Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Williams moves that order of the day No. 24 be discharged as the recommendations contained in the first report of the standing statutory instruments committee, dated June 1979, have been incorporated in the second report of the committee set out in order of the day No. 26.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE (CONCLUDED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the second report of the standing statutory instruments committee, dated November 1979, being sessional paper No. 229.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise to lead the discussion with regard to the report before the assembly this evening. In commencing my remarks, I would like appropriately to cite the provisions of section 12 of the Regulations Act, RSO 1970, which states:

“(1) At the commencement of each session of the Legislature a standing committee of the assembly shall be appointed, to be known as the standing committee on regulations, with authority to sit during the session.

“(2) Every regulation stands permanently referred to the standing committee on regulations for the purposes of subsection 3.

“(3) The standing committee on regulations shall examine the regulations with particular reference to the scope and method of the exercise of delegated legislative power but without reference to the merits of the policy or objectives to be effected by the regulations or enabling statutes and shall deal with such other matters as are referred to it from time to time by the assembly.

“(4) The standing committee on regulations may examine any member of the executive council or any public servant designated by any such member respecting any regulation made under any act that is under its administration.

“(5) The standing committee on regulations shall, from time to time, report to the assembly its observations, opinions and recommendations.”

That is how the section reads. I think it sets the tone for the discussion this evening as it clearly sets out the function and purpose of the regulations committee, which has since been renamed the statutory instruments committee.

I would point out that those basic terms of reference hold valid even to this day. They were broadened in March 1978 by order of the House. The powers of the committee were expanded twofold. First, the role of the committee with particular reference to the recommendations of the select committee on the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature were to be reviewed and considered, as well as the practices of the parliaments of Canada and the United Kingdom.

Further, the committee was charged with the responsibility of establishing guidelines to be observed in the delegation by statutes of power to make statutory instruments and the use made of such delegated power. Needless to say, the committee was equally charged with the responsibility to report its recommendations to the House.

I suggest this evening that it could be well demonstrated that through the past two-year period the statutory instruments committee and its successors in the presently constituted committee have fulfilled that mandate. In making my point, I would point out that the first substantive report of the committee, which was introduced in June 1978, has spelled out very clearly the role of the committee which I have highlighted here in my opening remarks. It clearly identified the various types of regulations. It set out and recommended certain guidelines for the making of regulations. It cited the authorization for making regulations. It covered definitions and penalties dealt with under regulations and indeed touched on the matter of exemptions from the Regulations Act itself.

The report also dealt with retroactive regulations and lastly, but of equal importance, dealt with a review of all of the then existing 1977 regulations.

The committee at its outset was given authority to retain counsel to assist the committee in vetting all of the current regulations to ensure that the regulatory process was being followed within a framework spelled out in the Regulations Act and which we, as a committee, have more clearly defined by new, more precise guidelines which I will refer to in a few moments.

Consequently, it is clear the first report of the committee in 1978 did deal with the first part of its extended mandate, namely, to consider the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario commission on the Legislature and to establish guidelines that would be observed in the delegation of statutory powers.

In December of that year the second report of the committee came forward to fulfill the second part of its vastly extended rules of responsibility, namely to consider the practices in other jurisdictions with regard to the processing and enactment of secondary legislation as encompassed primarily in regulations that complement the laws enacted in the various jurisdictions. In fulfilling that responsibility we did, as that report points out, deal with and consider the regulatory process in our neighbouring province of Manitoba. As well, we visited our federal capital to determine how the regulatory process is dealt with at the federal level.

I point out to you that in the spring of 1979, the committee in carrying on with its mandate dealt with specific statutes and devoted a great deal of time to the vetting of the 1978 regulations to satisfy ourselves that regulations coming in under statutes from the various ministries were being drafted and brought in and given the force of law in a manner consistent with the guidelines we had established in our initial report of June, 1978.

