be no further cutbacks in active-treatment hospital beds across the province until alternative facilities are available in the community, and is the minister prepared to accept that committee’s recommendation there should be an appeal process to which hospitals can go in order to have a means of establishing the facts about cutbacks being imposed by the ministry?

Mr. Pope: It hasn’t been filed yet.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am looking forward to the time -- I had hoped it would be in this session but I am told it won’t be until the fall session now -- when we will have a chance to discuss the whole of the report. I understand my colleagues from this side of the House are going to file a dissenting report with respect to several items when the main body of the report is filed today.

Let me deal first of all with the question of the beds. I have said to the member on a number of occasions, and I believe this very strongly, that we in Ontario today, looking at the total range of beds, all the types of beds available to us, approximately 80,000, have approximately the right number of beds necessary to serve our needs in this province. However, one has to recognize the health needs of the province have changed. I am thinking particularly of the vastly lower birth rate in the province and the tremendous increase in the numbers and the percentage of the population who are aged.

Mr. McClellan: Just keep saying that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Therefore, the health needs of the province have changed.

Mr. Peterson: You are neither young nor fertile.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It was accepted time and time again by people appearing before the committee from hospitals as well as from professional groups and from private sector consulting groups, that the resources have to be reordered from time to time to take account of those changes.

Mr. S. Smith: We need more hospitals, not fewer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In fact from time to time there will be more hospitals. If the Leader of the Opposition would like me to read into the record the list of new hospitals and additions to hospitals --

Mr. S. Smith: I said the elderly need more hospitals, not fewer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- replacements, new units, new services, that have been approved just in my time as minister, I would be glad to do it, but the Speaker would rule me out of order because it would take about half an hour.

Mr. S. Smith: You’re making an argument for more beds.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ll read it just as quickly as I used to before I took lessons.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Stuart, look at the information.

An hon. member: Twenty more beds in York North.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question of appeals.

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll drive you to distraction.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Oh, no.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You would drive anyone, including me, to distraction.

Mr. Van Horne: I hope it is not a long trip, Bette.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is a much longer trip, Van Horne, for you.

Mr. Speaker: Ignore the interjections please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: An appeal mechanism is now in place within the Ministry of Health which has worked very well this year and last. We have found throughout the years we are able, where needs are identified, justified and documented, to sort out problems. I have expressed concern to the committee and to certain of the media, and I will express concern here; I don’t think this Legislature and this executive branch of this government can turn over, in effect, responsibility for $6 million a day in public expenditures to somebody external to the government. I think that would be an abrogation of the responsibilities of an elected parliament and an executive council.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the difficulties communities have had, such as Timmins and Wingham and Goderich, will the minister not agree to the creation of an independent and accessible appeal process to which communities and community hospitals can go and get a public review of the cutbacks being imposed by the ministry, rather than simply retaining an in-house, behind closed doors appeal process within the ministry, which is all that’s available right now? Why won’t the minister bring that appeal process out into the open where the findings can be made public and people can then judge whether or not the ministry is prepared to act accordingly?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have found that the findings are made public faster than you would expect any regulatory body to make them public. Every time we meet with these hospitals to work out their problems we do convey in writing the conclusion of our meetings and --

Mr. Warner: Then the public has to take you to court.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- those things are sometimes made public before the letter is even received.

Mr. Warner: It is the only way to get decent health care; they have to take you to court.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If members really want to pursue that line of reasoning, what they are talking about, to be fair to the public who are paying that $6 million bill per day, is that they want to set up a rate-setting commission such as they have in many of the United States, that could also cut budgets.

Mr. McClellan: There you go, you are being silly again.

Mr. Cassidy: We want your decisions to be subject to review.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: They are, right here.

Mr. Conway: My supplementary concerns recommendation 7 of that report. The evidence left with the committee seemed to indicate the small hospital sector in this province was being more particularly and more negatively affected by the restraint program. Can the minister give this House an assurance at this time that that recommendation, calling as it does for an indefinite extension of the 10-bed cushion, will in fact obtain? Can the minister assume that the small hospitals, so seriously and so negatively affected, can and will see that as at least one small ray of hope against a budget-cut program which in many cases threatens their very existence?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is being given very serious consideration. The work has already begun with such groups as the hospitals on the north shore. The member was good enough to organize a meeting four or five weeks ago with groups from the hospital at Palmerston and various other places around the province. It is my goal to ensure we develop a mechanism to agree with each hospital on the minimum size necessary for them to be financially viable and to meet the acute and chronic health-care needs in their communities.

Mr. Breaugh: In particular reference to the recommendation for an appeals body, why is the ministry so afraid the public of Ontario will find out what actually is the situation with any given hospital board? Are you endorsing the course of action taken by Windsor Metropolitan General Hospital that a hospital board’s only means of preparing their case publicly is to go before a court? Is that what the minister wants?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, the matter of the court proceedings will be dealt with, I hope, within a matter of days. We will get back into that forum and argue it where it should be argued, namely before the supreme court.

Mr. Breaugh: That’s what you want, you want it there.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, we didn’t bring the application. We didn’t bring the application.

Ms. Gigantes: You’re afraid.

Mr. Warner: You forced it because of your cruel cutbacks.

Mr. McClellan: Set up an appeal process.

Mr. Breaugh: You like that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, but I can tell you do; you are almost salivating over it.

Mr. Warner: I will drool my way out of here.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Regarding the matter of public information I would point out to you again that unlike the system embodied in your paper of last July, the board of every public hospital in this province is elected by the membership and accountable to the community in that area. What is more, through that board and through this minister and the ministry, any information on hospital budgets, the total amount and the distribution, can be obtained.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment has the answer to two questions asked previously.

[2:45]

FLUORIDE POISONING

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, as requested on June 14, I am today tabling a report on fluoride levels in the Cornwall area. The report gives detailed information on levels of fluoride recorded at our monitoring stations in the area and describes our interaction with the federal government on this issue. It will be noted in the report that to date there are no indications of human health problems as a result of fluoride emissions. The government will continue to monitor the situation.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: Since the methodology of the Department of Health and Welfare study is certainly suspect, since the International Joint Commission report emphasizes the study was only preliminary and since the reports from the chief of dental services of the US Branch of Indian Health Services says, “A definite problem exists with fluorosis among children from Cornwall Island,” doesn’t the minister think he should be ordering a further health study at once, since there is clear evidence there is a problem and previous Canadian studies were totally inadequate? Also, can the minister tell us why he has not yet got the American health report which the National Indian Brotherhood has had for some time?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would like to comment very briefly on fluorosis. I noticed that one portion of that report indicated that the officer of health suggested there was no evidence. The reason I think that is important is that normally excessive fluoride intake in the human body is early evidenced in the dental enamel of teeth. That he had not seen any such evidence is a strong indication the intake to the human body is well within normal limits.

As for receiving the other reports, we will continue to do as we have in the past, namely, try to obtain those reports. Since they are from the other side of the US-Ontario boundary we are having some difficulties, but in due course I am sure they will be here.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: Has the ministry done any testing on either crop or livestock products to see if there are any signs of the fluoride substance in milk or any of the crops we consume?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The honourable member will notice when he reads all the information contained therein that we are asking the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to give us more expert advice on that particular aspect of it. However, I think the honourable member will also note there has been no indication to date of an excessive number -- let me rephrase that: I think they are saying there is no evidence of an increased number of deaths due to fluorosis or the conditions of fluorosis in animals. In other words they feel that the animal health is okay. I am referring that to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to get some more expert advice on that subject. That is covered in the report.

NANTICOKE CONTRACT

Hon. Mr. Parrott: In response to questions raised earlier this month concerning a tender submitted to the Ministry of the Environment by Canadian Applied Technology, I am tabling today a detailed response which outlines fully the reasons the firm in question was unsuccessful in obtaining the Nanticoke contract.

Honourable members will note that the information is 20 pages long and contains the information requested by the company itself in a form of a letter addressed to it. The original letter was delivered to Canadian Applied Technology earlier today, and I have its written permission to table it in the House.

SALES TAX EXEMPTION

Mr. Peterson: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. Why is the minister not prepared to grant an exemption under section 7 of the Retail Sales Tax Act to the Parent Participation Pre-school Association in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: That is a matter that has been brought to my attention on several occasions. Power to grant that particular exemption is not in the act; it would require ministerial exemption.

Mr. Laughren: That’s you.

Mr. S. Smith: That is who you are.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: At this point in time, I am not prepared to grant that. We have looked into the situation and we see no necessity for granting an exemption to the schools.

Mr. Peterson: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Simply because we do not see the need for it.

Mr. Peterson: In view of the fact a number of these schools involve a cross-section of people in the community who are volunteers, people working with their children who want to give them some kind of pre-school education; in view of the fact also that the total sum in lost revenue, last year for example would be about $14,000 or $15,000 -- a mere drop in the bucket for the minister, not even coffee money for some ministers, not even cigar money for the Premier, but of very great importance to the great number of volunteers working with the young people.

Mr. Roy: Cheapskate.

Mr. Laughren: Liberal restraint package.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t had a cigar for a year and a half.

Mr. Peterson: Why won’t the minister, out of the goodness of his heart, now consider that, because it is important to so many people and yet insignificant to him? I hope the minister will please consider that.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I am not unsympathetic to the member’s request, but he must remember there are many schools in the province. If we are going to go in that --

Mr. Peterson: You don’t help any of these schools.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Would the member mind if I answer the question?

There are quite a few. If we are going to go in that direction, I would prefer it to be an amendment to the act rather than a ministerial exemption, because it would require a lot of bureaucracy to handle them all if we are going to go the other route.

Mr. S. Smith: First you said they didn’t need it. Now you say we need a amendment.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I didn’t say we didn’t need it.

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I would much prefer, if we are going to go in that direction, that it be an amendment to the act rather than by ministerial exemption; and I am prepared to consider that.

POLLUTION COMPLAINT

Mr. Isaacs: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.

Does the minister recall a letter which he received from a Mr. Gerry Turner, which I am sending over to him, about industrial pollution being emitted from Sylco Wire Limited in Tillsonburg; and would the minister explain why he asked his special assistant, Mr. Blair Taylor, to find out whether Mr. Turner, the complainant, is “a Grit or an NDP”? Mr. Speaker, what has the complainant’s politics got to do with cleaning up industrial pollution?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We are talking about somebody in my riding, aren’t we? I think that is important to know. I may want to see him on occasion and I would want to deal with him. I want to know everything I can about every member of my constituency. I am always interested in my own constituency, of course.

I think the member will agree that matter was properly referred and had nothing to do with politics.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Isaacs: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the honourable member for Waterloo North.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Why don’t you come to order? I distinctly looked at the honourable member for Wentworth. He didn’t have a supplementary until I recognized the honourable member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether or not this new position, whether someone is a Liberal or a Grit, reflects another split in the cabinet; and whether the minister’s colleagues agree with him that he should ask these questions in correspondence?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That is not factually correct. I think it is great to have some fun, but there was absolutely no question whatsoever about the referral of that particular thing to the appropriate sources. It is my riding. Let me tell the member I don’t have any problems looking after that riding to the very best of my ability. I won’t backtrack one bit on that.

Mr. Isaacs: Is the minister pleased to learn I have spoken to his constituent, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Turner has informed me he voted for the minister in the last provincial election? Will the minister now assure us that instead of writing memoranda which talk about strident letters, trying to put down very valid comments about industrial pollution made by a resident of Tillsonburg, he will now deal properly with the complaint being raised and ensure Sylco Wire Limited is prevented from emitting industrial pollutants?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am really not surprised the gentleman voted for me, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Swart: I’ll be surprised if he does next time.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: A little over 51 per cent also voted for me.

Mr. S. Smith: Talk about arrogance.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think there were some pretty strident remarks in that letter that weren’t necessarily factually correct. We must assess it in that light and we are prepared to do so. The honourable member will find out, if I can say this to him --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It never ceases to amaze me how groups will insist that I recognize an honourable member so he can ask a supplementary question and then they act in such a way that they can’t even put the question, let alone hear the answer. It boggles the mind.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I can only agree with you, Mr. Speaker, particularly when it’s a question of such great importance to consume the time of this House.

Mr. Martel: It depends on who is answering the question.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There were some very strident statements in that letter. I think the honourable member will find when he is here a little longer that he will receive a lot of letters and that he will not necessarily accept that all of the facts are as presented; he will learn it behooves a person to look at both sides of every issue. That’s what I try to do on every occasion.

There were some misleading statements in that particular letter. I think therefore, I have a real need to find out as much about that particular concern -- I’m not now talking about the person’s politics --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I want to find out as much related to his concern as I possibly can, because the honourable member forgets that that industry is located in my riding. I did have discussions with the industry and I have taken action on it.

NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE

Mr. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Government Services. There are a lot of conflicting rumors going around about the opening date and the finishing date of the new courthouse and registry office in the region of York, particularly in the riding or York North and the great town of Newmarket. Could the minister enlighten us and the members of the House about the expected finishing date of the courthouse and when it will be ready for occupancy?

Mr. Foulds: I hope it is not like the Thunder Bay courthouse.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: There is one difference. We really don’t need a courthouse up in that area. The people are all the types of people who don’t require a courthouse.

Mr. Foulds: Why are you building it?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: In Thunder Bay, the member suggests, they do.

Mr. Foulds: Are you slandering the people of Thunder Bay? Let that be on the record.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No; the member is suggesting that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: In responding to this question, the contract for this building was let about the middle of 1977.

Mr. S. Smith: It will be finished by 1990.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It is an $11.6-million contract.

Mr. Makarchuk: In time for the next election.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The plan at the time the contract was let was that it should be opened in mid-winter, starting next January, approximately at that time. We have recently had some problems with some of the subcontractors working on the mechanical trades in the building, this has held us up for a few weeks. The present plans are that the building will be completed in about 10-months’ time, approximately at the end of April or May 1, 1980. We plan on accepting it at that time.

I would add that at this moment the building is almost 75 per cent completed.

[3:00]

MANAGEMENT STUDIES

Mr. J. Reed: I have a question of the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister know of, and/or has the minister seen two management studies that have recently been done on his ministry, one by Management Board and the other by management consultant, Peter Barnard Associates? Will he confirm that these reports indicate there is a “severe morale problem” in the ministry? The study sets out a number of reasons for the problem, which has resulted in the resignation of four senior members of his ministry last year?

Hon. Mr. Auld: No. Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen those, but obviously I will get my hands on them very shortly.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: Upon seeing these reports, will the minister then agree to table them in the House?

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, Mr. Speaker, not until I’ve seen them; and then maybe never.

WCB USE OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), could I ask the Premier a question? It is related to this business of private eyes following WCB claimants around.

Will the Premier comment on an event which happened at an adjudication hearing this Monday at which time Ellis Don Construction, of London, entered into evidence a document which indicated that two Pinkerton agents had followed a claimant in Sudbury for eight days? Does the minister not feel this is an infringement on privacy? What is he going to do to curtail these private eyes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Sudbury knows just how cautious I am in offering opinions on matters where all the information isn’t available to me.

Mr. Makarchuk: He was referring to the facts.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member is quite right.

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m doing my best to ignore the interjections.

Mr. Riddell: The Premier is familiar with the Ellis Don Company I trust?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not as familiar as the member is.

Mr. Speaker: Ignore all interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not as familiar as the member and some of his colleagues are, and the member knows full well what I mean.

I would say to the member for Sudbury I would be delighted to discuss this with the Minister of Labour, and he may have some observations for the member tomorrow morning.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, could the Premier comment on a boast by Mr. Piper, the personnel director at Ellis Don, wherein he said he himself acts as a private eye on occasion? Is it not illegal for him to be a private eye without a licence?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’ve noticed some members of this Legislature operate as private eyes without licences.

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: If I could get the Premier’s attention, I would be happy.

Mr. Williams: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: In light of the statement made earlier this afternoon by the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) with respect to the Vietnamese refugee situation, could the Premier indicate if it is his intention to convey to the federal government Ontario’s willingness to accept its responsibilities with respect to the admission into Canada of the so-called boat-people?

Would the Premier agree that under these circumstances Canada’s position should be to do the very most it can in so far as the level of immigration is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member for Oriole that I believe I answered this question in part. My recollection was that I said the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), after some discussion, had communicated in reply to a telex from the new Minister of Immigration, that Ontario would be prepared to accept and support any increase of boat-people, as they have been described.

I think the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in his reply said we would be more than prepared to co-operate to provide what services we could. This was communicated, I believe, about six or seven days ago.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware of the report that the $10 million treatment system at the Love Canal site is not functioning properly and that there is grave danger that the chemicals therein contained are now leaching towards the Niagara River?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m not sore whether my staff is aware of that or not. I will certainly find out and let the member know. I haven’t had that report, but that certainly doesn’t mean staff hasn’t. We will check and tell the member.

Mr. Kerrio: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Because there was some question about my source the last time I raised this issue, I would like to relate to the minister that this source is state documents from the Department of the Environment of the United States. I wonder if the minister would ask the people in the environment department of New York State to have closer liaison with his people in his ministry so we are immediately aware of these situations which seem to have existed since April?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We have already asked for closer liaison with that department. I can repeat that request, if the member wishes, but I can tell him it has already been done. I am pleased that the member’s source now is not Maclean’s but a more official document.

Mr. Kerrio: Well, I found out Maclean’s was one source too.