The report we have before us this evening is a culmination of the efforts of the committee in its two years of ongoing work and effort. As you will see from perusing the report, Mr. Speaker, it is essentially a summation of the findings and recommendations of the previous three reports. In touching on those recommendations and conclusions, I would like simply to highlight our findings as set out in this fourth report of the committee.

I know all the members of the Legislature have read the report on one or two occasions, if not more, and are well versed in its content. Nevertheless, I think it is incumbent upon us to refer to specific portions of the report to refresh the memory of those who may have read the report a month or two ago.

The report is broken into two basic components. One deals with our ongoing work in the vetting of regulations. As you know and appreciate, Mr. Speaker, one of the main functions and purposes of the committee is to monitor at all times the regulatory process to ensure that we maintain a high standard of performance in that area. As reflected in this report, I am pleased to advise that up to the third quarter of this year the committee, with the able assistance of its legal counsel Mr. Lachlan MacTavish, QC, has completed the vetting of the 1979 regulations to that point. So from the beginning of our efforts in 1978 to the present time, this report indicates that we have now made ourselves current as far as vetting of regulations is concerned. I am sure that with an ongoing effort by the committee we will continue to keep on top of all new regulations coming forward, to satisfy ourselves that they are adhering to the guidelines on the formulation of regulations and that we will be able to continue to report so in our ongoing work.

I will keep the reference to statistics to a minimum, but I think it is interesting to note one or two of these statistics in this report. I refer to chapter two of the report dealing with the 1979 regulations on which I have been commenting.

It is interesting to point out that a total of 660 regulations have been filed in the first three quarters of this year. They are found in 131 different acts of this Legislature.

Of equal importance is to note that of the 131 statutes to which there are related regulations or secondary legislation, nine of those statutes represent over half of the regulations enacted in this current year. In other words, 329 regulations have been the subject matter of expansion of administrative procedure under only nine of those 131 acts.

The fact we do indeed maintain a high quality of performance in this area is reflected in the further statistical revelation in our report which points out that in the vetting of all 660 of these 1979 regulations the committee had found only 15 upon which it could make any constructive criticism whatsoever. So it is without question that our various ministries and the legal counsel within them charged with the responsibility of preparing regulations, are indeed performing at a high level. Of those 15 particular regulations we cited, eight of them had to do with regulations we felt had been made without clear authority. The other seven were related to the matter of regulations being made retroactive without authority.

The other major ingredient of the report and the one I think will stand the test of time once this report has been adopted is the setting out of a clear and precise set of guidelines. Those guidelines are set out in chapter four of the report. The manner in which they were arrived at is identified in chapter three. The committee has gone far afield considering guidelines established in other jurisdictions and only after a thorough investigation of those other areas did we find that perhaps the best and most succinct of guidelines had been developed right in our own back yard.

[8:15]

I refer specifically to the findings of the Honourable then Chief Justice McRuer, who was acting in his capacity as chairman of the royal commission inquiring into civil rights in 1968. At that time he dealt with the matter of subordinate legislation by the Legislature. It was a significant and important chapter in the substantial and substantive report of his royal commission.

In its first report of June 1978 and again in this summarizing report this evening, this committee recommends to this Legislature that we can do no better than endorse in toto the recommendations that had been set out by Chief Justice McRuer as the appropriate guidelines to follow in dealing with regulations. Those recommendations are set out precisely in chapter four. Following the basic set of guidelines, the members will find an additional 18 recommendations that again are a summary of the earlier recommendations set out in the earlier reports to which I have referred.

These recommendations speak for themselves. There may be specific ones to which other members will wish to address themselves this evening. I can only commend all of them to this Legislature and in so doing I would say we will be well served if the Legislature sees fit to accept the motion to adopt this report that is before us. It will then bring the regulatory process to a new plateau by the establishment of these guidelines and give the official stamp of approval of this Legislature to a set of guidelines we think will serve the Legislature and this committee well in their ongoing work and effort.