SPEECH PATHOLOGY SERVICES

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware that when students in the Sudbury Board of Education require the services of a pathologist and apply to the Sudbury-Algoma sanatorium for that service they are denied service because of budgetary restraints? If I could quote very briefly: “We will no longer be providing speech pathology services to school-age children. Referrals of school-age children who are presently on our waiting list will have to be removed.”

When parents are then referred to the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, they are told by that hospital, “We have experienced substantial budgetary restriction in this hospital as well, and our waiting list is also several months long. It seems to me that we are looking at the consequence of continued budgetary restraints in the Ministry of Health, and unfortunately youngsters such as Deni have to bear the delay in the availability of professional services.”

Is the minister aware that his continued budgetary restraints are not simply a political stance or an attempt to balance the budget, but that they are hurting people who are in desperate need of these kinds of services?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Obviously, that is not the intent at all. I will be glad to look into that situation. But I should say that in most areas of the province, of course, such services are provided by the boards of education, not by the children’s centres or by sanatoriums.

Mr. Laughren: No, that’s not true.

Mr. Swart: You don’t know what you’re talking about, Dennis.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Now I know where the “jerk” came from in the expression “knee-jerk.”

Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge neither the board of education nor the sanatorium has written to the ministry to draw that situation to our attention. I will be glad to look into it and see if something can be done to alleviate the situation.

Mr. Laughren: By way of supplementary, is the minister aware that in this particular case -- I will send the minister a copy of the correspondence involved -- the person involved is six years old, in kindergarten and will not even be promoted to grade one because he is almost incomprehensible when he attempts to talk. There are no speech pathology services available in Sudbury, and he is being refused service in Toronto? What is the minister’s advice to the Fraulin family for their six-year-old son Deni?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Unlike the honourable member, I don’t draw the names of children or anybody else into the debate.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will be glad to have the information. Certainly, the intention is to maintain services that have been provided. I am not aware of what the range of alternatives is in that area. I do recall that last year we provided a grant to the sanatorium for a travelling psychiatrist to pick up some of their additional costs. Where a need is identified we will work with them.

SUGAR HAZARDS

Mr. McGuigan: My question is to the Minister of Health. I’m sorry that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) is not here, but I would also ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) to note.

On June 13 a story in the Toronto Sun pointed out that some children’s ready-to-eat breakfast cereals contain up to 48 per cent sugar. This was a situation I pointed out to the House on May 1, 1978. Does the minister agree that excess sugar consumption contributes to tooth decay and obesity, and, according to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), to cancer? Would he press the federal government to bring in legislation --

Mr. Bradley: Your friends.

Mr. McGuigan: -- that would mandate the labelling of processed foods so we may know what ingredients we are feeding to our children and to ourselves?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That doesn’t seem to be an unreasonable suggestion. I would point out to the member, as I did in the note I sent him the other day in the House, that he can’t entirely protect people from themselves. I have never eaten these sugar-sweetened cereals, but I sure as heck put a lot of sugar on myself, and one can’t protect people from that. But the reasonable suggestions about labelling are things we should draw to the attention of the Department of National Health and Welfare and I would be glad to do so.

Mr. McGuigan: I am surprised that the minister engages in such unhealthy eating habits after the series of television ads he presented to the public some months ago. But doesn’t the minister recognize the difference between self-induced problems and problems induced by the fact that people do not know?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is no question that reasonable standards for labelling and certainly for content, are quite necessary and we have very strict standards in Canada. All I am saying is that there is also the health promotional, the educational side of it, and one can’t try to protect people entirely from themselves. That is an impossibility.

ARAB ECONOMIC SANCTIONS

Mr. Samis: A question for the Premier: In view of the possible very serious effects on Ontario’s economy by the recent actions of the Arab Monetary Fund and possible other actions, and in light of the widespread concern and dismay expressed this week by key spokesmen in the banking, financial, communications, housing and exporting communities, not to mention the Canadian Council of Churches, could the Premier inform the House what representation he has made to the Prime Minister on their behalf regarding his ill-timed and reckless announcement about moving Canada’s embassy to Jerusalem, and could he tell us whether or not he believes such action at this time is in the best interests of the people of Ontario and their economy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could ask the honourable member to read the question again. I didn’t get it all.

Mr. Laughren: He can do it.

Mr. Samis: I will repeat the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I got the last part of it. This government and I have made no personal representations related to this rather sensitive matter. I recognize the difficulties inherent in this, and certainly I have had some communications, as have ministers, with respect to certain industries. I think it is something that has to be assessed very carefully. It is, without question, something of an emotional issue.

I would remind the honourable member, and I do this, I hope, with the understanding of what I am going to say next, that we passed legislation in this House that perhaps in some respects, but perhaps different in scale, was establishing a certain principle as well. I would say to the honourable member that at that time I received representations, not on the same scale or with the same, shall we say, perception in terms of the public or the international area, but in terms of our own industrial sector here. I am surprised that the New Democratic Party didn’t receive the same representations. I happen to know that members of the Liberal Party in this Legislature did, as well.

Mr. Laughren: Are you saying you support the Prime Minister?

Hon. Mr. Davis: And yet I want to remind members that as a matter of principle, we enacted that particular piece of legislation. If the New Democratic Party in this province is saying it is as a matter of principle they are debating this particular posture, not the practicalities of the problems we face at present, then they should have the intestinal fortitude to get up and say so.

Mr. McClellan: That has nothing to do with this.

Mr. Martel: Why don’t you have some intestinal fortitude? You demonstrate your lack of fortitude in that answer -- chintzy.

Mr. Laughren: You’re waffling.

FANSHAWE COLLEGE

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I seek your direction on this, but I do believe I have a point of privilege in that on Tuesday I asked a question of the Minister of Education about the settlement made between Fanshawe College and its president. I understood her reply to indicate rather clearly that if she got the information she would make it public, or at least make it available to me.

[3:15]

I understand that on the channel 10 television in London last night she is quoted as saying she was not sure this would happen now. I would, therefore, submit that if she is responsible for that statement on channel 10 last night, I was misled on Tuesday.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If I might respond to that, I do not know what was said on channel 10 but I said very clearly to the newspaper reporter from London that I had communicated my concern about this already to the executive of the board of governors of that institution. I told them I would be following it up with a letter if I found, after perusal of my legislative capabilities, that I was permitted to do so. I have found that out. The letter is written and has gone to the board of governors asking specifically for the information which was requested by the honourable member. I committed myself to the publication of that information, or at least to the sharing of that information with the members of the House, when it’s received.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the record. On Tuesday last I asked a question of the Minister of Health concerning the practice of what is know as “dormatizing beds,” that is, not having in service hospital beds with might be covered under their allocations. I was not quite pleased with the minister’s answer.

I’d like to read into the record testimony given by Dr. Paul Clarke out of an Ontario Medical Association brief before the social development committee: “If you hear a hospital is allocated for 400 beds, they sure are not running 400 beds. They can’t afford 400 beds. It would be more like 360 or 375 or something like that.” In a telephone conversation as late as this morning, the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto acknowledged that is a rather widespread practice in Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wouldn’t deny that. But the fact was that the member’s question suggested the people won’t talk to us about it, and that is ridiculous.

WRITTEN QUESTION

Mr. Speaker: I would like to seek the co-operation of one honourable member who filed an inquiry of the Ministry of the Environment without benefit of having signed it. It would help the table officers if the member would assist us in that regard.

MEMBERS’ EXPENDITURES

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the individual members’ expenditures for the fiscal year 1978-79.

Mr. Peterson: Cassidy wins again. The only thing he’s ever won.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) has given notice that be is dissatisfied with the answer to his question by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) on spraying for spruce budworms. This matter will be taken care of at 10:30 tonight.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: I would beg the indulgence of all honourable members to bear with me while we carry on the time-honoured ritual of reading into the record the names and the ridings of the pages who have served us with such distinction over the past few weeks.

Mr. Nixon: Let’s turn the TV lights on them.

Mr. Speaker: They are as follows: Michael Braby of Frontenac-Addington; James Darling of Peterborough; Ian Dickison of Quinte; Claudine Duras of St. David; Roderick Flynn of Renfrew North; Marcel Forget of Welland-Thorold; Sean Gabbidon of Yorkview; Janis Gibson of Perth; Caryn Hallam of Don Mills; Georgina Jani of St. George; Stephen Johnson of York West; Sylvie Lamoureux of Oriole; Lynne McIntyre of Elgin; Lynda Simpson of Humber; Allison Smith of Brampton; Craig Stubbs of Dufferin-Simcoe; Luba Szkambara of High Park-Swansea; Sharon Tenbergen of Oxford; Dawn Tunnicliffe of Leeds; Geoffrey Turner of Frontenac-Addington; Robert Watson of Grey, and David Wighton of Scarborough North.

Will you thank them for their services?

Applause.

REPORTS

FUNERAL SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Timbrell presented the annual report for the calendar year 1978 of the Board of Funeral Services and of the Funeral Services Review Board.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Hon. Mr. Bernier presented the 78th annual report of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission for the year ending December 31, 1978.

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing social development committee presented a report and moved its adoption.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, included in the report of the standing committee on social development is an Appendix 1 containing dissenting opinions. I have no objection to preparing, typing and circulating this kind of unmitigated pap, but I wish the members of the committee who wish to say this would have the intestinal fortitude to sign the thing.

Mr. Peterson: Take out his appendix and charge him.

Mr. Speaker: According to the standing order, the report itself is the majority opinion of the committee. It is within the discretion of the committee to allow members to append a dissension from that report, but it is not to be construed as a portion of the report.

Mr. Breaugh: Just speaking to the point of order, I have no objection to its being there. I am simply requesting that members who wish to put in a dissenting opinion and exercise their rights under the standing order have the intestinal fortitude to sign that opinion.

Mr. Speaker: That is a question for the committee.

On motion by Mr. Gaunt, the debate was adjourned.

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. McCaffrey from the standing general government committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Report adopted.

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Villeneuve from the standing resources development committee presented an interim report and moved its adoption.

On motion by Mr. Villeneuve, the debate was adjourned.

Mr. Speaker: I wish chairmen would give some indication of how they want these reports disposed of, rather than leaving it to the discretion of the chair. It does cause a great deal of difficulty.

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Report adopted.

STANDING STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE

Mr. Williams from the standing statutory instruments committee presented the committee’s first report.

Mr. Williams: Before moving adoption of the report, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments with regard thereto.

It has been my privilege to act as chairman of the standing statutory instruments committee for several sessions. As you may recall, sir, the first substantive report of the statutory instruments committee was presented in June 1968 and at that time the committee established a set of guidelines for the making of regulations as a major consideration and recommendation. As a result of that first report in 1968, these guidelines were established and the role of the committee and the matter of regulations and exemptions thereunder was considerably clarified. The report at that time was able to point out what some of the difficulties were with regard to the secondary legislation, commonly known as regulations. That initial substantive report did single out at the same time a number of specific statutes that were particularly noted for offending some of the guidelines established at that time.

The initial report indicated also that the committee was, in its ongoing work, studying the means by which other jurisdictions handled regulations. Subsequently, a second report was tabled by the committee in December 1968, and in so doing it was reported that the committee had investigated and consulted with representatives from the province of Manitoba as well as with our federal counterparts, the statutory regulations committee equivalent in Ottawa. It was from those two sources that we learned a great deal about how regulations are handled in other provincial jurisdictions as well as at the federal level.

We pointed out in the first report, as well as in that second report, that one of the major considerations of the statutory instruments committee was to undertake a thorough vetting of the existing regulations, a matter which had not been given serious attention for a number of years. Through the good offices of Lachlan MacTavish, QC, who acts as counsel to the committee, I am happy to report today that the vetting of regulations has now been made current as indicated by the report I am tabling today.

The other feature of the report that is being tabled today is that the number of statutes that has been specifically singled out in earlier reports were dealt with and have been dealt with specifically in this first report of this session. I think it is important that members of the House avail themselves of the opportunity of considering the current report, which deals specifically with a number of statutes. I will simply cite the statutes to you, Mr. Speaker, namely, the Planning Act, which was found to be --

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the honourable member that this is the day for private members’ balloted items.

Mr. Williams: Yes; another two minutes, Mr. Speaker, and I will have concluded my remarks.

The Planning Act is the major piece of legislation to which the committee addressed itself in trying to find a more appropriate means of handling regulations. It has been pointed out too that the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act, the Registry Act, the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act and the Highway Traffic Act, as well as the Environmental Assessment Act, all could be improved upon as far as the means by which regulations are handled under those particular statutes is concerned. It is these statutes that are cited in the report tabled today. I hope that remedial action will be taken with regard thereto as suggested by the committee.

[3:30]

The major problem that must be addressed is an immediate one. It is pointed out in the report. The dicennial amendment of the regulations is in process and if significant changes are to be made in the regulatory process as it relates to any specific bills it must be attended to in the very immediate future.

Mr. Speaker, I again wish to thank counsel, Mr. MacTavish, and the clerk of the committee, Mr. Forsyth, for their dedicated efforts in assisting the committee in its work.

On motion by Mr. Williams, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Maeck, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Drea, moved first reading of Bill 142, An Act to amend the Residential Premises Rent Review Act, 1975 (Second Session).

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, the bill postpones the repeal of the act for two months, from September 30, 1979, to November 30, 1979. The continuation of the act for certain specified purposes is correspondingly extended.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston moved first reading of Bill 143, An Act to amend the Election Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to standardize the hours of polling for elections to the Legislature. Section 1 of this bill amends the Election Act to ensure that the general hours of polling extend between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. of the same day. When Daylight Saving Time is in effect at the time the election is held, the bill requires that any time reference in the Election Act be interpreted as referring to Daylight Saving Time.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the interim answers to questions 249 and 257 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS

Mr. Ramsay moved resolution 20:

That in the opinion of this House the government should give consideration to the reduction of the writ period for provincial general elections and by-elections to a length of 30 days.

Mr. Ramsay: I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, to have the opportunity to explain my rationale in presenting this motion, as well as arguments I think pertinent to its support.

At present, if an election is called in the months from May to October inclusive, the election period is between 74 and 37 days long. If an election is called in the months from November to April, the election period is between 77 and 44 days long. I recently contested a by-election in the months from November to April; the time between the issuing of the writ and the election covered 44 days.

The recent federal election also illustrated to us all what came to be in most eyes a long drawn-out ordeal for anyone remotely involved, as well as those who are not only merely observers but potential voters. In fact, between the time the federal election was called and the actual day of balloting, the province of British Columbia, as well as the British Isles, called and completed their elections. Another recent example of a very short election period, actually less than 30 days, would be Newfoundland.

Gone are the days when leaders had to stomp the province or the country in railroad cars or other conveyances making whistle stops. We are in an age of jet travel and the electronic media and I submit it is time we changed our election practices to bring them into the 20th century as well.

Let me briefly outline some of the advantages of a shorter writ period. Number one; it would broaden the democratic base by allowing less expensive elections. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, it can become a drain on the candidates and many spend years attempting to write off their expenses. Despite the more progressive legislation of later years, which has put needed restraints on spending and has provided a measure of financial assistance to candidates, there is the overall expense to the taxpayer to be considered. Isn’t this an excellent opportunity to practise the restraints we seem to be constantly advocating these days in government?

Number two; a shorter writ period would tend to compress and crystallize the issues, thus enhancing public appreciation of the party platform. If a candidate cannot decide on a platform and have a clear appreciation of the issues by nomination day, then I suggest he will be a poor candidate.

The public is bombarded by rhetoric and printed material and usually by election day is more confused than when the election is called. A shorter time period would obviously assist in this respect.

These items are not necessarily in order of importance, but number three is one I consider extremely important. How can we justify the absence of elected representatives in the seat of government for a period ranging from 37 days provincially to up to 60 days federally? The shorter writ period of 30 days would facilitate an early return to the business of government which would be a most positive move.

Number four, a shorter writ period would reduce to a minimum the counterproductive aspect of campaigns wherein voters have become saturated by campaign news and are turned off by election day. As one who has worked in the media for some 25 years, I have been deeply involved with elections at the municipal, provincial and federal levels and can speak with authority when I state voters do become turned off by a seemingly never-ending avalanche of campaign material on their doorsteps, workers knocking at their doors, candidates accosting them in shopping centres, television and radio announcements blaring at them all day, and newspaper supplements crammed with election ads.

To those members who represent large urban ridings, this perhaps is not a factor, but in the smaller communities the use of television and radio and newspaper advertising is quite popular because of the lower cost and less possibility of fragmentation of audience. Campaigns may be a bonanza in revenue for newspapers, radio, television and the local printer, but I submit it becomes an irritant to the viewer, listener and reader.

This brings me to my point that we should recognize the essential change in campaign practices and performances that has occurred with the advent of electronic media. The leaders of the respective parties can’t even discuss the weather without their comments being reported or recorded during an election campaign. Again, in smaller markets, the information media, usually quite responsibly but diligently, probe for every possible tidbit of legitimate election news and it, in turn, finds its way into the newspapers or on television and radio.

Potential voters, and that includes the lukewarm ones, cannot suggest that they have had no opportunity to make themselves completely familiar with the candidates, the parties and the issues because of the scope and strength of information media in general and, in particular, the outstanding growth of the electronic media.

I would anticipate one particular criticism of this resolution and that is the ability properly to conduct the enumeration process in a shorter writ period of 30 days. I would advise that I have consulted with Mr. Roderick Lewis, the chief election officer who, with his staff, has been conducting intensive meetings to see if a shorter writ period can be accommodated. His findings would indicate that with a new approach to printing lists and other fine tuning of the enumeration process, a shorter writ period may be possible.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the light of everything I have said, I have no hesitation both in submitting this resolution to the House and asking the honourable members for its support.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member wish to reserve any of the remaining time?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker. I won’t require much time but I would like the opportunity at the end for one or two remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Five minutes?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Bradley: The member for Sault Ste. Marie is to be congratulated for bringing this matter before the Legislature since it is one that has been discussed in public for some time. We commend him on that particular initiative. He finished somewhat earlier than I anticipated so I’ll have to collect my notes together on my desk here, Mr. Speaker, and deal with some of the problems that I see with the resolution.

I think the idea really originated from the last federal campaign which seemed to go on almost endlessly. If we take the federal campaign into consideration we would recognize that there was a good deal of question over whether or not an election would be held last year, this year, the fall or the spring, the summer or the winter. This seemed to make the campaign go on much longer than indeed it did.

However, I think most of us in this House would agree that the 57-day minimum -- I believe it’s 57 days federally -- is a very long period and is probably not essential in that jurisdiction. I would like to look at some of the problems that would come about if this resolution resulted in legislation relating to the provincial government

The first aspect we have to look at is the election machinery itself. I think we recognize that a basic problem would result from the idea of a permanent voters list for an election and things of that nature. Yet, a permanent voters list is the only way of getting around this problem as I see it to bring forth legislation for what the member for Sault Ste. Marie is advocating.

What we have in the province of Ontario under the British parliamentary system, particularly with minority government, is a situation where an election can be called on very short notice. For instance, if the government were to be defeated tomorrow on a major bill in the House, the government would then be in a position of probably regarding that as a question of confidence and we would have an election rather quickly. This would certainly leave those who are involved with the election machinery process in very dire straits if only 30 days were available for the entire process. It would also leave political parties in a very difficult situation in terms of rounding up candidates, particularly those who were new to the political process, and putting their machinery into effect.

Those who have been involved in elections, both in the back room and the front room, so to speak, know that the returning officers, first of all, have to find accommodation when the writ is issued. They have to be able to rent some kind of accommodation, be it an office or a house of some kind. They have to arrange for such things as telephones, furniture and supplies and so on, just as the political parties have to do, although not with the same degree of urgency.

[3:45]

We recognize that people who belong to political parties are contacted by the returning officer in a particular constituency and told to arrange for enumerators. It is often difficult to get these enumerators lined up ahead of time, particularly when an election is precipitated by a defeat in the House or on the initiative of the Premier, if he somehow feels that an election is justified in circumstances other than what we would probably consider to be the normal four years.

We also know that the enumerators must be trained to do their job properly, that this takes some period of time and that they have to be out on the streets within a few days doing their job. We recognize that they must call on all households within a particular community; that they must call back twice to ensure that every voter has the opportunity to be on the list; that there must be a revision of the voters list; that the lists must be printed; that polling places in the constituency must be arranged -- and this is often not as easy as would meet the eye, I would think, from those of us who know, having to rent campaign headquarters. We also have to have them arranging and instructing the poll clerks and DROs. So we are in a situation where it can be very difficult for those who carry out the actual process of the election to be able to do so in such a short period of time.

Looking at it from the point of view of political parties and political candidates, it certainly places the government in a very favourable position, because the government ordinarily knows when it is going to call an election, except, of course, upon defeat in a House. The government would naturally have the most incumbents in the Legislature, and we know that incumbents ordinarily have the advantage of being better known in their constituencies than the individual candidates who would be put forth by the opposition parties or those who would allow themselves to be candidates on an independent ticket. It really places those who are not incumbents in a very difficult position of attempting to compete with a government which usually has its propaganda machine oiled up and in order at all times, because it can use certain of its departments to put forth the policies of the party through the ministers. Even though we recognize that is not part of the election process, we know it does happen.

We also know that the parties have to get together to be able to print their materials. Those of us who think that door-knocking is important have to try to reach as many of our constituents as possible by knocking on doors. It is virtually impossible, within the 30-day period, for the candidate himself or herself to be able to do that. The other workers could be of great assistance, but the candidate himself could not get to every door. We see a real problem and a real advantage being given to the government if this resolution were to be implemented.

A study of this was done by the Manitoba Law Reform Commission some time ago; June 24, 1977, is when the Legislative Library received it. What many people say is that a permanent voters list is obviously the answer to this; that we could really speed up the machinery by doing that, even if we saw it as being desirable in terms of the political process, of the parties themselves and of the candidates themselves.

I quote from page three of their report: “The basic problem with the presentation of voters lists in a parliamentary democracy is that the timing of elections is not a regular and foreseeable process.” This deals with the matter I brought to the House’s attention in terms of the fact that we have elections in our parliamentary democracies sometimes when we do not even expect them.

There are other problems with the permanent voting list. One is the cost of a permanent voters list. On page seven of the report, it mentions: “Any method of permanent or continuous electoral rolls would be considerably more expensive. The rolls would also be less accurate, meaning thousands and probably hundreds of thousands of voting-age Canadians would be disenfranchised in every federal election.” We can also, I think, apply that to provincial elections.

“Finally, there is an intangible: the element of compulsion. Do Canadians want to be required by law -- as Britons and Australians are -- to register as voters?” Do they want compulsory voting, as the Australians have? Some of that is implicit in moving to a permanent voters list.

Mr. Hamel, who is the chief electoral officer, estimates that between 97 and 98 per cent of eligible voters were enumerated in the 1972 election. This still left a huge number, between 250,000 and 300,000, off the list, but in comparison with other countries the omissions were minor. The United States, with 10 times the population, leaves more than 100 times as many voters unregistered -- 32 million of them in the 1972 presidential election. The Canadian system is much admired by electoral experts south of the border.

The British process continues until February 15 when the list is closed. The list is in force for any election occurring between February 16 and the following February 15. There is provision for deleting the names of those who die and for adding the names of those who come of age. But changes cannot be made for voters who move, marry or divorce. So a problem exists in that respect.

The British Columbia permanent or continuous voters list, I must note, was not even used in the 1972 provincial election, which suggests there were some problems with it.

Looking at the permanent voters list and the costs we are talking about, the Manitoba Law Reform Commission goes into this in some detail on page 13 of their report: “Before rushing into a new electoral system, it would be wise to consider the costs, financial and other. The financial costs would be staggering. At present it costs a little less than $11 million every four years in times of majority government for enumeration and courts of revision.” I am talking federally there.

Mr. Hamel has a permanent staff of just 41 people, plus an army of temporary help at election time. To maintain a continuous voters list he would have to have at least one registration office with two permanent staff in each of the then 264 ridings and more staff in Ottawa -- between 700 and 900 people all told. Based on the Australian experience, he put the cost of a continuous list at $1.50 per registered voter.

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

Mr. Bradley: In conclusion, it would mean $80 million per election, instead of $20 million. For these reasons, I can oppose this resolution in conscience.

Mr. MacDonald: I am rather intrigued at the thrust behind this resolution. In the halls around Queen’s Park in the last few days, as this was going to come up, I have heard it said -- I don’t know whether accurately or not -- this was a kite-flying effort. I heard the government had really made up its mind and was just testing the waters with this private member’s bill.

When I discover honourable members had the benefit of the chief electoral officer’s examination of it and he has concluded that it can be done, and as soon as the debate begins the lights come on, the camera takes a shot of him, for what purpose time alone will tell. Maybe the member will be trying to drum up support across the whole province on Provincial Affairs.

An hon. member: A television personality.

Mr. MacDonald: I repeat, I am a little intrigued at the thrust back of this whole thing. But let me get down to the substance of it, since time is limited.

During the recent federal election campaign there was widespread comment about the undue length of the campaign. I don’t know anybody -- repeat anybody -- who didn’t share in that criticism. The campaign was too long. It was set up 100 years ago when it took a week to go from Halifax to Vancouver, and the proposition that you should have a campaign of that length today, with modern means of travel, when the Prime Minister or a party leader can be on both sides of the country in the same day, is obviously a bit of nonsense.

However, to extrapolate the unanimous feeling with regard to the undue length of the federal election campaign into the provincial scene, and to conclude we should reduce an election campaign of 37 days to 30, I suggest is a mistake. We are going to oppose this resolution. I am not going to repeat all the reasons the honourable member who has just spoken has laid out for the House. The problems involved in the returning officer being able to get an office, to get staffed up; the problem for each one of the committee rooms, of printing -- all those matters take a measure of time. I suggest that 37 days is not too long to do all of that efficiently.

One thing that surprises me about the motion particularly is that it should come from northern Ontario. We may have difficulties in urban seats in the south, but in the northern ridings where there are great distances to cope with, the difficulties are even greater. To reduce the time of an election to 30 days will make it difficult, if not impossible, to carry on a campaign effectively. One wonders whether the honourable member living in the Sault is so isolated in an urban area, so isolated from the rest of the north, that he is not aware of these difficulties. I certainly have been hearing for quite some time about the difficulties of campaigning in the vast distances of the north and I shall leave further elaboration to my colleague from Thunder Bay, who can speak more knowledgeably and more familiarly on it.

The paramount objective of any election campaign should be to give every eligible voter an opportunity to vote. I am not going to go into all the details of the Election Act, but I suggest that the main criticism, as the sponsor of this resolution conceded in anticipating criticism, is going to be with regard to enumeration. I suggest that the whole House should be given an opportunity to have input in terms of revisions, not just what appears to have been some behind-the-scenes effort within the Conservative Party working with the chief electoral officer. If we are going to have revision, let the whole House pool information, pool their knowledge and pool their experience through an appropriate committee of the House.

Enumeration in this province has to be seriously re-examined. I don’t accept what appears to be the thrust of the argument of the last speaker from the Liberal Party that a permanent voters list is the answer. Years ago, I took a look at the permanent voters list and, quite apart from the cost, which is very, very much greater in many jurisdictions where a permanent voters list is being used, if it is being updated every six months or every year and the election happens to be called in the fifth month or in the 11th month, that permanent voters list will be significantly out of date.

Mr. Bradley: That is why I spent five minutes panning the permanent voters list.

Mr. MacDonald: Oh, the member attacked it. Well, okay. If he were panning it for reasons apart from cost, we share that common ground. I do not think the permanent voters list is an answer. The answer lies in handling the procedure that we now have efficiently, which means that the returning officer, in accordance with the Election Act, has to get each party’s nominations as to who is going to do the enumeration. I suggest in this jurisdiction, the government has a special obligation to see that the job is done well.

In most jurisdictions, enumeration is done under the direction of the returning officer, by the two top candidates in the last election. For years this government and this jurisdiction have given a special advantage to government members. Even if a Tory runs third or fourth of fifth, Tory supporters will be engaged in enumeration in the next election and whoever won the election or came in second is the second party brought into the picture.

That is not the case federally. It is not the case in most jurisdictions. It is the top two parties. But here, the Tories have a favoured position; they are in there no matter where they stood in the last election. Therefore, they have a special obligation, in addition to their responsibility for handling the whole setting up of the machinery, of making sure that enumeration is well done.

Without wanting to go into the details of it, if anybody is interested, I have a letter as to the kind of experience we had in my own riding, which I sent to the thief electoral officer after telephone calls last time and to which I have yet to receive a reply or clarification. I repeat, the thrust of my remarks is simply this: rather than trying to reduce the period from 37 days to 30 when we can’t handle it as efficiently as we should so that every eligible voter has a chance to vote, I think we should concentrate on perfecting the system we have. It is potentially by far the best system, certainly superior to any alternative like a permanent voters list.

[4:00]

Let me cite just one other example, Mr. Speaker. It stipulates in the act, for example, that the advanced poll should be on the Saturday and Monday prior to election day. That surprised many people who happened to be going on holidays at election time. The Election Act gives an opportunity for advance polls for people who are in the armed forces; who are in transportation and, therefore, away from home; who have a medical certificate; or who are students away from home. But it doesn’t give any right to a person who happens to be away on holidays.

Once again, if your objective is to give a right to vote to everybody who is entitled to a vote, there are changes which can be handled best, I suggest, within the time framework we have now. You’re going to have added difficulties in doing it efficiently, and doing it well, if you reduce that time.

In the remaining moment or so that remains to me, Mr. Speaker, I just want to deal with one or two points raised in teems of argument on behalf of this reduction.

The honourable member who sponsored the resolution said, for example, it would cut down on costs. Cutting down on costs and so restricting an efficient handling otherwise is missing the point. If you want to cut down on costs, put some limitations on spending at election time. Don’t leave the sky as the limit. This is what exists now and what this government has insisted on as we attempted to have amendments to the act in the last instance.

An argument I found particularly strange, if not specious, was that we wanted the election to be shorter so we could get back to business. I don’t know whether he means the government to get back to business. The government goes on anyway while the election is on. As for members, sometimes there are literally three or four months before the government deigns to call the House back into session. So the business of getting back at the business of the province -- namely, that we should be working more frequently here -- is an interesting argument coming from the other side of the House. We’ve had difficulty getting them, quite apart from elections, to schedule the business of this House in an orderly fashion -- for example, in keeping with the recommendations of the Camp commission -- so we can handle the business of this House and not have to go through the madness, the war of attrition that characterizes the last week of the session before adjournment in summertime or particularly the fall.

I think this is, to put it bluntly, a rather ill thought through proposition.

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

Mr. MacDonald: In the light of Ontario’s experience, we shall oppose this resolution.

Mr. Kennedy: I’m somewhat disappointed that the NDP would oppose the resolution, which, of course, is something in principle and gives an indication as to whether we could reduce the election period. Certainly, no one wants it to be to the detriment of the voters or of the bringing forth of issues.

Perhaps, under certain conditions, if a bill were brought forward at some time they would take it into consideration to see if we could put through some accommodation of such legislation or an amendment to the Election Act, which would reduce the period of time for which everybody, especially the electors and the populace, would be grateful.

I can’t see that there would be dire consequences, as expressed by the member for York South, were we to do this. We’re speaking of seven days in the summer and I can’t recollect when there has been a winter election, but then I’m not that old.

Mr. MacDonald: There was one in 1951.

Mr. Kennedy: I would say to the member for York South that I’m not that old. My memory doesn’t go back to 1951.

Mr. MacDonald: You don’t have to be that old, you just have to know your history.

Mr. Kennedy: Okay.

Mr. Foulds: You can read if you’re literate.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for bringing this forward. As the House perhaps knows, I had a similar resolution on the order paper but my ballot time is gone and I appreciate that he did bring forward what I think is a very timely measure.

From time to time, following elections, we discuss measures that could improve the electoral system and there have been resolutions now and then, but there has not, recently, been a change to the Election Act. The resolution today is aimed directly at the issue of the writ period itself.

Mr. Foulds: It doesn’t say that.

Mr. Kennedy: It’s a timely issue because the federal election, as we all know, is just over and it seemed to go on for an interminable length of time.

I would have hoped we could have agreed to a mutually shortened campaign time. We have the 21-day advertising restriction now, but this does not restrict the election fervour which we seem to tire of eventually. Real relief can only occur if we shorten the writ period itself. Other jurisdictions seem to be able to do this and achieve it. I know some have permanent voters lists; others don’t, or they have modifications of them. I, too, discussed this with the Clerk of the Legislature and the chief electoral officer and asked him, “What about this? Can it be achieved? Is it feasible? Is it reasonable under certain conditions and modifications?” Certainly, you can’t just come down, wham, and say it will be 30 days without giving it some consideration.

The provinces perhaps could take a lead in reducing, removing unnecessary -- and I emphasize unnecessary -- time spent in the electoral processes.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, it’s such an awkward inconvenience.

Mr. Kennedy: The key thing is that this should not and would not impede the democratic process.

Mr. Breaugh: We understand why.

Mr. Kennedy: As my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie said, with modern communications, modern technology, better education -- if you go back to 1867 and before --

Mr. Breaugh: I thought you weren’t that old.

Mr. Kennedy: -- there were minimum numbers who achieved more than grade school education, let alone the ability to communicate, to reach government, to reach would-be parliamentarians, but now anything that comes out is immediately right across the country and into practically every home. We have to come into the 20th century and I think we can adapt.

Mr. Breaugh: When did you come into it?

Mr. Kennedy: Great Britain has and that great socialist province of --

Mr. Breaugh: Ontario?

Mr. Kennedy: -- Saskatchewan. Ontario? It will be a long, long time before he is able to say that, I say to the member for Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: Maybe. Maybe in November.

Mr. Kennedy: There wouldn’t be an impediment to the electorate learning the issues, being able to consider and ponder and understand what is being placed before it and then decide on issues and vote as an informed electorate.

On the technical side, I am not all that familiar with this. I presume there would be economies. If you were into a permanent voters list, one may cancel the other. I don’t know, it could very well be. It seems to me if you were running an office, the rent wouldn’t be as much for 30 days as it would be for 37 days, but I don’t know.

Mr. Breaugh: More unemployment.

Mr. Kennedy: That is not the key to the whole issue though. The key is we can do it, and do it well, in a lesser period of time, so let’s get on with it.

Mr. Breaugh: You haven’t been able to do it in a longer period of time.

Mr. Kennedy: There were some experiments done with respect to allowing to vote people who weren’t on the electoral list. I see our new member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs). In that riding and in the other by-election in Scarborough West, the voters had opportunities -- and I understand this was an experiment -- to go to the returning officer and be sworn in, or whatever they did, to enable them to vote. I certainly support that.

Mr. Mancini: Well, you’re the government. Change the law.