There are just two further points I would like to make at this time before yielding to other members so they may address themselves to this report. The further evidence that, by and large, the regulatory process in this province has maintained a high standard is found in the very fact there is virtually no recorded case law in this province that deals with regulation and having to interpret regulations that have in some way been defective or deficient. I can find only two recorded cases on the subject, which would indicate the process has worked well. We have so stated this in more than one of our reports. We have commended the people involved in this process and we are only trying to make a good system work even better.

Before concluding my remarks I would refer to those two cases as an example and point out that up until this year there was really only one case of significance that had been reported. That was the case of Rose versus the Queen in 1960, in the Ontario Reports, 1960, page 146. In that instance there was a matter that had to deal specifically with the regulatory process. It was a situation where the province of Ontario had purported to revest the title to an abandoned portion of the King’s highway to a local municipality. They did it by way of order in council.

It turned out an individual sustained injury on that portion of the highway and saw cause to bring a lawsuit against the crown. The crown denied responsibility, saying they had enacted an order in council which vested the abandoned roadway in the local municipality. The court found the order in council was in effect a statutory conveyance and as such beyond the powers of regulation. It was clearly legislative in character and therefore a matter that should have been dealt with by legal conveyance, in adherence with statute law and not with the secondary administrative legislation we find in regulation.

Until this year I know of no other case of any significance that has dealt with regulations until the reported case this year regarding the town of Durham et al versus the Attorney General, reported in the 23 Ontario Reports, second edition, page 279. I’m sure this case will be of particular interest to my colleague who represents that area and who will speak in this debate this evening.

Very simply put, that case pointed out that the regulation used by the government to merge two registry offices was found to be intra vires and the power was vested in the Lieutenant Governor in Council through orders in council to order that a registry office be closed and merge with another registry office within the same jurisdiction.

The municipalities involved challenged the order and questioned the validity and power to do so by regulation. The very wording of the Registry Act and its regulations were so prepared that they were shown to clearly demonstrate that the authority was there through the regulatory process.

Ironically, after the crown had proved its case from a legal point of view, I believe the merger from an administrative point of view did not follow through and actually occur. Nevertheless, the case does point out the importance of ensuring that regulations and the regulatory process are carried out within the specific set of guidelines. In this way we know those responsible for these areas will not get themselves into difficulty.

The adoption of this report this evening by the Legislature of the province will give its recommendations, as I indicated earlier, an official stamp of approval and give the committee cause to continue in its ongoing efforts.

I might point out in closing that these efforts will be greatly assisted in the future, as they have been throughout 1978 and 1979, by the sage advice and guidance provided by our legal counsel, Mr. Lachlan MacTavish, who has been ably assisted throughout by our clerk, Mr. Smirle Forsyth.

As I pointed out, the vetting of the regulations in the first instance by Mr. MacTavish, has contributed greatly to the effective monitoring of the regulations by the committee as a whole. We feel that with the adoption of this report the committee has established a firm base from which to build and with the support and endorsement of these efforts by this Legislature this evening we will continue to carry out the monitoring process that will serve us all well in the future.

Mr. McKessock: I rise to speak on and support the motion for adoption of the standing statutory instruments committee’s first and second report of June and November 1979.

I must say I’m glad to see you’re here tonight, Mr. Speaker, because as I look around the Legislature I am sure you and I were the only ones listening.

Mr. Ruston: You tell them.

Mr. McKessock: When I look up, I’m sure the boy scouts in the gallery don’t find this very interesting. But I feel the member for Oriole, as chairman of this committee, has done a good job in his remarks. I’m not going to add very much to them.

I might say this is a bit of a boring committee to be on, Mr. Speaker, because of the nature of the business it involves.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether I should rise on a point of privilege or not.

Mr. Speaker: You just did.

Mr. McKessock: The reason it is such is because as our capable legal counsel, Mr. Lachlan MacTavish, would put it, we are watchdogs for the kind of regulations set up under the act. The government committee that sets up the regulations for different acts must do so in a way that the act directs. They cannot divert from the authority or intent of the act. If they do it is our job, with the help of our counsel, to bring it to the attention of the ministry involved and then to the House.

Although it is sometimes boring, I have learned a lot about government and legislation by sitting on this committee. It is our job to suggest any changes or improvements that could be made to improve the process of regulation. In this regard, we met with the federal statutory instruments committee in Ottawa last year to compare their process with ours. It is possible other Commonwealth procedures may be looked at in the future.

I think it is important the public be aware of the statutory instruments committee. If they find a regulation they feel doesn’t reflect the intent of the act they could bring it before this committee and have it looked at and changed if the purpose of the legislation has been abused in the regulations. This could be done by the committee without the individuals having to take it to court and spend their own money to have it corrected. The member for Oriole mentioned the Durham registry office and as this was in my riding I know the great extent to which one has to go to take anything to court these days. If an individual finds something wrong with the regulations there is no reason why we can’t bring it before the statutory instruments committee and have it corrected through the committee without costing them any money.

As I said before, this committee is a watchdog for those making regulations. Having someone watching, needless to say, makes those people making regulations more responsible. If mistakes are found by the regulations committee they would have to be corrected and would show up in our report and brought before the Legislature.

When we started into this committee some time ago it was of interest to me too because we also looked into some of those regulations under the Niagara Escarpment Act.

I feel it is important this first and second report of the statutory instruments committee be adopted.

[8:30]

Mr. M. N. Davison: In my remarks I will try to fall, in terms of time, some time between the previous speaker and the one before him.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Oriole on the job he has done as chairman of the statutory instruments committee. Given the membership, at least from my party on that committee, he has done a remarkable job to get these reports before the assembly in time.

Mr. Speaker, I can’t object to a single recommendation found in the report of the statutory instruments committee. I support them all wholeheartedly. On the other hand I should warn you, Mr. Speaker, in case you haven’t been able to read the report completely, the world will not come to an end upon the passage of these reports. In many ways, the business of the government of Ontario will continue as it has continued since this province entered into Confederation.

One of the reasons for that has nothing to do with the chairmanship of the committee, the committee’s counsel or the members of the three parties who make up that committee. Rather it has to do with the terms of reference of the committee.

I noticed at the beginning of his remarks the chairman of the committee pointed out the terms of reference the committee received, not only from the assembly -- at each opportunity, the assembly had to structure or restructure this committee -- but also from the Regulations Act. It might do well to put that one extract from the Regulations Act, RSO 1910, chapter 410 on the record again. That dealt with section 12(3), which I think is really the outstanding issue still for that committee and that committee’s future.

“The standing committee on regulations shall examine the regulations with particular reference to the scope and method of the exercise of delegated legislative power, but without reference to the merits of the policy or objectives to be affected by the regulations or enabling statutes and shall deal with such other matters as are referred to it from time to time by the assembly.”

Therein lies the difficulty with making a standing committee on statutory instruments a committee with real influence and real import around this place, or in any other jurisdiction where we deal with delegated powers or government through regulations. The difficulty is twofold.

The first difficulty for the regulations committee or standing statutory instruments committee in this province is that they deal with regulations after the regulations come into effect. There is a counterpart, I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, within the government. As I recall it is a committee peopled by parliamentary assistants who do a vetting, a review of proposed regulations before they become regulations. So, if there is a major problem with a regulation, the parliamentary assistants’ committee hopefully gets it and tells somebody that it doesn’t work; it isn’t a good idea; they had better not go ahead with this particular regulation. Then no matter how many hundreds or thousands of regulations we pass in a given session or year, we should have very few with some very serious defect in them.

Of course, in spite of that process, the assembly’s committee managed to find a few regulations that were defective. The one that comes to my mind particularly is from the first report, June 1979, which was the Environmental Assessment Act error in regulation. It is a serious defect. It is a technical defect. But there is a lot more wrong with that legislation than just that particular defect.

The difficulty is, by getting to look at the regulations after they are law, the people of the province are placed in a situation where the assembly’s committee is looking at something that has already caused damage. It would be a much better system if the committee of the assembly were able to vet those before they became law.