Mr. Kennedy: If we could incorporate, along with the other changes, the possibility of revision of the voters list right up to election day, I think the people eligible to vote would give us a big salute for that. Sometimes it seems 18-year-olds who are just coming on, and should be able to vote, find they are left off. There are some who are here on election day but were away for enumeration and during the revision periods.

The member for York South again mentioned the advance polls, the polling dates and so on; maybe this could be and should be incorporated. We should do everything possible to ensure that those who wish to vote and should vote have access to the polls. I do not see any great impediment to amending the legislation so that this can come to fruition.

In closing, we have before us a resolution which means reducing the time spent on elections and the interminable boredom on the part of voters. If legislators here do not like it, I am sure the voters out there will be very grateful. There will be no detriment to the communication of issues because of technology.

An editorial in the Star endorsed this on May 24, saying: “Shorter, sharper election campaigns would benefit Canadian democracy by concentrating debate and focusing public attention on the issues and policies involved.” It goes on, but I will not quote further other than to say that it could be very appropriate reading for members.

The concept has a great deal of public and popular support, and it has been expressed here in the Legislature in the past. It is a concept that is practical and workable; therefore, I hope it will receive the support of this House. Again, I commend my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie for bringing forward a very timely issue. I only wish we were debating an amendment to the actual legislation so we could get this little piece of work done and out of the way to the benefit of the electorate of Ontario.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, we are now debating ballot item 23, brought in by the new member for -- where’s he from?

Mr. Blundy: Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Mancini: From Sault Ste. Marie; I am sorry.

I believe we have missed the fundamental point of what this ballot item would do to the election process. I, for one, cannot support the member for Sault Ste. Marie. I do not believe that 37 days is an excessive election campaign.

I represent a riding that is almost 42 miles long and approximately 20 miles wide. We have many large communities, with anywhere from 2,000 to 10,000 people, scattered about the riding. In no way could I, as the candidate for the Liberal Party or, I am sure, the candidates for the Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party do those people justice in a 30-day campaign. We can barely get around to see them in a 37-day campaign.

What some of the honourable members from the Conservative Party have forgotten to mention, and one of the most important philosophical points we should address ourselves to, is not the synthetic communication we have today. People can see us on television and hear us on the radio, but that is not what the people of Ontario want to see or hear; they want to see the candidates in person and they want to talk to the candidates.

[4:15]

Mr. Pope: Tell that to your leader.

Mr. Mancini: I will just ignore the crummy interjection.

The people want to see the person who wants to be their elected official. Usually, the only time in a four-year period the people of this province can really confront a candidate and have his undivided attention is in an election campaign. If all of us do not agree to that, I do not think we are being totally honest. At that time we, whether we want to or not, must give our undivided attention to that constituent who has confronted us about a concern or about a policy that any of our parties might endorse. The member for Sault Ste. Marie wants to take away seven days from these constituents who should have that right.

It is said we are being inundated by campaign advertising. All of us know we cannot advertise more than 21 days before polling day. That is not very long. In my riding we have five weekly newspapers. That means I get three ads in the whole election campaign. I do not think that is inundating my constituents and I do not think they consider it that way.

They say the leaders are on TV and the radio every night. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with the leaders of the three political parties who might in the Premier’s chair after the election taking the time to explain explicitly to the people who will have to live under their policies what these policies are and what they mean to the future of Ontario? Why are we so afraid to confront the public? Why do we want to limit the time we have to explain what we stand for? This is a fundamental thing. I cannot understand limiting it.

We have dealt with these other frivolous issues as far as expenditure is concerned. As the member for York South said, if we are concerned about expenditure let’s limit our expenditure. Then the Attorney General of this province (Mr. McMurtry) won’t be able to spend as much as he did in the last election -- or the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey), who spent piles of money.

We also expressed concern about the voters list. What the voters list had to do with this resolution, I will never be able to understand. Very clearly in front of us is the discussion of a ballot item which shortens the number of days we have in an election, and the member for Mississauga South spends half of his time speaking about the voters list, and whether we should have --

Mr. Kennedy: It wasn’t half.

Mr. Mancini: A third of his time then -- about whether we should have a permanent voters list. I want to remind the member for Mississauga South we had a debate in this Legislature about a permanent voters list some time ago. All members at that time had an opportunity to talk about a permanent voters list. As I recall, that resolution was voted down. So the House has already given its opinion on a permanent voters list.

I want to quote the Manitoba Law Reform Commission in May 1977. It had addressed itself to this concern, which some members opposite seem to be overly concerned about.

Just one more point, before I quote the Manitoba Law Reform Commission. In this parliamentary type system, the incumbents of this Legislature have an enormous advantage over people who want to unseat them. As a member I acknowledge that. Maybe some time in the future the election expenses commission or some other body might have to do some type of study on this.

I think we as incumbents have an enormous advantage over the people who want to get elected when they are running against us. All of us know all of the benefits we have as incumbents. This shortening of the election period I believe is just another way of making it more difficult for an incumbent to be defeated.

I personally am not concerned. If we want to give the people running against us all the advantages we have, it doesn’t concern me a bit. I think they need those seven days and the people in all the ridings need those extra seven days to get to know them as best they can.

Going on to the law reform commission of Manitoba, in their report in 1977 -- Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have, sir?

Mr. Acting Speaker: About two minutes.

Mr. Mancini: I will quote sparingly, then. It says here -- and this has been prepared by an august group -- “By most accounts, some of which are noted in this paper, it is our politicians, elected professionals and active amateurs, who regard election periods as being too long. It is their thought that the electorate resent being involved in elections and the briefer and more infrequent elections the better.” That is what they summarize as the thoughts of some of the elected people.

I am glad to say, Mr. Speaker, I am not one of those persons. I believe we have to give the electorate the benefit of the doubt, that they do want to meet political candidates, they do want to have time to speak with them and they do want to have time to hear what their policies are and what they will do for their constituents after they are sent to the House.

Mr. Bradley: You’re not afraid of democracy.

Mr. Mancini: I am not afraid of democracy, no.

Mr. Foulds: I rise to oppose the resolution. I hope the member will understand, because I don’t question his sincerity; however, I believe the resolution is misguided.

First of all, no one denies -- none of the speakers today and I don’t think anyone the member has talked to denies -- that the federal election is too long, but let us not confuse the federal and provincial elections. We could fit two provincial elections into the time frame of a federal election, except for seven days.

The honourable member mentioned that BC has a short election period. BC has a 35-day election period; that is only two days shorter than Ontario’s. So I think the argument vis-à-vis the federal election does not wash.

I would like to point out to members of the House the province of Ontario is as diverse regionally as is Canada itself and that 37 days is the minimum we should have to speak to the concerns of the various regions of Ontario, because the issues frankly do vary from region to region. The concerns and the issues in southwestern Ontario are substantially different from the concerns in eastern Ontario or northern Ontario or Metropolitan Toronto.

You need time to enunciate the issues about northern development and about urban growth in a metropolitan centre like Toronto. You need time for the leaders of the major parties and the minor parties to enunciate those across the province, so we know what northern development has to do with relation to growth in Metro Toronto and vice versa. We need to know the three leaders of the current major political parties are speaking consistently across the province.

The member who proposed the resolution suggested that with the advance of the electronic media we don’t need to have as much personal campaigning, as much face-to-face campaigning, as we have had in the past. I have some very grave reservations about the direction of the electoral process in the western countries as a whole because in the electoral process we are beginning to use the electronic media, naturally enough, in the way every other person who wants to sell a product uses the electronic media. Whether you are selling a can of tomatoes or you are selling Bill Davis in the 1971 campaign, one of his key workers as quoted in Jonathan Manthorpe’s book The Power and the Tories said it was the same thing.

Frankly, I think it is a mistake to reduce the complex issues that face a society, issues which should be the life and breath of an electoral campaign, to the 30-second or one-minute television clip or even to the 10-minute political talk clips. Let me remind the honourable member that the electronic media are one-way media. The electorate can’t talk back to the box or the radio and the electorate should be able to talk back to the leaders of the parties and to the candidates during an election campaign.

I resent the implication that MASH is more important than electoral politicals. I resent the implication that the American sitcom is more important than a serious discussion of politics and that people shouldn’t hear William Davis because they might miss Archie Bunker.

Mr. Breaugh: Same thing.

Mr. Foulds: I’m not going to touch that one. I didn’t say the same thing.

Two speakers have already said if the objective of this resolution is to limit campaign expenditure and limit the cost of elections to the public, then let’s do that. Let’s put a limit on how much can be spent in each riding. Let’s put a limit on how much can be spent on the media. We can live with that on this side of the House, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. That would make the rules a lot more equal and would save the taxpayers and the contributors to the political parties a fair amount of money.

People have already mentioned that this resolution and the shortening of the campaign would favour the incumbents. It would favour the incumbents of all parties, but especially the government incumbents.

I want to deal with one last point at some length. How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Four minutes.

Mr. Foulds: Four minutes. I want to deal for four minutes with what is my major concern.

I believe the honourable member has been suckered by his colleagues to present this resolution and he has betrayed the north.

Mr. Breaugh: The real reason comes out.

Mr. Foulds: Because, Mr. Speaker, the member comes from a northern riding. Using the electoral map here in front of me as my audio-visual aid, it could be seen that Sault Ste. Marie is probably the smallest riding in the north, closely followed in size by Sudbury.

It may be that one can cover Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury in a 30-day campaign, aside from the problems of enumeration and so on. But I ask the honourable member to consider how one covers a riding such as Lake Nipigon, which the map doesn’t even complete, and how one can cover Kenora and even Algoma, which is next door to the honourable member’s riding, adequately in 30 days.

I suggest one can’t. I suggest that not only the incumbent, but people in opposition to the incumbent, would have terrible difficulty making contact with a bare majority of voters and the media simply doesn’t reach them. They don’t have television in Winisk; they don’t have television in those northern communities. In the ridings of Kenora and Rainy River the major part of their television, radio and newspapers come from the western provinces. One simply can’t communicate with them.

As candidates in an election, we should be willing to face the electorate. We should be willing to face them for 37 days and when we have a riding of 114,000 square miles like Lake Nipigon, we should allow those people the contact they deserve with their candidates. We should not try to circumscribe that and cut it short. We should not say to them that their candidates don’t have the time to get up to those small, important northern communities because they are a part of Ontario too. They really are part of Ontario and may very well be the lifeblood of this province, not the urban centre here in Metropolitan Toronto.

[4:30]

I have a relatively small northern riding. My riding is as large as that of the member who just spoke -- 20 miles by 40 miles. That’s a small northern riding, and I can barely cover it in 30 days because most of it is in a large urban centre, but I have small communities I would like time to visit and I would like my political opponents to have time to visit.

Interjection.

Mr. Foulds: No, Mr. Speaker, now the member mentions that, this resolution favours the wealthy party; it favours the wealthy candidate, because my Conservative opponent managed to spend $42,000 in a losing campaign. They spent three times as much on the media and everywhere else than our party spent in the campaign.

That comment by the member for Algoma-Manitoulin really shows -- and the interjections of the government House leader -- what the government is up to with their kite-flying expeditions. Remember the government House leader actually seconded it, even though he wasn’t aware he was going to.

Mr. Gregory: On a point of privilege: The honourable member well knows I am not the government House leader. I would ask he withdraw that remark.

Mr. Foulds: I certainly withdraw the remark about the government House leader. I attribute it to the chief government whip. Have I got it right now?

Mr. Kennedy: No.

Mr. Foulds: I think the government is deliberately trying to curtail the rights of the electorate to contact their candidates and of the candidate to contact the electorate. For that reason, I oppose it; I oppose it in principle. I oppose it particularly as a northerner because the resolution discriminates particularly against northern ridings.

Mr. Cureatz: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Might I say I’m very pleased to participate in this debate.

I have a few opening remarks. The first is I found the comments made by the member for Port Arthur very interesting and actually I’m a little sympathetic with him. I think he is right when he made reference to the news media and to the aims of the western societies in using television. I don’t think we really fully appreciate yet the kinds of contact made in using that kind of advertising in, for instance, the political field. I think we’re only becoming aware of the kinds of problems we’re having in advertising in general, be it radio or television. I think that’s a very important point. That’s an issue that would have to be studied to a further degree before we think of reducing the time frame to the 30-day period.

I’m also sympathetic in regard to visiting areas. I have a very unusual riding. I’m involved with the city of Oshawa and a large rural area, and I’m continually on the road meeting people, but as a politician I feel that’s what our job is all about. We’ve got to meet the people.

It’s one thing to express our views and concerns in the press or on television, but it’s another thing to get out and meet people. Quite often, people are not overly concerned about issues, but they want to know who their representative is, who their man at Queen’s Park is, so they can relate to him and feel confident they have a representative who attempts to try to reflect their concerns.

Let me touch base on a few other of my concerns. I think it would be appropriate in rising to participate in this debate to centre my remarks on possible changes to the system by which we enumerate the electorate in this province. This is because the largest factor contributing to the evolution of our present writ period is the time required to collect and process a list of voters’ names. No doubt the means by which voters lists are prepared has changed through the course of time, and as a result the current writ period could be reviewed on that basis.

However, there are one or two difficulties that might become apparent in the proposal of the 30-day period which I should like to mention. I don’t necessarily think there are insurmountable difficulties, but since our present system of running elections is a smooth one and by and large quite a successful one, I think any changes we make must be carefully considered indeed. Firstly, under a 30- day writ period, enumeration as at present practised would of necessity have to be carried out almost immediately. The names of enumerators would have to be submitted almost on the day of the writ issue and training promptly begun. As I said, this would not be an impossible task, provided everyone was well organized in advance.

Mr. Bradley: Are you for or against, Sam?

Mr. Cureatz: Secondly, I wonder how this shortened period will affect revision of the voters list. I understand from recent trials in provincial by-elections that revision can, with a certain amount of ease, be carried on right up to the day prior to polling day. Presently the revision period extends from the 17th day to the 12th day prior to polling day. If revision were going to be successful under the 30-day proposal, I think a suitable period of time would have to be set aside as breathing space between the printing of the voters list and the beginning of the advertised revision days.

There is a possibility that under a condensed election calendar, lists would be distributed but not circulated among the electorate fast enough to take advantage of revision days. Mr. Speaker, I am attempting merely to illustrate that a 30-day writ period is likely the shortest space of time Ontario could have in order to run an operational, effective election. A 30-day election calendar would be very tightly scheduled.

Other provinces do have shorter than 30-day unit periods. Newfoundland has a 21-day election, and in Prince Edward Island an election can be as short as 26 days. Alberta and Quebec each have 28-day periods. It is interesting, however, none of these provinces has a discontinuous voters list. Each practises either some form of continuing electoral roll or discretionary electoral revision during election year.

Saskatchewan has a writ period which runs anywhere from 28 to 34 days. Like Ontario, they have enumeration and revision at each election time. But unlike us, Saskatchewan’s population is largely rural and considerably less dense. Enumeration is not nearly as complex an affair in that province.

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

Mr. Cureatz: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I merely conclude that on balance I will support this resolution proposed by my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Bradley: You are a good party man, Sam. They’ll remember you.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Sault Ste. Marie for five minutes.

Mr. Ramsay: I will just make a few comments to sum up. Referring first to the remarks made by the member for St. Catharines, I agree completely with him in respect to voters lists. I am not advocating the use of a voters list at all. I believe in the enumeration system.

Mr. Foulds: The Tories don’t want a list at all.

Mr. Ramsay: A permanent voters list is what I am referring to. I am a little disappointed to see that the member for York South isn’t in the House. I wanted to respond to one of his comments. I think he implied this was a trial balloon and that the motivation had come from the government to test it in this respect.

Mr. Bradley: Who would ever believe that?

Mr. Ramsay: I appreciate that the member doesn’t know me too well, but I certainly have no hesitation in indicating that there was no conversation with any of the party leaders in drafting this proposal and coming up with the resolution. In fact, once I indicated what the resolution was going to be about, several members of this caucus indicated they could not support it.

Mr. Bradley: Are they going to block it?

Mr. Breaugh: Is the pope Polish?

Mr. Ramsay: I just wanted to make that point.

Mr. Kerrio: We don’t do things like that.

Mr. Ramsay: I don’t agree too often with the member for Port Arthur, but he does make two excellent points. One of them caused me a fair amount of soul-searching before I prepared my remarks, and that was the size of some of the ridings in the province. I realize that is a problem in a few of them.

I also agree with another point he made. I thought I had made the same point, but he indicated that I did not. I am concerned about the fact that television is used too much. I say that as a person associated with the media. I wholeheartedly agree that we should have as much face-to-face campaigning as possible. I would be horrified if I thought we were at the stage where we were running campaigns through television to try to reach people. I have always been frightened about the power of television, particularly so when it comes to election time.

Mr. Bradley: Keep on growing the way you’ve been going.

Mr. Ramsay: The only other point I would make is that it was suggested that it takes a while to gear up campaigns, that if a snap election is called it is not always possible to get things going and that the advantage is to the government. I would suggest that the New Democratic Party have given us all an excellent example over the years of being prepared during elections. I feel they have made great strides in this respect and I just can’t understand their logic in suggesting that this would be a deterrent. I would think if anything they might have an advantage when it comes to a snap election because usually they are better prepared than the Conservative and Liberal Parties.