The most serious and substantial problem lies in the words of the Regulations Act 12(3) “ ... but without reference to the merits of the policy or objectives to be effected by the regulations or enabling statutes ...” That’s the real difficulty that our standing statutory instruments committee has in becoming an effective tool. It would be much more useful as a forum or a mechanism for debate and decision if it could look at those aspects, whether or not it’s a good idea in terms of public policy to make a change in a regulation.

Any member who’s been in the assembly for a period of time knows we have government by regulation in this province just as much as we have government by legislation. Many decisions made behind closed doors in the cabinet room find their way through the regulations process and then become part of the body of law which in effect governs the lives of our citizens. Those are laws that may not have been debated in the assembly in the past 20 or 30 years, but the government can take advantage of that particular law by way of regulation to make a change that can have a serious effect within the province. The assembly has no way of talking about the merits of that policy or the objectives that are effected.

I think that’s the most important question before the assembly -- admittedly it comes through the back door -- with this report. What is the appropriate way for this committee to be acting? If we’re going to have a committee that can do nothing but look at them after the fact and can only check to make absolutely sure that they fit within the four corners of the act, then we’re not spending our time usefully and we’re not providing people in this province with the best possible type of committee. I suggest that the people of this province would be better served by a standing committee on statutory instruments that could examine those regulations before they became law, question the policy involved, consider the merits of that policy and the objectives to be effected.

Certainly in a minority situation that would lead to the odd regulation, if not many regulations, coming out much differently. If I can be partisan, it would lead to much better government in Ontario.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the opposition for the tributes. It gives me great pleasure to say a few words in regards to our report on the standing statutory instruments committee.

Might I first compliment you, Mr. Speaker, in persevering with us. It’s not exactly one of the livelier reports presented into the House. It’s a little dry, but it certainly is worthwhile. I’d like also to congratulate the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk for coming into the House and listening to our few pearls.

Mr. Nixon: I wouldn’t miss it for the world.

Mr. Mancini: What about the rest of us?

Mr. Cureatz: As he’s well aware, the regulations in regard to legislation are quite often drafted and carried out by that infamous group, the lawyers of Ontario. We all know how appreciative he is of the men of the bar.

More specifically, I want to congratulate those other members of my committee, the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins). From time to time it’s always pleasant to roll in on a Thursday morning, when I’m sure we have more interesting things to do involving constituents’ work, to find them there, faithfully plugging away. I might also add that the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. Davison) had had the opportunity of coming in and representing his party. As a matter of fact, I think he was the one who mentioned to me once that he heard a rumour the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey) was going to show up, but I don’t remember him showing up. However, we are a close-knit family and we have had some interesting little family discussions in regard to statutory instruments.

Finally, as the member for Hamilton Centre brought out, we have to congratulate our chairman who has been persevering with this committee for some time and has, as always, brought forward a report of some substance, working in conjunction with our solicitor, Mr. MacTavish. This particular report again pays tribute to the chairman.

The frustration I have in making some comments on this particular report is that one could go two ways in exploring it. One could look either at the specific recommendations that are presented or at the overall concept of statutory instruments and what we are trying to accomplish in the committee. Personally, I felt it would be futile and a little dry, not to mention a little boring for the clerk, to listen to the detail-by-detail investigation of each point. So I decided to reflect them in my concerns and overall view in regard to our committee.

Let me refer first to a statement made by Mr. Justice McRuer in his inquiry into civil rights. He stated that in an ideal political system all rights and liabilities of the individual in relation to others and to government would be established by rules of law applied by the ordinary course of law. New rules would be made by the Legislature, which is representative of all the people, with constitutional and political safeguards for the exercise of its power. There would be no arbitrary or discretionary powers vested in bodies or persons other than the Legislature or those directly responsible to it.

It is obvious that the practical demands of modern government could not be met under such a statement. A legislature cannot state in complete detail all the rules to apply under the statutes that are passed by this House. Notwithstanding my personal views of the amount of regulation I would suggest should not come through the House, we have looked over in the last year many regulations. As our chairman has indicated, some 600 regulations have already been received. Since 1974, there have been some 6,000 regulations made. That has involved a large amount of behind-the-scenes work with respect to the large amount of law that supports the legislation that comes from this House.

My concern in regard to the accumulation of all these regulations is that we are tending continually to codify our law. To my way of thinking this codification is a detriment to the people of Ontario. What happens when people are applying in regard to a specific circumstance, where they are affected by a regulation, is they encounter the administrator of the regulation. He says “I am sorry, you do not fall within this ambit of the regulation”. The regulation is drafted following the passing of the statute.

This strict codification does not allow for flexibility. We have to think in terms of less regulation and allow a degree of latitude by the administrator so that people in Ontario can have the assurance that administration will be followed out and that they will fall within the ambit of the regulation.

I found from sitting on the committee -- and I think other committee members agree -- that more than often we have instances created where people in Ontario who are represented by their solicitors are worried that they don’t fall within a regulation. As soon as legislation is passed, everyone starts to clamour at the doors to see whether they fall within or without that specific regulation. Here we are met head on with a dual collision. Do we try to keep down the number of regulations that are coming forward so the administrator can have some flexibility, or are we going to continue on a decodification of regulations so people are always clamouring if they fall within those bounds?

[8:45]

Through the last almost two years of my membership on the committee it seems to me the way we have to be approaching some of these difficulties is to leave some discretion to the administrator of those particular regulations, so that we allow some flexibility and some generality into the regulations to ensure that people can be wrapped within -- or for that matter possibly without -- the regulation, depending on the effect the regulations have on the people of Ontario.

The committee has tried to tackle some of these general areas and I might say we have not been overly political in our investigations. We haven’t been awfully controversial. We haven’t had the news media in attendance. We haven’t had staff members from that wonderful morning paper the Globe and Sale -- I say “Sale,” S-a-l-e, because we are not sure what is going to be happening to them in the next few months -- inquiring about the kinds of work we have been doing. We have not had them coming in every Thursday morning at 10 o’clock wading through the occasional drudgery but much-needed and much-requested work of our committee.

I think it is safe to say that all of us on the committee have been persevering because this is an important area. It affects so many people in the province and yet people do not realize the ambits and the degree to which they are affected by regulations.

The final general conclusion I want to bring to the House is that, as the chairman has already stated, we are seeking support from the Legislature. I am not confident that every member in the House has had the opportunity of sitting in on our committees but I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the work we have done has been diligent; we have been sincere and we are asking for the members’ support because we need that kind of support to keep plugging along with this work to show to those people carrying out the regulations it is an important area, it is a concern of the people of Ontario, and that they have to be on their toes in carrying out the regulations, or for that matter drafting the regulations, because the final superior body -- our committee, the statutory instruments committee -- continually reviews those regulations.

I want to state finally, Mr. Speaker, that if the House does adopt the report we trust it will give some consideration to a greater emphasis, possibly to a greater degree of power, for our committee to further look into and examine regulations that are passed and possibly have a bit more power to direct those people who are drafting the regulations, if indeed they have gone beyond the ambit of the statute. I trust the House will take into consideration my few humble words and those few humble words already given by the honourable members opposite who are sitting on the committee and adopt this report.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a short input in this debate -- perhaps somewhat from a feeling of guilt that I have not made a great deal of input into the committee.

I want to repeat what some of the others have said. First of all, the committee’s report is perhaps not the most exciting thing that has hit this Legislature and on an evening which is perhaps going to be one of the most exciting and dramatic evenings of the year, I doubt if it will make the front page of the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star tomorrow afternoon.

I also want to concur with the other members of the committee who have said a word of praise for the chairman of this committee. He has been thorough and in fact the whole committee has done a rather thorough job of vetting the regulations. I can’t think of anyone who would do a more detailed job as chairman than the member for Oriole who did do that kind of a detailed, rather boring job. I want to commend him for what has been done.