With those few comments, Mr. Speaker, I would again ask for the support of the House in this resolution that reads that, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the reduction of the writ period for provincial general elections and by-elections to a length of 30 days.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Ruston moved resolution 21:

That in the opinion of this House the government of Ontario should initiate serious negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association to ensure that Ontario doctors, in particular general practitioners, are compensated fairly in comparison with doctors in other North American jurisdictions, and that once such a compensation scheme is decided upon, those doctors who feel it is inadequate and who opt out of OHIP be obligated to opt out completely. And furthermore, that the government of Ontario review the whole field of institutional health care to ensure that adequate personnel and adequate beds -- active treatment, chronic care and nursing home -- are available to care for the needs of all the patients of Ontario.

Mr. Ruston: I recall the first resolution I presented to this Legislature back in June 1970, concerning tax rebates on agricultural land. At that time, although resolutions or bills were debated for one hour, there was no vote taken on them. I was pleased then to have my resolution adopted by the government and within six months the farm tax rebate system was borne. I am not expecting quite as good a result from this one, but, however, one always has hope in politics. Of course, the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) today has sent over to me some new system he has in negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association, so we see some hope already.

I suppose there has been some confusion over the last few years with regard to how the medicare system works and to the medical profession. Perhaps first I could put on the record certain interpretations of coverage and so forth:

An opted-in doctor bills OHIP and accepts the OHIP benefits as payment in full.

An opted-out doctor bills his patients, who are reimbursed by OHIP to the amount of the OHIP benefit. The patient is responsible for anything above this. However, the doctor must depend on the patient to pay for all of the services rendered to him by the doctor, which in some cases could mean outstanding accounts at the doctors’ offices. I have heard of opted-out doctors who find that up to 15 per cent of their accounts are very difficult to collect, if they can be collected at all.

I recall my family doctor of many years ago telling me he had had enough money outstanding in his accounts that he could have retired at the age of 50, but he could not collect the money. He was very pleased when Windsor Medical Services was formed and guaranteed payment up to 90 per cent of the medical association fee schedule. Windsor Medical Services payments varied for each year, depending on funds available. At one time I believe the payments did go as low as 60 per cent of the medical association fee schedule, but this was increased when new monthly rates were set.

[4:45]

I believe very strongly that medicare, which includes doctors, hospitals and nursing home beds, should be available to all citizens of Ontario regardless of their ability to pay.

I feel the worry our parents had about their ability to pay doctors and hospital bills should not be thrust upon the residents of Ontario today. I believe if the government of Ontario has a sincere desire to see that medicare works, it can sit down with the medical profession and surely between them a fair and equitable fee schedule can be worked out which would prevent our doctors from opting out.

I realize that in all probability we cannot pay what the doctors in Texas would make, knowing what Texas is like, but when I refer to the North American jurisdiction in my resolution, I mean similarities such as those which are outlined in the union agreements we already have with the auto makers where wages in Canada and the United States are similar.

My main concern is to point out that the present government here has not, in my opinion, been completely committed to a true health-care plan accessible to everyone in this province. I believe that if the Minister of Health and the rest of the government put their minds to solving this problem, they could come up with an understanding with the medical profession that would put to rest the many concerns people in Ontario have about doctors’ services.

If this was accomplished, I feel we could put into effect a plan similar to that in Quebec. That is, if a doctor opted out, he would be completely out and could not bill OHIP for any part of his services rendered. Of course, neither would the patient be able to collect from OHIP since the doctor opted out and would not be recognized.

I realize this would not be acceptable to some of the medical profession, but I want to reiterate that if we put together the collective minds of government and the profession, surely we can have a plan that would be acceptable to all and second to none.

Since I have worked as a secretary-treasurer of a prepaid medical co-operative, I suppose I feel a little closer to this problem than some of my colleagues in this House. In running our co-operative, I made a point to honour all bills submitted by the doctors and to have them processed as soon as possible. I find that the present payment system in OHIP is far from adequate and does not offer prompt payment of claims.

With the computer systems available today, it seems to me we should be able to process claims in a matter of days. I understand that in Saskatchewan claims are paid as quickly as a week. So why can’t we keep doctors’ claims processed even twice monthly instead of the present system where doctors sometimes wait for four to 10 weeks?

I want to stress that I do not favour any system that would put doctors on the payroll as public servants. I still feel the fee-for-service system is the best available for good medical care.

The resolution we’re discussing today states that the government of Ontario should review the whole field of institutional health care to ensure adequate personnel and beds -- active treatment, chronic care and nursing home -- are available to care for the needs of all patients requiring such service.

The matter of available beds is probably of more concern to the general public than the problem of doctors opting out, when one sees the number of letters and telephone calls that are received about the difficulty in obtaining a bed at many hospitals. It is appalling, particularly when we are supposed to be living in a land of affluence. I have personally dealt with a number of these cases and I’ve had to ask the minister’s staff to intercede on our behalf.

I would like to read parts of a letter I have received from a hospital patient. I will leave out the names as requested by the sender to avoid any embarrassment, as has happened in the past. In most cases, I must say the news media has a tendency to editorialize and this can cause some embarrassment to the patient in complaints of this nature. I only accept these letters from people who are willing to sign them, but I always check with them and respect their wish to remain anonymous.

The letter is addressed to myself: “I am writing to you to let you know I give my full support to your acts in the Ontario provincial government. As I write this letter, I am in hospital recovering from a heart attack. There is always a long line of people waiting for a bed in this hospital. Some could be life or death.

“For example, my friend, who is on a disability pension because he had a heart attack, had been waiting three or four days to be admitted to this hospital with his life slowly ebbing away. His poor wife had to sit by watching him slowly die. She was helpless. Many times she called her doctor but was told there was ‘no room in the inn.’ As soon as the hospital had room, he would put him in for hospital care.

“Finally, my friend’s wife got so nervous and upset when she saw her husband slowly deteriorating she called an ambulance and had him taken to the emergency of the hospital where he had to be kept for two and a half days before they could give him a room. Thank God for small mercies. She had enough sense to send him this way because probably he would have just lain in bed at home until he died.

“The Bible asks us, what is the price of a soul? Then it says you can gain the whole world and lose your soul and you have gained nothing. I ask those members of the Ontario provincial government what price they would put on their life if they were the poor peasant that needed a bed in the hospital to have his own life.

“Mr. Ruston, I am glad to see someone who has the nerve to bring this need before the Ontario cabinet and government. Just a little support for your fight to retain the much-needed beds in our hospitals.”

I would also like to quote from an article in the Windsor Star of June 14, 1979, reporting on the subcommittee meeting of the social development committee held in Windsor on June 13: “Mrs. Carter, a retired schoolteacher, told the committee she fell during a wind storm April 5 and was taken to hospital but not admitted. She said hospital officials told her there were no beds. Mrs. Carter said hospital staff knew she lived alone and was unable to walk. ‘I was in intense pain and no way could I walk,’ Mrs. Carter said. She lay on a friend’s chesterfield for a week in intense pain before her daughter came to visit and insisted that something be done. She said her doctor told her to go to hospital by ambulance where she was admitted and placed in traction for three weeks. She said she was placed in the cardiac unit because it had the only bed available. Mrs. Caster said she has ‘all kinds of health insurance’ but ‘none of it of much good to me at this time.’”

I would also like to say that the matter of allocating chronic-care beds in hospitals prior to making arrangements for active-treatment beds is also of great concern to me. I was reading an article in the Windsor Star of June 14, 1979, about a public meeting on health care with a panel of four doctors who were taking questions from the audience. A Dr. Hekadon gave statistics showing that on Tuesday night Hotel Dieu Hospital kept 13 people waiting.

“He gave statistics showing that on Tuesday night, Hotel Dieu kept 13 people waiting in the emergency department for a bed, five waited at Metropolitan and two each at Grace and Windsor Western-lODE unit.

“But the same hospitals showed that they would not have had to make patients wait for beds if some of their beds had not been taken up by people who did not need them.

“He said the number of people taking up active beds at Hotel Dieu who really only needed to be in a nursing-home or chronic-care bed was 54 on Tuesday, at Met it was 36, at Grace 33, and the lODE had 15 such patients.

“But there is a waiting list for nursing-home beds in Essex county, and the province will not allow any new ones to be built.

“‘If we could unclog that system, if we had nursing-home beds and chronic-care beds, if we could unload this backup, we could help solve this problem of shortages of active beds,’ Dr. Heckadon said.”

I have sympathy for the doctor with this dilemma facing him, when he is told that there are no beds available and he must decide whether his patient is a real emergency or whether it can wait for a day or two or even a week or to put the patient into an overcrowded hospital.

I am also concerned about the workload of the nurses and their assistants. I have been advised about the low morale of the staff with regard to the cut in complement.

The backlog in nursing beds in the county and the city of Windsor is about 100, and yet the minister will not permit an additional nursing home to be built or beds added to the existing homes. I can assure that nursing homes would be built immediately if the okay was given to go ahead.

I would like to go over the Ontario Medical Association rates of 1969, which I have here in the OMA book I used when I was secretary-manager of the Essex County Medical Co-operative. A general assessment by a general practitioner in 1969 was $15. In the 1979 OMA schedule, it is $28; in 1979, OHIP pays $19.50 of that amount. Partial assessment: 1969 OMA schedule $5.50; 1979 OMA schedule $11; OHIP pays $7.70.

Specialist: consultation, internist, $35 in 1969; 1979 schedule, $73; OHIP pays $50.90. General assessment, office, $25; OMA schedule, $46; OHIP, $32.05. Obstetrical care, specialist, $165 in 1969; 1979 OMA schedule $330; OHIP pays $230. Obstetrical care, general practitioner, $69 in 1969; OMA schedule, $125; 1979 schedule, $300; OHIP pays $209. In most cases in 1969 Windsor Medical and Co-op paid at least 90 per cent of the OMA schedule and you will notice, Mr. Speaker, that in most cases OHIP pays from 60 to 70 per cent of the OMA schedule.

To compare, here are some examples of wage earnings. In 1969 at General Motors, in Windsor the auto workers’ wage per hour in 1969 was $3.23; in 1979, $7.30; cost of living allowance in 1969, 12 cents, for a total of $3.35; cost of living allowance in 1979, $1.02, for a total of $8.32. I realize that the leader of the third party, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) says, in reply to an article in the Globe about my resolution, that comparing wages at General Motors and doctors’ income was irrelevant. I knew that he studied economics but if you ask 10 economists how to solve our fiscal problems, you will get 10 solutions, probably all different.

It should be the responsibility of the medical profession and the government to see that fair compensation is made to those people who care for the sick. It would certainly seem to me that we should not ask a doctor to see a patient in the doctor’s office for less than $10 with today’s inflation rate, when the doctor must supply a nurse and/or office staff and all the facilities. I would like to see any of the members here who are lawyers, chartered accountants or in any other profession who would give their services for less than $10 and have the equipment, at no small cost, that a doctor must have to carry on his practice.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that doctors resumed the place they had in society many years ago as the backbone of the community with the rightful loyalty and esteem of the people they serve. They should be allowed to carry out their duties in such a way as to have the respect of the citizens of Ontario and we, as legislators, must give them the opportunity to serve the needs of the community proudly.

I would like to reserve any available time until the windup.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There will be four minutes reserved.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have changed my mind about this resolution. A few days ago, when I saw it on the order paper, I thought the member for Essex North does not have a reputation of being an obnoxious person, he’s quite friendly, and, as soon as I read the resolution I thought it’s mother’s milk to the hilt and one can’t be opposed to that.

I have changed my mind because of certain actions on the part of the minister himself and certain things that have happened in the social development committee over the last little while. It’s now clear to me that enough pap has been said.

We are all in favour of doctors. None of us are against the medical profession. We love them. That should not mean, however, that we are not allowed to have some serious and straightforward discussion about what’s right and wrong about OHIP. Surely in a free society, we at least should have that opportunity to speak one’s mind, to offer an opinion without being castigated as someone who is totally evil and opposed, almost in principle, to the notion of doctors.

I am not going to support this resolution because I think the time has come to lay it out much straighter that does this one and it touches bases on almost everything you can name in the provision of medical services.

Let me provide my reasons for that. I listened this afternoon to the minister saying once again there’s a new kind of negotiation under way between the OMA and his ministry to arrive at the fee schedule. This resolution calls for a similar thing, a serious set of negotiations which I think clearly implies that up until now there has never been any serious negotiation. That much I happen to agree with. But there is no sense in seriously negotiating anything unless both parties at that bargaining table are prepared to abide by the decisions. In other words, there is no negotiation unless both parties agree that what they decide upon at that bargaining table applies to both sides and to everyone.

[5:00]

To use the trade union analogy used in many places, what would happen if a trade union went to a bargaining table, the negotiators accepted the agreement, and some of the membership said, “We don’t like that,” or another part of the membership said, “That is fine for starters, but in addition to that here is the extra fee we want”? It wouldn’t fly. It wouldn’t be allowed. It wouldn’t be seen to be fair. It wouldn’t even be seen to be reasonable.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the time has come to negotiate that fee schedule in a very serious way and to have it binding on both parties, so afterwards neither the minister nor his officials in OHIP can downgrade that fee schedule which they have done and medical practitioners could not expect more money than what has been agreed upon at the bargaining table.

I think it is clear now that we need to deal with those negotiations much more seriously than ever before. But there is no sense in doing that unless we agree that that is where we will decide what doctors will get paid for what in Ontario. That seems to me to be a step that must happen and which is overdue in fact.

I am not opposed to anyone getting a fair wage. That part I can certainly support in here. In fact I do agree that general practitioners are coming out on the short end of the stick in the negotiating under the current fee schedule. It strikes me that they are the backbone of the medical profession and have not been adequately compensated. That is not to say that there is an easy mechanism to sort that out, but it is to say, as a matter of priority, I do not feel they have adequately been represented by their own negotiators at the bargaining table and that there is some redress needed in the system.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things one could say about letting doctors opt out and what one does with them at that point. I guess for me it comes down to this point of view.

I do not think that the Ontario Health Insurance Plan operates for the convenience of the medical profession. That isn’t the purpose of the exercise. That plan and all of the hospitals we build and all the people we train and the machinery we provide and the expertise the people of Ontario pay for is not there for the convenience of any one group. It is there to serve the public of Ontario.

My prime concern is not whether or not, if a doctor opts out, the hospital doors are locked on that doctor. My concern is not that patients are billed directly on their own or that they are not allowed to bill OHIP if they use an opted-out physician. My prime concern is the patient per se; the people of Ontario who fund the system. I believe that for that kind of money they have a right to expect medical services at an agreed-upon rate. That is clearly the case now in Ontario.

So I do believe there are things that need to be done. I am not prepared to accept that this answer is the ultimate answer. I am not at all convinced that by taking opted-out physicians and saying, “You are blacklisted. You will not be allowed to use the hospitals. You will not be allowed to use any of our medical services,” would do the patients much good. If my purpose was to nail the doctors, to somehow provide them with some form of penalty, perhaps that would do it. It wouldn’t do it for the rich in Ontario but it certainly would do it for the poor of Ontario.

If my prime concern is patient care, then I think I cannot accept that part of the resolution as being a workable answer. It may well be and perhaps that could be fleshed out in some words not contained in this particular resolution, but I do think we need to be mindful of that.

Mr. Speaker, there is that remaining nagging question: What does one do with doctors who opt out? And should doctors be allowed to opt out? Some have brought into question here the matter that in the province of Quebec they have a somewhat different formula for doing that. I make no bones about it. From my personal point of view, doctors are part of the society in this province. Like me and every other member of this House, every other member of our society, we sometimes learn to live with restrictions on our freedom. In some cases, it’s not for our own personal good but for the good of the public at large.

I don’t like to pay taxes, I don’t like to have to have a driver’s licence, I don’t like a number of restrictions that are on me. I accept them because I am part of this society. For the good of everybody, including myself, in the long run, I accept some restrictions on what I can and can’t do. I think frankly the time has come for the medical profession and the government of Ontario to face that issue. They have never faced it in this province.

In my own personal perspective I can see some cases where doctors, for whatever legitimate reason, may want to opt out and may have to opt out and where the practical answer is to allow them to do so. I can think of some isolated incidents which cover that contingency, but, in the main I believe doctors are part of this society and should be funded through that public system. They use the public facilities we have. They accept the subsidization of their own education and the education of those who work around them. I am in favour of that totally and I am in favour of expenditures of a rather large scale in the medical field.

In looking at government priorities of this current day, while I might say there is a need to practise some restraint, I cannot believe in my own mind that a government has got money to hand out to the private sector with no strings attached but no money to fund hospital systems. I think that is a wrong set of priorities. I am prepared to do that kind of funding. I am not prepared to hand out unlimited amounts of money. I am prepared to have a calm and rational discussion of that, which we have had in several quarters around this House in the last little while.

I want to conclude by saying that my basic premise is simply that the time has come for the medical profession, for the ministry, for the members of the government, for members of this House and for the public at large to sit down and have it out nice and straight without any of us feeling recriminations that the other side is holier than us or that they have possession of all the facts or that there aren’t any problems.

There are serious problems in the provision of medical care in the province of Ontario. It does none of us any good to try to hide that or sweep it under the rug or to look for a simplistic answer. The time has come for doctors to stop being so sensitive so that other people might dare to discuss what kind of money they make or how they practise medicine. That is an unreasonable request on their part. The time has come to look at it straightforwardly, to decide our priorities, to put them in place, to ask a large number of people to participate in the process and, most important of all, to remember that we don’t pay this kind of money for any particular interest group. We pay it to see that the people of this province who pay that money, and pay it gladly in most instances, get proper medical care. That should be the crux of the problem. This kind of resolution doesn’t even address itself to that and that is why I am not prepared to support it.

Mr. Turner: I rise to oppose this resolution for a number of reasons. I must confess when I first saw the ballot item on the Order Paper I suspected it was a bit of a hoax. I couldn’t really believe any member of this House could propose this resolution seriously because it reflects such a total lack of understanding of what this government has been doing to reach a new working agreement with the Ontario Medical Association and because it reveals a total lack of awareness of the measures the government has been taking to reshape health care in this province.

At the very least the member should consider withdrawing the portion of his resolution calling for the government to initiate “serious negotiations” with the OMA. By employing such a phrase, I would suggest the author of this resolution reveals one or two things about his own thought process. Either he has managed somehow to remain unaware of the negotiations that have been going on between the government and the OMA or he knows about the negotiations and he does not regard them as being serious. Perhaps at the time he wrote his resolution he may have considered them trivial. Whichever the case, he must surely feel obliged to revise his thinking, in the light of the announcement made in the House earlier today by the Minister of Health.

For the benefit of the member, who may not have understood or appreciated the import of the minister’s statement, let me recap its highlights briefly. The government and the OMA have reached an agreement as to the process that will be used to arrive at a level of fees acceptable to the people of Ontario and to the medical profession. A committee will be established to negotiate a written agreement on a global revision to the OHIP schedule of benefits now in force. The committee will consist of three representatives appointed by the government, three representatives appointed by the OMA and a jointly appointed chairman.

I will not take the time it would require to detail the new process, but I will summarize the arrangements simply by saying there is a provision for action in the event of a majority agreement on the part of the committee. There is provision as well in the event of an impasse for the chairman to serve as a fact-finder, who will then recommend a compromise. As the Minister of Health remarked earlier, this new arrangement will assure equity in the eyes of the medical profession, the members of this House and the people of Ontario.

In the light of this new development, I believe the first portion of the member’s resolution advocating negotiations that would lead to a fair scheme of compensation for physicians is not merely out of date, I would suggest it is frivolous.

The second point in this resolution calls for a measure completely out of keeping with the spirit in which our health-care system operates. It suggests that physicians who choose to opt out of OHIP should be obligated to opt out completely. In other words a doctor who chose to opt out of OHIP would be allowed to accept only those patients who were willing to pay for his services entirely out of their own pocket. The doctor would not be allowed to hand a bill to his patient and have the patient claim even a portion of this charge from OHIP.

This arrangement would place doctors and their patients completely outside the pale, as it were. If it were to introduce such an arrangement, the government would be saying to all doctors in effect, “Either you do things our way, or operate like outcasts. You can’t have a cent of OHIP money unless you knuckle under and observe the fee schedule we have endorsed.”

I suggest this is no way to maintain the partnership on which our health-care system is based.

Mr. Warner: It is called bargaining in good faith. You wouldn’t understand that.

Mr. Turner: The relationship between the government and the medical profession is not based on a master and servant relationship.

Mr. Warner: You would rather let the doctors have their cake and eat it too.

Mr. Turner: It is an arrangement based on co-operation, not coercion. A partnership relies on the willingness of each partner to hear and respect the needs and the wishes of the other partners. This is the basis on which we have reached the agreement I referred to earlier. It is the basis on which any arrangement should be made in regard to physicians who will remain in or choose to opt out of OHIP.

I believe it is important for all of us to remember as well that even these doctors who opt out are still partners with the government in the operation and delivery of the health-care system. As such, they deserve our respect and consideration.

I would move on now to the portion of the resolution in which the author calls upon the government to “review the whole field of institutional care,” to ensure the availability of adequate personnel and adequate number of hospital beds. That is a first-rate suggestion and I would suggest it has only one thing wrong with it. It’s about six years out of date.

Mr. Warner: Where have you been?

An hon. member: You’re really off base.

Mr. Turner: Anyone who makes a proposal like that can also be expected to suggest any day now that the Pope will visit Poland. I didn’t think it possible for any member of this House to be so out of touch with reality that be would consider a review of our health institutions to be a fresh idea.

Mr. Warner: You should by visiting a hospital.

Mr. Turner: How does he suppose the government has reached the decision to de-emphasize acute hospital care? Does be imagine this was done without any assessment of existing resources?

Mr. M. Davidson: One would think so.

Mr. Van Horne: I’m surprised at you, John.

Mr. Turner: Does he have no appreciation of the work that has been done to weigh the costs and benefits of institutional care and compare them with those of the other less-costly forms of care such as chronic, extended health care, day surgery and home care?

Does the author of this resolution realize that many of the so-called closures of hospital beds are in fact conversions from acute care to chronic care, or that many of these conversions have been carried out --

Mr. Warner: They are hospital cuts.

Mr. Turner: -- to save money because chronic patients were occupying the more expensive acute-care beds? Does the member appreciate the new emphasis the government is placing on disease prevention and community health programs?

He should also understand that while this new emphasis involves a shift in financial and other resources, it is not by any means a disparagement of our hospitals or other medical institutions. They will always be a vital part of our health-care system.

The fact is, however, that our society has reached a point that while new life-saving devices will continue to be invented and used, we cannot expect them to provide a significant improvement in the general health of the public. For that improvement we must look to the public health sector and that’s why this sector has lately been allotted higher increases in funding than the institutional sector. As part of this same trend we also have introduced reforms in the financing of local health units to rationalize and improve their effectiveness.

Frankly, I’m not at all certain that these increased allocations are adequate for the job we expect to see done. I believe we must keep monitoring the situation closely before we can be sure. But I have no doubt that this new shift in emphasis is sound in principle and in tune with the needs of the people of Ontario at this time.

[5:15]

I believe it’s imperative for us not only to develop non-institutional forms of care, but also to reduce the incidence of illness and injury among the public at large. Part of this latter objective can be met by public health programs such as immunization, but part relies on our ability to persuade people to assume greater responsibility for their own health.

These two trends together should make us less reliant than we have been on hospitals and other institutions. The end result should be a healthier population and lower health costs.

Finally, let me mention one additional factor that is ignored in the resolution now at hand. I refer to the decentralization of the planning of health-care resources, notably the establishment of district health councils. The government is bringing about a gradual shift in the responsibility for this function from the provincial to the local level, recognizing once again our commitment to local autonomy.

This measure has two significant advantages: first, it recognizes the public’s growing desire to make decisions affecting their communities and their lives; second, it means that local health-care resources can be developed to suit local needs.

These are the major reasons I oppose this resolution and I call on other members of the House to support me in this opposition.

Mr. Mancini: You didn’t give one good reason; not one.

Mr. Turner: I believe the facts I have mentioned and the trends I have described make it quite evident that every provision in ballot item 24 is either out of date, out of tune with the times, or, worst of all, out of keeping with the spirit in which the government --

Mr. Warner: You do a disservice to Peterborough.

Mr. Turner: -- the medical profession, the hospitals and the people of Ontario have created one of the finest health-care systems to be found anywhere in the world.

Mr. Warner: You must be hiding at the Sutton Place these days.

Mr. Riddell: Such condemnation is not part of your nature. I didn’t think you were like that. You’re becoming very critical.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous speaker I feel that this House is indebted to my colleague for bringing forward a resolution for debate in this House at this time. I am truly concerned about the general practitioner in our society. I do not think the general practitioner has been adequately represented in the discussions with reference to schedules and I concur with what my colleague has expressed, that the backbone of the system is the one which ought to have the concern of the people of this House, of the ministry, of the profession and of the province.

There is no question either that there has to be a greater degree of enforceability of the agreements arrived at between the ministry and the Ontario Medical Association. It’s all very well to talk about master and servant and to talk about all these other legal definitions, but we all have to recognize that the medical profession in this province has indeed a glorious history of achievement. No one will deny that.

We also have to recognize that in attending the university, medical students are subsidized, as are all students. I was subsidized when I went to the University of Toronto, although I must confess I didn’t think so at the time.

But more than that, the doctors in our hospitals have very fine, very sophisticated equipment with which to function. All of that is purchased by the taxpayers of this province. And it should be so, I don’t deny that. But I think we have to recognize there is a responsibility on the medical profession and they ought to be prepared to look at their fee schedule and then to remain within the OHIP system. Without that they may well be denying people the care they need and want.

Like the member for Oshawa, I am of the opinion that our function here is to protect the health care of the people of this province. I am not here to represent one interest group or another; I am here to do everything I can to ensure there is equal health care, as far as it can be achieved, across this province -- hopefully without even that proviso shortly -- but so that the people of this province have health care which they can afford under the OHIP system.

I really don’t think it is so much a matter of the dotting of the i’s and the crossing of the t’s in a resolution of this kind, but rather the opportunity for each member in this House -- who can get on the list -- to express a concern in that area. I have a great regard, personally, for the member for Peterborough, as I think he knows. But for him to suggest in this House, after what we have been through in health services, hospital care, chronic care, nursing homes, that somehow we are out of date because we are all in the garden of Eden, is ridiculous and dangerous.

Mr. Turner: That’s not what I said.

Mr. Mancini: You should be embarrassed, John.

Mrs. Campbell: I have to look at what is said in this House about community care. I have to look at the community care that has been provided in downtown Toronto; and it has been cut off. The Minister of Health has graciously consented -- and the member is right when he talks about local autonomy -- to permit the local board of health for the city of Toronto to continue these programs, although he says he doesn’t see them as health issues. This is the government’s health care in the community in downtown Toronto and its commitment to it.

As far as nursing-home care is concerned, we know the story of the inspections of nursing homes and the fact that they appear to be thrown into the discard; they don’t appear to be acted upon.

Mr. Turner: You know better than that.

Mr. Warner: She’s right, absolutely right. This government won’t do anything properly.

Mrs. Campbell: As a result, in my riding I have seen clearly that the inspectors have adequately reported the problem and there has been no correction at all. And the member talks to me today about this kind of health care and that this kind of resolution isn’t needed? I cannot understand it.

Mr. Turner: That’s not what I said.

Mrs. Campbell: We know the problems. Perhaps Peterborough is in the garden of Eden. It is a beautiful spot. There may be a certain unreality about living there. The situation in the city of Toronto is not as he indicates. All one has to do to know that there has been no real look at health care is to see the kind of so-called plan which was produced to the committee ex post facto to try to justify the closing of Lakeshore. There has been no overview, no adequate assessment and no planning at all.

Mr. Turner: That is not true. How can you stand in this House and say that?

Mr. Van Horne: Any planning that was done was lousy.

Mrs. Campbell: We do need to look at our hospital care and our chronic care. People are in active-treatment beds because there is no other place for them. Believe me, we agree that people should not continue in active-treatment beds when they no longer need them. What we say to the government is that before it destroys active-treatment beds it should put in place the kind of care that is necessary as an alternative.

In closing, I would like to refer to a letter I received just recently from a constituent of mine who had moved into a Metro home for the aged. That is local autonomy. She moved in complaining that if only she had service she could have stayed in her own home. That is saving money, I don’t think.

Mr. Warner: Among other things, it is a pleasure to follow on the remarks of the member for St. George. She speaks with truth and knowledge on the subject.

Mr. Roy: If you keep on that way, you will get our support too.

Mr. Warner: This government continues to try to ignore the problem of the health-care system, and that is evident again today. The Minister of Health isn’t here. He had no intention of being here. He doesn’t consider this matter important. The member for Peterborough talks in terms that reveal to us a dream world, where there are a lot of people living in a world of nightmares as far as the health-care system is concerned.

I don’t know where he has been, but I have been into the hospitals in Scarborough, I have been into the Northwestern Hospital in Toronto and I have seen the cruel cuts. I have seen what they have effected upon the people. All one has to do is to talk to the people who work there, the doctors, the nurses, the other health-care workers and the patients, to find that this system cannot take any more pressure.

The government cannot continue to cut and cut and cut. What is going to give? It is quite obvious. One of the chief doctors from the Toronto Western Hospital spoke out in the media the other day. He told us what is going to happen. People will die because of the lack of adequate health-care facilities in the hospitals. That is what he was saying. And he is right. The quality of health is deteriorating, and there is no reason for it to happen. That is the sad part.

[5:30]

When we were on the select committee on health-care costs, the committee unanimously agreed that our health-care costs are not out of line. We understood we’ve been able to control the costs for health care in this province because we’ve had a public health-care system and not a private one. Our costs are measurably less than in the United States because we have a public health-care system and not a private one. The Conservative members on the committee agreed to that, as did the Liberal members and New Democratic members. All of that seems to be forgotten as the government pursues its relentless attack on the hospitals and on the people in Ontario.

The doctors have a problem. They’ve got a lot of problems. Who wouldn’t have a problem negotiating with this government? The problems need to be resolved. There is no question about the general practitioners. More than that, actually, the opted-in psychiatrists are not well recompensed either. They have problems, unique ones. The government hasn’t solved those problems. Practitioners feel frustrated. I don’t understand why the minister can’t sit down and negotiate a settlement and then everyone can abide by the settlement.

Would the member expect anything like this from the teachers in the province of Ontario? Would he expect a teacher in a public school to send a note home to the children’s parents saying, “I’ve decided to opt out and you’re going to have to send me $5 for every child in the class, on top of the salary I'm getting”? That’s ludicrous. Of course, he wouldn’t accept it, but he will with the doctors. He’s quite willing to allow a doctor to opt out of the system but use the public hospitals, use all of the facilities in the hospital provided for by public funds, after he or she was educated in a public facility. He’s quite willing to do that. They can have their cake and eat it too.

I’m telling you, Mr. Speaker, this government should recognize the doctors have legitimate concerns. There should be a negotiation but when the resolution is reached, both parties should sign on the dotted line, and that’s it.

I was dismayed again today, as I asked a question of the Minister of Health. He indicated once more that as usual, in his cavalier fashion, he will dismiss the very good recommendation put forward by that select committee following on the Quebec model, where they can negotiate more than a one-year contract and tie it into the utilization rate. It works in Quebec. Their doctors aren’t unhappy with the arrangement and they haven’t got the turmoil we have here in the province of Ontario. Why can’t he simply put that forward? I don’t understand that.

I took that proposal and I talked to one of the chief executive officers of the Ontario Medical Association. He said it sounded like a very negotiable item. He’d like to discuss it further but, no, the government hadn’t presented him with that idea. I don’t understand why not. Has this government no imagination in trying to solve the problems? Or are they, as I suspect, trying to allow this system to deteriorate to the point which we had prior to medicare? That’s what’s behind it. This party fought hard to bring in medicare. We’re responsible for it and we’re proud of it and we’ll not back down an inch.

Mr. Gregory: I don’t recall you being in power.

Mr. Warner: The people of this province deserve a good medicare program and we’ll fight this government every inch of the way to make sure we maintain a good medical care program in Ontario. We’ll not let up an inch.

Mr. Pope: Do you want a violin?

Mr. Warner: The member for Peterborough can live in his dream world about there being no problems.

Mr. Turner: I didn’t say that, with all respect.

Mr. Warner: This government must face the reality that there are not sufficient home-care programs in the community and that there are not adequate nursing-home beds and that there are problems in the nursing homes where the inspection reports are not followed up.

Where the problems exist, they are not solved. It took a coroner’s inquest in the city of Toronto into St. Raphael’s home before the government would pay any attention to that home. Sixty-two violations of the Nursing Homes Act over a period of months and none of them were complied with. The government did nothing. Then, unfortunately, a woman died and there was a coroner’s inquest. Dr. Cass, the coroner, said there should be an investigation of every nursing home in the province -- Dr. Cass; not the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, Dr. Cass. The government sits immobilized, unwilling to act.

Mr. Turner: What happened when that was brought to the select committee?

Mr. Warner: The member for Essex North, with deep feeling for the problem, has brought forward a resolution. I appreciate the depth of his feeling about it. At least the members from two parties in this House are concerned about protecting the health-care system in the province.

I must say, with respect, I don’t believe his resolution is the answer to the problem because it lacks the one ingredient that is essential. When you reach the resolution of the problem through negotiation, both parties adhere to the agreement, not just some members on one side. That has to be understood by both the doctors and the government. But the government is not ready to do that. I submit that it won’t and this problem will fester; fester to the point where conditions in Ontario will be as they were prior to the inception of the medicare program, and, of course, with the obvious invitation to the old inequitable system.

We will fight it, every inch of the way.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I think to begin with I have to say that the government obviously has to agree with the sentiment in the last part of the resolution in the light of the fact that most of its recommendations are being undertaken at the present time.

Mr. Warner: Baloney.

Mr. Watson: The member for Peterborough adequately expressed --

Mr. Warner: The member for Peterborough lives in a dream world. He belongs in a lift-lock.

Mr. Watson: -- the current state of the working agreement, and we had a statement in the House today from the minister, so I won’t repeat that particular aspect.

I really feel the second half of this resolution calling for a review of health services is a continuation of the debate we have been engaged in over the past few weeks. I don’t want to imply this debate is not meaningful, because health-care practices in Ontario and the resources we have available to meet the community health-care needs are extremely important.

Perhaps I might just briefly outline my view or personal perspective of the question of the supply of active-treatment hospital beds in Ontario. All of us, I think, realize the demand for health services has experienced a dramatic increase in the past few years. In 1972, according to the estimates of the Ministry of Health, we spent just over $200 for the average resident in this province. This year the same average figure stands at $488. The reason for the escalation in the cost of health care is pretty obvious.

During the period since the Second World War and through the 1960s, our society steadily placed more and more emphasis on hospital services as a means to deal with health-care needs. Patients, as well as those working within the health-care system, perhaps partially due to the post-war prosperity, began to rely heavily on institutional solutions to their health problems. Not always were the institutional answers the best means to deal with these problems. Certainly they are not the most cost efficient, considering the complex physical plants, the expensive technologies we have that are required in hospitals.

If there was a problem in the past in finding truly cost-effective methods of health treatment, then today that problem has increased. The role of the hospital as the provider of short-term treatment and treatment for acute illnesses and injuries is an essential one and one for which only hospitals are adequately suited.

In recent years, however, with increasing inflation and economic difficulties, we have been awakened to the fact that while hospital care is enormously expensive, it is often somewhat wasteful in terms of coping with health problems such as the chronic degenerative diseases. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the general pattern of health care in our society is shifting. Our population is aging and consequently the unfortunate fact of life is that we are going to be subject to more and more of the degenerative diseases which are usually not curable.

Currently, however, more chronic degenerative cases are being cared for in a hospital setting. It has to sound a little bit cold blooded but nevertheless it is senseless for us to expect that we will experience overall improvement in the state of public health merely by spending continuously more and more on increasingly expensive technology and manpower geared to the short-term, acute-care needs.

In 1972, the Ministry of Health, recognizing this problem, began establishing a policy of de-emphasizing active-treatment, inpatient hospital care. Instead it increased the provision of alternative forms of health care, such as comprehensive chronic-hospital programs and home-care programs. These, in addition to being less costly, were, I believe, to offer patients the psychological advantage of maintaining some form of family and community contact.

Recently a great deal of criticism has been expressed in this House regarding hospital-bed cutbacks. Hospital-bed guidelines have indeed dropped from planning of five active-treatment beds for each 1,000 in our referral population in southern Ontario to a 3.5 figure. While the opposition are quick to point this out, I think there has been consistent failure to mention that Ontario’s chronic and extended-care bed ratios have risen dramatically. I understand also that the Ministry of Health is continuing to add more chronic beds in communities where there is a demonstrated need.

We can all play with figures, Mr. Speaker, and we are aware of the ease with which they can he manipulated and therefore no figures are conclusive by themselves, but to be fair, in addition to the 3.5-for-1,000 planning guideline, Ontario does have almost 12 chronic-care beds for each of our 1,000 senior citizens. Furthermore, there are 3.5 extended-care beds planned for each 1,000 residents in this province. Surely this is not representative of a systematic cutback of health-care beds. Rather it is part of the overall process of conversion to a more economical, practical and sensitive health system.

Mr. Kerrio: Ah, you Tories are heartless.

Mr. Watson: As a private member, I have little to do with the health-care services directly. I am not qualified to say whether Ontario has precisely the right number of health-care beds overall. But I do believe in what the ministry is attempting to achieve and this is, if I understand it, a redistribution of beds within the system to provide a mix or balance that will meet our present needs and our future needs.

For the present, however, I think we are going to live with the fact that some kind of system of priorities will have to be worked out in our hospitals in Ontario and, because of our economy, our planning will have to be far more careful than perhaps it has been in the past. This doesn’t mean that hospitals shouldn’t have strict limitations imposed upon them, but it does mean that the form of review called on for resolution must be done independently on an institution by institution basis.

I believe that we are in the process now, and for the short-term future, of a state of transition which regrettably will not always be comfortable and the wrinkles will not be as easily ironed out as we might wish.

As far as the obligatory opting out in a complete fashion as it is practised in Quebec is concerned, once again I think the member for Peterborough expressed our situation. Not only does this recommendation violate the spirit of the way we operate health care in this province, but it imposes ridiculous barriers on the practices of opted-out physicians. I presume that if the recommendation contained in this resolution were adopted, as in Quebec, doctors here who opted out of OHIP would be barred from using hospital facilities. Consequently, no doctor would really be free to practise privately. It would almost be suicide to do so. In other words, we wouldn’t actually be giving physicians the option of staying in the health insurance plan.

[5:45]

The resolution calls for fairer compensation for all doctors and then turns around and tosses fairness to the wind in its requirement that they either submit to the government fee schedule or virtually give up practising medicine. I fail to see any justification for this.

For this and other reasons, I believe that all of the patients and residents of this province deserve the same coverage for health services regardless of their choice of physician, and I would oppose this resolution as it is stated by the member for Essex North.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, in rising to wind up, I am a little disappointed that I did not receive a little more support from the government and members of the third party.

Mr. Nixon: They are thinking about your arguments.

Mr. Ruston: I really am a little surprised. I am surprised at the member for Oshawa, who I always felt was a fairly reasonable person.

Mr. Breaugh: Take that back. I won’t stand for that.

Mr. Ruston: I will have to reconsider my thought of him, I guess, but I thought he would be supportive of proper health care in Ontario. I think that is one of the fundamental rights that everybody in Ontario should be entitled to, and I am surprised he is not in favour of that.

The member for Peterborough, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, made some rather outrageous remarks. I think the member for St. George covered that very well in her remarks.

When the present Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) was the Minister of Health, he came to Windsor and had a meeting at the University of Windsor with about 300 people from the community representing different organizations, all the municipalities and so forth. The then Minister of Health got up and started speaking, and he was kind of joking every second line or every second or third sentence, trying to laugh something off. A person who was sitting near me, my late brother, reeve of one of the townships, said, “I don’t know how a Minister of Health can come down here and try to laugh his way through the idea of closing a hospital.”

That was Riverview Hospital, one of the best chronic-care hospitals and a place where they give the best of care. The minister was going to close it. Well, he did not close it, and it so happens that hospital is still operating and giving good care to our senior citizens. Of course, the minister did not stay in that position very long because of other problems he had with different hospitals that he was going to close challenging him in the courts. So he went by the way.

The present Minister of Health also has been fighting hospitals as well as doctors and so on. It seems to me the adversary system of government has been working around here in the last few years. They seem to think confrontation is the way to bash the hospitals and the doctors down if they can. They are letting on to the people that they are saving the people’s money, “We are just going to bash the hospitals down and save you money.”

Most people feel that is not the place to save all the money; there are other places to save it. Looking across the way, I can think of a number of other places where they could save quite a bit. A lot of them are pretty useless over there.

Anyway, looking at the Minister of Health’s statement today with regard to a new negotiation system with the medical profession, I think my resolution on the Order Paper for 16 days certainly speeded that up. At least if I didn’t accomplish anything else I got that accomplished; so I feel a little better over that. They are piling in -- they are bringing them in through the back door to block my resolution. However, I am happy that I had some success in that they are starting some serious negotiations.

I rest my case.

[6:00]

PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS

The House divided on Mr. Ramsay’s motion of resolution 20, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Ashe, Auld, Baetz, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Bolan, Brunelle, Cureatz, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Gregory, Haggerty, Handleman, Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J., Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio;

Lane, Leluk, Maeck, McCaffrey, McCague, McEwen, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller G. I., Newman, W., Nixon, O’Neil, Parrott, Peterson, Pope, Ramsay, Reid, T. P., Rotenberg, Rowe;

Scrivener, Smith, S., Snow, Stephenson, Sterling, Sweeney, Taylor, G., Taylor, J. A., Turner, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Nays

Belanger, Bounsall, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Campbell, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Cunningham, Davidson, M., Davison, M. N., Dukszta, Edighoffer, Epp;

Foulds, Gaunt, Germa, Gigantes, Grande, Hall, Isaacs, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Lawlor, Lupusella, MacBeth, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Makarchuk, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan;

Newman, B., Philip, Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Warner, Worton, Ziemba.

Ayes 59; nays 46.

HEALTH SERVICES

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on resolution 21:

Auld, Ashe, Baetz, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brunelle, Drea, Elgie, Gregory, Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J., Kennedy, Lane, Maeck, McCaffrey, McCague, Newman, W., Parrott, Pope, Ramsay, Rowe, Stephenson, Turner, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Williams, Wiseman -- 32.

POLLUTION COMPLAINT

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I rise on a point of privilege. I’ll try to be as brief as possible. I know we’re all anxious for supper.

This afternoon some questions were asked about some activity in the great riding of Oxford by the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs). He questioned whether or not it would interfere with my duties. I want to put on the record exactly what did happen. It’s a letter dated June 13 --

Mr. Cooke: What about the memo?

An hon. member: Read the memo into the record.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every member has a right to be heard.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The matter of order has been discussed -- by the way, this is on Ministry of the Environment stationery -- with officials of my ministry and the town of Tillsonburg.

“I understand from my staff that subsequent to your letter” -- and this is addressed to Mr. Jerry Turner, the person in question -- “of May 14, the ministry official again visited this industry on May 23. As a result, a violation notice has been issued to Sylco concerning the orders you mentioned in your letter.”

I put it on the record for you, sir, that not only did I act long in advance of knowing the answer to the question asked --

Mr. Cooke: Why did you put it on the memo?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- but that we took a very significant action and I think very successfully so.

One of the things I didn’t say earlier, and which I probably should have, was trying to determine the number of New Democrats in Oxford county. I have to look very carefully because there are so few of them.

Mr. Martel: What’s the privilege?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: But that really isn’t a point of privilege. The point of privilege is that I take some exception to the point made that I was not prepared to act. In this instance, not only did I act for my constituents -- which I’m always glad to do -- I did so even when it put me in conflict as a minister with another person in my riding.

Mr. McClellan: Read the memo into the record.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That’s the strongest possible test of how strongly one feels about working for one’s constituents. I am glad to say that we Tories take that very significantly.

Mr. Breaugh: Read the memo.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I have to point out one more thing. I am not sure how that communication arrived on that desk. But I do know that last year in committee an envelope addressed to the solicitor of the Ministry of the Environment was delivered inadvertently to the New Democratic Party offices. It was opened. The contents were photographed and forwarded. You know the reference whereof I speak. It was a very significant thing.

On the point of privilege, I think it is more serious. When mail is opened that is clearly addressed to the solicitor for my ministry, I have to say to the NDP, where are their scruples?

Interjections.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to respond, that letter came into my possession this last weekend. It was not addressed to the solicitor for the ministry or to anyone else. It was addressed to the minister’s special assistant. In that letter he was asking his special assistant to determine the political affiliation of a person who had written to him as Minister of the Environment to deal with a pollution problem.

Mr. Eaton: It was mailed to him. How come you opened other people’s mail?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: That is shameful.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Isaacs: The original letter was addressed to Dr. Harry Parrott, Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Was that you?

Mr. Isaacs: The letter was attached to a memorandum which the minister sent to his special assistant, which was not marked “confidential.” It arrived in my hands without adequate covering and certainly not in a sealed envelope.

The allegation that the minister has made about our opening of his mail is completely without foundation and is not relevant to the matter before us. I would ask that the minister withdraw it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should probably have the benefit of the remarks the honourable minister made by referring directly to Hansard. I think I heard the minister saying or accusing another member of misusing Her Majesty’s mail or of opening somebody else’s mail. If that was what the minister said, if that is what he intended to say, I think that is a very serious allegation against another member and it should be withdrawn.

Mr. Cooke: The minister should be embarrassed.

Mr. Laughren: That’s pretty sleazy.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Ottawa-Carleton -- I am not sure, but I do not think there is any doubt that back in the committee sessions when we were discussing that most important topic, acid rain, that indeed did occur. I think that was well recorded in Hansard at that time. With the greatest of respect, sir, I brought that to the attention of the members at that time. I think it is recorded in Hansard that mail addressed to our solicitor was opened. I don’t think there is any doubt at all of where it was opened and how. I have no way of retracting that because it was recorded then.

Mr. Renwick: Withdraw or resign.

Mr. Martel: There is the door. Do you want me to show you the way out?

Mr. Kennedy: You know the route.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can’t be expected to rule upon something that happened elsewhere. All I can do as the Speaker is to address myself to something that happened here and that was said here. If the honourable minister has made the allegation against a member of this House, then I must repeat, all honourable members are honourable members; if he has made the allegation that someone has opened someone’s mail illegally, that is an improper statement and the honourable minister should withdraw that allegation.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, do I have the privilege of going to the Hansard of committee hearings?

Mr. Martel: No.

Mr. Laughren: Withdraw.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I believe there are members opposite --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No. Order. Order. It has absolutely nothing to do with what happened in committee. They are statements made in the House as a result of your alleged point of privilege. That is the only thing I can deal with.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I did not name anyone.

Mr. Speaker: That is even worse. It is even worse if you refuse to name someone and cast aspersions on every member of the House. You said “a member of this House,” and I think I know who it was, but by refusing to name him you have cast aspersions on all members of this House. In the interest of harmony -- we have only a day to go -- perhaps the honourable member would withdraw the allegation.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, it really pains me to do so, for the purpose of staying a member of this House in good standing. I would like to have the privilege of going to the record, and I think there are members opposite who would substantiate what I have said here this evening.

Mr. Cassidy: Do you respect this House or not?

Mr. MacDonald: You are arguing with the Speaker, now.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: But if you, sir, in your wisdom --

Mr. Speaker: I have to insist.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If you, sir, in your wisdom, tell me I do not have that opportunity, then I will withdraw. I do it with great regret, but I will withdraw that remark. I am sorry that I do not have the opportunity to make the case.

Mr. Speaker: I want to thank the honourable member for that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That’s a hollow victory, you guys.

Mr. Makarchuk: You know how to dish it out, but you can’t take it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

[16:15]

House in committee of the whole.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resumption of adjourned consideration of Bill 183, An Act to reform the Law respecting Residential Tenancies.

Mr. Chairman: There are a number of deferred amendments to Bill 163.

The committee divided on Mr. Renwick’s amendment to section 1 of the bill, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 29; nays 74.

Section 1 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Renwick’s amendments to sections 33 and 40, which were negatived on the same vote.

Sections 33 and 40 agreed to.

The committee divided on section 42, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on Mr. Renwick’s amendment adding a new section following part VII, which was negatived on the same vote as the first vote.

The committee divided on sections 107, 108 and 109, which were agreed to on the first vote reversed.

The committee divided on Mr. Renwick’s amendment to section 110, which was negatived on the same vote as the first vote.

Section 110 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Renwick’s amendment adding a new section 111a, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr. Renwick’s amendments to sections 117 and 119, which were negatived on the same vote.

Sections 117 and 119 agreed to.

Bill 163 reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the indulgence of the House and that we do the third readings of the four bills which the committee has done, just to tidy this up before the supper break.

Agreed to.

POLLUTION COPLAINT

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. In the confusion that occurred earlier, I did not quite understand a reference that had been made to me by the Minister of the Environment. Apparently he thinks I sit for the seat of Ottawa-Carleton, and he should know I sit for the seat of Carleton East.

He made reference earlier to the opening of mail by me during the course of the inquiry into acid rain. I request that he withdraw that remark because it is without foundation.

A memo arrived on my desk inadvertently; it had a transmittal slip on it with the name of a person whom I did not know, and I passed the document to a researcher on our caucus staff.

Mr. Eaton: Who opened it?

Ms. Gigantes: I asked our researcher if he knew the name of the person. He did. There was no envelope. That document had not been folded. It was put on my desk with a transmittal slip.

Mr. Eaton: Did you make any copies of it?

Ms. Gigantes: For the minister to imply that I opened mail is something that he cannot give any evidence for. In fact, it is without foundation, and I request that he be asked to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Renwick: Withdraw it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I said the member for Ottawa East knew whereof I spoke. I did not name her as the person who opened the mail. I had to withdraw the accusation that a brown envelope, properly addressed to Mr. Neil Mulvaney, solicitor for my ministry, entered into that caucus office and came out of that caucus office without the envelope, and it was then delivered to Mr. Mulvaney. I am saying that an envelope properly, adequately, fully addressed, hand-delivered, was opened.

Mr. Martel: How did you know it was in an envelope?

Mr. Cassidy: It’s not true.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I believe that was put on the record when we were in committee. If that’s what I’m being asked to withdraw, I will not. That is fact.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think there are two separate items here. One of them was as a result of a point of privilege raised by the Minister of the Environment in response to a series of questions and answers placed by the member for Wentworth. That seems to have been dealt with.

The other question, by way of a point of privilege raised by the member for Carleton East, is that in the opinion of that member it cast aspersions upon her -- or a member from the Ottawa area -- about being in receipt of a sealed document that was opened and circulated.

I am not in a position to know what actually took place. The member for Carleton East said, if that is the document you’re referring to, that it came, not in an envelope, but with a transmittal slip attached to it. There’s clearly a difference of opinion as to what transpired.

Mr. Rotenberg: No. It came to her that way.

Mr. Speaker: I think the minister has muddied the waters in trying to bring the two incidents together. On the basis of what I’ve heard I see no connection between the two incidents. Frankly, it was something that happened outside of this House, and I’m at a loss to know what went on at all. I’m really not in a position to determine whether certain communications arrived in sealed envelopes or whether they came open.

The minister made reference to a member from the Ottawa region having received a communication in an envelope. The member for Carleton East clearly says before this House that it was not contained in an envelope; it was a letter that was open and unfolded. Perhaps the minister would care to amend or retract the reference to the honourable member who feels aggrieved.

[6:30]

Hon. Mr. Parrott: At no time did I make an accusation that the member for Ottawa East did so.

An hon. member: Carleton East.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Carleton East; I’m sorry. At no time did I accuse that member of it. I am very certain, Mr. Speaker, that a sealed envelope did go and was returned to Mr. Mulvaney opened -- in fact, without the envelope. Of that I am positive. I have nothing that I can withdraw. There was no accusation made.

The simple statement was that when I talked about the incident, obviously, by facial recognition, the member was well aware of the incident. We recall the incident, and I think there are many from the Liberal caucus who recall the incident as it referred to acid rain. I think the member for Lincoln (Mr. Hall) was there. I am not sure about the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt). I think any of those members would be glad to give you the information that that was discussed then in that committee. I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot rule on that. That is why I withdrew before. This is another principle. I have not made the accusation.

Ms. Gigantes: The minister, in his earlier statement in response to my colleague’s point of privilege, referred to a member for Ottawa-Carleton in spite of the fact that I have just reminded him that I am the member for Carleton East and that there is no member for Ottawa-Carleton. He has now referred to me repeatedly as the member for Ottawa East, which I am sure would make the real member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) very annoyed.

However, Mr. Speaker, pointing at our benches, he talked about a document of which I have knowledge which came to me on my desk with nothing on it but a note of transmittal to a person I did not know. There was no enveloped document. There was no envelope. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that he implied very strongly with his previous statement -- and I think you will find that, looking at Hansard -- that I, or the member for Ottawa-Carleton, had opened sealed mail which belonged to him and his ministry. That is simply unacceptable to me because it is without foundation. I request that you ask him to withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have something substantial to contribute?

Mr. Charlton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Just by way of adding some clarification on my colleague’s point of personal privilege: The document in question was in fact delivered to my office and not to hers.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Charlton: It was delivered by a taxi driver -- not by ministry staff or anyone else, but by a taxi driver. It was delivered unsealed with a pink slip attached to the front with a name on it which my assistant did not recognize. My assistant, on perusing the document, realized it was about acid rain and felt that the document must be for the member for Carleton East and put it on her desk. There was no envelope. It was not delivered by ministry staff. It was delivered by a cab driver who didn’t even know where he was supposed to go. Nobody knew who that document was for until the clerk’s office phoned my office after having contacted the cab company and tracked down where he had delivered it. That was the first inkling anybody had who the document was even for.

Mr. Speaker: Order. All I can deal with is the point of privilege raised by the member for Carleton East. In response to that point of privilege, the Minister of the Environment said quite clearly and unequivocally that there was no direct reference to the member for Carleton East or anything that she has done.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I clearly heard the Minister of the Environment saying he cast no aspersions, or no doubt, on the integrity or the actions of the member for Carleton East. I think that should suffice.

With regard to a sealed envelope that is supposed to have arrived in the offices of that party, it has been substantiated by the member for Hamilton Mountain that he was the one who received the communication without benefit of an envelope, an open letter.

Mr. Villeneuve: Boy, that was a pretty busy taxi driver, opening mail.

Mr. Peterson: Who is moonlighting as a taxi driver?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The problem the chair has now is there is an allegation on this side of the House that mail has been tampered with. On the other side, there is an unequivocal statement by a member who admits to having received the communication without benefit of an envelope.

If that is the case, when honourable members get up by way of clarifying what is alleged to have happened, I have to accept their word. I hope all honourable members will accept the word that what is being said here is in keeping with the facts.

I wish the Minister of the Environment would withdraw that allegation, because we have only the word of somebody over there against the word of somebody over there. I am not in a position, other than to say, if you are going to east aspersions upon another member without proof positive -- and, as far as I am concerned, you can’t provide me with proof -- I think the honourable thing to do would be to remove the allegation that some member or some group of members in this House have tampered with Her Majesty’s mail.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to this point? I find the matter quite upsetting, to say nothing of its being confusing. I must say if mail comes addressed to someone else, be it in an envelope or not in an envelope, sometimes these things are inadvertently delivered, sometimes they are inadvertently opened, but I do believe once a person realizes the matter is not addressed to oneself, but to someone else, even if it is a name that is not recognizable, the obligation is immediately to put the matter aside and to take upon oneself, or to give one’s assistant, the job of trying to locate the person to whom the matter is clearly addressed and clearly intended. It should not become then the subject for either photocopy or research or anything else. I am particularly concerned about this matter.

My own recommendation, sir, and it may be of some value or of no value, would be that the government House leader should very seriously consider sending this entire matter to the committee on procedural affairs where the matter could be looked at and the various allegations unravelled and solved. That would be my recommendation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to all of this with great interest. I heard certain observations made by my colleague the Minister of the Environment, relating to two particular situations. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, you ruled on the one; it is out of the way.

The second situation relates to a brown envelope which arrived by taxi.

Mr. MacDonald: There was no brown envelope.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right; there was no envelope. Whatever it is, it arrived in a taxi, which does not constitute Her Majesty’s mail, although I understood the honourable member to say it was in an envelope.

Mr. MacDonald: No, no. You have not been listening.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully, and I understand the concern expressed.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are speaking on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am really not referring to the member for Carleton East. I am referring to the gentleman behind her who got up and acknowledged that whatever it was arrived in his office and, through the efficiency of the NDP caucus office, arrived on the desk of the member for Carleton East. So the member for Carleton East won’t jump up and down, I am not even referring to her. I know she is disappointed, but I am not referring to her; I am referring to the member for Hamilton Mountain, who got up and said he got whatever he got. In the efficiency of the NDP caucus office, it went from him to her. That’s what I understand -- or it went to her researcher.

Mr. Renwick: They are next door, for God’s sake.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think this matter has been escalated beyond, shall we say, reasonable proportions.

Mr. MacDonald: Who started it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think the minister --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish. I don’t think the Minister of the Environment has cast aspersions on anyone other than to recite what he believed to be a factual situation.

Ms. Gigantes: Yes, he has.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Queen’s mails were not interfered with.

Mr. Makarchuk: You are skating all over the place.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They came by taxi. I don’t think he needs to withdraw, with great respect. I don’t think it is something that should go to the committee or whatever. I think really it does not benefit any members of the House to prolong this debate.

It’s the first time I have offered you any advice, Mr. Speaker, but I would say to you, with great respect, that you should say the whole matter is over with, done, and let’s get on with the orders of the House.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I suggest it might be advisable for you to look at the record of what was said by the minister in the first instance --

Ms. Gigantes: That’s right.

Mr. MacDonald: -- before you render a final judgement on this. Very clearly the minister said the mail was opened over here, and he pointed in a sweeping way to the whole party here.

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: The whole party was accused of having done that. If the Speaker examines the record, he will find that is the case.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will examine the record to see if there’s anything in there that would be helpful to the chair. That’s all I have to say about the thing for the moment.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, while you are examining --

Mr. Speaker: No. If it has reference to this, no.

An hon. member: Sit down.

Mr. Roy: There has been reference to the member for Ottawa East. If the Speaker won’t correct the record -- my God, I don’t get involved in anything at all.

Mr. Speaker: I know what the member is referring to. Go ahead.

Mr. Roy: The minister referred on two or three different occasions to the member for Ottawa East. I think he meant to refer to the member for Carleton East. When he referred to the member for Ottawa-Carleton, I think he meant the member for Carleton East as well. The record should be corrected.

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 96, An Act to amend the Planning Act;

Bill 140, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved third reading of Bill 163, An Act to reform the Law respecting Residential Tenancies.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words. I understand the time is short but --

Mr. S. Smith: You filibustered that for more than a year.

Mr. Cassidy: -- when this bill came forward on second reading we supported the bill in the hope that it would be possible to make improvements to it and to put into the laws of Ontario a bill that would continue to protect tenants as well as deal fairly with landlords across the province.

I am afraid our hopes have been disappointed because of the combined action of the Liberal Party and of the Conservative Party which was exemplified in the vote we had here a few minutes ago on a number of the key amendments affecting whether this bill would be effective.

An hon. member: You wouldn’t have any legislation at all.

Mr. Cassidy: I am very disappointed in what’s happened, but I am afraid it is part of a systematic pattern of working against tenants which we have seen both in the Conservative government and from their friends in the Liberal Party.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

[6:45]

Mr. Cassidy: In 1975, tenants won some very vital protection in the Landlord and Tenant Act. Our objection to the bill we have before us now is not on the question of rent review. Our objection is to the way in which those protections for tenants have been undermined in this particular bill.

There is a list as long as one’s arm now of reasons under which tenants may be evicted according to this new bill. Our efforts to go back to the situation that has prevailed for the past four years have been frustrated by the government party and by the Liberal Party.

The fact that a tenant can be evicted even for something as simple as having a member of his family who is in trouble and coming to stay with that tenant for a few weeks or for a month or two is a sign of how this bill has been weakened. The fact that a tenant can be evicted because the tenant’s wife becomes pregnant and is going to have a child is a sign of the weakness of this particular bill.

The fact that there is no protection in the bill against eviction where a tenant was part of a tenants’ association and no protection against eviction for a tenant who was seeking to enforce his rights is a sign of the weaknesses that are in this bill. The fact that a tenant can be evicted even over a matter as simple as personal differences with the landlord, or the fact that a tenant can be evicted over house rules which have been determined by the landlord and not in consultation with the tenant, is a sign of the weakness of this particular bill.

We are also concerned about the way in which the Residential Tenancy Commission has been set up under this particular bill. The idea that rent review and landlord and tenant matters should come together under one roof is basically a good one, but when it is enforced by only one residential tenancies officer, when the Residential Tenancy Commission performs the functions of investigation, mediation, hearings and appeals, all under a roof, when in fact it’s a commission that threatens to have all the same weaknesses of the rent review board and the rent review officers that have been appointed by this government over the last four years, when there is not even a guarantee that there will be equal representation of people coming from the tenants’ side and from the landlords’ side, we cannot have confidence in the proposed commission as it has been established by this government with the support of the Liberal Party.

In fact, it’s a bad bill right now. It’s a weak bill right now. The tenants in the province would be better off if they had the present landlord and tenant legislation and an extension of the existing rent review bill. That is why we cannot bring ourselves to support this bill on third reading. That is why we are opposing this bill on third reading. It would be better to stay with the existing law. I say that in the name of all of the tenants across this province.

Finally, I say to the government that the green paper on tenant protection was an effort to take away protection from tenants. This government has consistently tried to put a termination date on rent review. This government has consistently tried to back away from a decent framework of landlord and tenant law that would be fair both to tenants and to landlords. The way this bill is finally going through this House today is simply another step in a long line of actions where the government refused to stand firm with the tenants of Ontario. We stand with those tenants. I wish the rest of the House did too.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the brilliant contribution of the leader of the third party, a person who never attended a single moment in some 16 or so months of that committee, except once to bum a cup of coffee --

Mr. Cassidy: How many cups of coffee did you buy?

Ms. Gigantes: This is the man who gave us rent review, for heaven’s sake.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Carrying on with that sentence, I am reminded of the similarity between his latest performance and Custer’s last stand. They will both produce the same result, except at least Custer did it with dignity.

This bill -- and I want to give credit to my predecessor, because certainly he --

Mr. Cooke: Where is he?

Hon. Mr. Drea: He’s on government business. The member knows where he is.

Mr. Breaugh: You were talking about a cup of coffee a minute ago. Where is he?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do not want to delay the dinner hour for everybody, but I would appreciate it if the same courtesies were extended to me as minister as were extended during that bit of prattle by the member’s leader.

Mr. McClellan: That’s what we’re giving -- exactly the same courtesy.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I want to give credit to my predecessor, who is now the Minister of Industry and Tourism, because he started the very long process that will reach its culmination in a few moments.

I want to point out two things that I said last October 30, when this bill was introduced. I said: “The prime object of the bill is to create a balance in the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants. To do this, the bill sets out plainly what both parties may expect and what they must offer in return in language that the average tenant and average landlord can fully understand.”

I also pointed out that “the Residential Tenancy Commission’s overall objective is to provide straightforward, uncomplicated and informal methods for landlords and tenants to resolve their difficulties. It provides one-stop shopping for all tenants’ and landlords’ concerns. Most disputes between the two parties which are now resolved by the courts will be under the jurisdiction of the commission.” That was at the time this bill was introduced. The events that are soon going to unfold, I think, will vindicate that position.

At this time I would like point out and have it in the record -- and I concede that it’s probably unusual for a minister to do this -- that the bill is a better bill for the amendments made by the Liberal Party, particularly the amendments put forward by the member for St. George and the member for Waterloo North.

Mr. McClellan: I don’t see them thanking you for that compliment.

Mr. MacDonald: If it’s a better bill, where is the member for St. George?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is a fair bill. It is one, quite frankly, that was filibustered throughout by the third party. It was filibustered even until two o’clock this afternoon.

Mr. Warner: We fought for the tenants.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I tell you, out of committee of the whole today, I am very angry at the accusation that was made about this minister, that this minister had deliberately set out to introduce a new type of inquisitorial proceeding in this province. The accusation was made that I was attempting, under the guise of this bill, to bring in the system of justice and the jurisprudence used in the republic of France -- which is entirely different from common law and the justice system in this country.

Those accusations were so patently untrue that the person who made them had to read from relatively obscure tomes. I never did make up my mind as to whether it was a final get-even with me or it was an attempt to stretch the clock beyond two o’clock, which would have effectively killed the bill for this session. I still don’t know.

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you save your paranoia for some other place?

Hon. Mr. Drea: In summary, this is a good bill. This is a very good bill. It will have a balance in the marketplace in probably the most personal relationship there ever is between people on opposite sides -- the landlord and the tenant.

In this government -- and I think I am speaking for other people not of my party or not of the government who voted for sections of this bill -- we wanted to take out the adversarial relationship between landlord and tenant. We set out to do it, and we will do it. We wanted to end the relationship between landlord and tenant being constantly hoisted up as something that must be controversial. We cannot have a decent type of accommodation for people who choose to rent in this province, if we are going to insist in an arrogant and rather Draconian manner -- that’s one of the member’s favourite words -- that everything must always be adversarial or brought forward into some kind of controversy or demonstration.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on for some time --

Mr. Martel: Go ahead. Take a long time.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I may very well. But I keep my word; so I won’t.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: That is the third time the minister has indicated we attempted to filibuster beyond one o’clock. He also said we almost took it past two o’clock. I ask the government House leader to rise in his place and indicate to his colleagues that there was no agreement which indicated we would get done at one o’clock. I told the government House leader we would have only one speaker and we would try to get done by one o’clock. The bill didn’t come in until 11:50 a.m. I indicated to the government House leader that we would be done in less than three hours. It took two hours and 10 minutes. For that minister to get up and make charges that we could not keep our word in an agreement arrived at with the government House leader is not factual, and I would ask the government House leader to correct the record.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, just to set the matter straight: I made no accusation. If you will read the record, I talked about filibustering all the way through the committee, even up to one o’clock today. Then I went on and spoke about my feelings -- my feelings, not about the House leader of the party. If you look at the record, I have been exceedingly careful about any accusations.

To conclude, I find it very interesting at this late moment that the New Democratic Party is going to vote against this bill. Mr. Speaker, do you know what voting against this bill means? It means they don’t believe that a tenant who can’t have his accommodation fixed or maintained up to standards should have the right and benefit of this commission to seize the rents and to force the landlord to do it. That’s what voting against it means.

I look now directly at the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba), who delivered a very impassioned, eloquent and, mind you, very accurate brief before the committee. It surely means to him that the very remedies he asked for small landlords, for the little people, so they could have quick justice and not be in the position where they were virtually bankrupted by delay after delay, will never come about.

I find it extremely disconcerting that, after all this time, nothing has changed. In the whole debate this morning in committee of the whole, there was not one new idea, new word, new verb, new anything.

I am very proud to be the minister who will be on record as having taken this bill through the House. I played only a very minor role. As I mentioned before, my predecessor should receive the lion’s share of the credit; also the legal staff, particularly Mr. Fram and Mr. Beecroft of the Ministry of the Attorney General and our own solicitor, Mr. Kumer.

I would like to pay tribute to each and every member of the social development committee and of the general government committee, and to all those who substituted, to all those who showed up, who gave up so many Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and Mondays, and weeks on end, who sat there and were polite when the public came in to make presentations; no matter how frustrated or tired they were, they kept coming back for more. I really think the proceedings of that committee demonstrate the ability of each member of this House to take on a very arduous duty and, no matter what the obstacles, to overcome in the end.

An hon. member: That’s the system you call filibustering.

[7:00]

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Drea’s motion for third reading of Bill 163, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Ashe; Auld; Belanger; Bennett; Bernier; Birch; Bolan; Breithaupt; Brunelle; Cureatz; Davis; Drea; Eaton; Elgie; Epp; Gregory; Handleman; Havrot; Henderson; Hodgson; Johnson, J.; Kennedy; Kerr; Kerrio;

Lane; Leluk; Maeck; Mancini; McCaffrey; McCague; McMurtry; McNeil; Miller, G. I.; Newman, W.; Newman, B.; Nixon; O’Neil; Parrott; Peterson; Pope; Ramsay; Reed, J.; Riddell; Rotenberg; Rowe; Roy; Ruston;

Scrivener; Smith, S.; Stephenson; Sterling; Sweeney; Taylor, G.; Taylor, J. A.; Turner; Van Horne; Villeneuve; Walker; Watson; Welch; Wells; Williams; Worton.

Nays

Bounsall; Breaugh; Bryden; Cassidy; Charlton; Cooke; Davidson, M.; Davison, M. N.; Foulds; Germa; Gigantes; Grande; Isaacs; Johnston, R. F.;

Laughren; Lawlor; Lupusella; MacDonald; Mackenzie; Makarchuk; Martel; McClellan; Philip; Renwick; Samis; Swart; Warner; Ziemba.

Ayes 63; nays 28.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement that the House will resume at 8:80 p.m.?

Agreed to.

The House recessed at 7:05 p.m.