I am sure everyone on that committee, and those who may not have attended very frequently, questions whether that is the best way of dealing with regulations; the best way a member can spend his time as a legislator or as a person working on behalf of his constituents in other fields. I have to say I have rather mixed feelings about this. One could have an officer who reported directly to the Legislature to examine all of these and pick out the 15 or so out of the 1,000 that perhaps didn’t totally conform with the acts, or which were made retroactive or which in some other way should have some corrections made to them, and then let the Legislature deal with them -- or he could report directly to a committee.

Certainly there is a great deal of time spent on this work by the chairman and other members of that committee. We must question, sometimes, whether that is the best method. I must say now that the setting up of the guidelines, their adoption here this evening and bringing the vetting of the regulations up to date are all important, but from here on some consideration should be given by this Legislature and by the committee to the amount of time involved.

I am not suggesting the work hasn’t been done efficiently up to now. It is true to say, however, the committee doesn’t have the time to look at the 1,000 or so regulations; they are increasing year by year. They haven’t time to look at the statutes in detail and at the regulations in detail; they have to delegate that to a very able counsel. If we are going to delegate to that extent, perhaps we should delegate a bit further and just ask counsel to make a report on the issue.

As I say, I have mixed feelings about this. Not only are there more regulations but the government is doing more things. The statutes seem to be getting more vague, the bones are fleshed out by the regulations and the regulations are becoming more meaningful. We haven’t yet debated the Aggregates Act, but we will do so this next week. If anybody examines that act he will realize how meaningless it is until the regulations are attached to it. So I feel if the government is going to move more and more to governing by regulation instead of by legislation, then the importance of that committee will increase.

I am therefore of two minds on this. For the time being at least the committee should carry on with the work they have brought up to date. It is true that committee -- and I am not taking any of the credit upon myself -- has done a better job than the committee had done for years and years before their time. The members who have worked so hard on it are to be very much commended for what they have done.

I have had an opportunity to read the report and the guidelines and just say I fully support every recommendation established therein.

Mr. Nixon: Did you read the report, Mel?

Mr. Swart: Yes, I read the report. I don’t know why the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would question that unless he perhaps feels a bit self-conscious about it himself.

The members of that committee who have worked so hard really do deserve some congratulation here. There aren’t a great many votes for working on that committee; they do it for the good of the detailed legislation in this province. But I still have to question the time it requires to do the kind of job that committee has done. I think some further thought has to be given to the procedures connected with it.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to discuss one particular recommendation of the committee in its first report, which was tabled in June 1979. In that report, the committee came up with a rather startling discovery. It looked at the use of the exemption power by the Ministry of the Environment under section 30 of the Environmental Assessment Act and came to the conclusion that exemption power is perhaps being used in an illegal manner.

For the past three years the ministry has been using section 30 to exempt a great many government undertakings from the Environmental Assessment Act. These include such things as major highway construction, provincial parks development, industrial parks, large Ontario Hydro projects and a host of other provincial government undertakings.

One of the most significant exemptions has been the exemption of the proposed Darlington nuclear generating station. It was exempted on the grounds that its time schedule was such that there was no time for an environmental assessment; it was too far advanced. The latest revision in Hydro’s estimates of energy needs has changed that timetable and there would now be time for an environmental assessment. The use of the section 30 exemption for the Darlington station should be questioned. If, as the statutory instruments committee suggests, it is illegal, the ministry really should order Hydro to undertake an environmental assessment of the Darlington station immediately.

There have been over 70 exemptions under this section by the Ministry of the Environment, some of them covering whole groups of projects. The clause in the act simply states that the minister can exempt any undertaking if he “is of the opinion that it is in the public interest,” but he must weigh his view “against the injury, damage or interference that might be caused to any person or property by the application of the act ...” The statutory instruments committee looked at that power and said this: “The committee is of the opinion that the validity of the exemption orders made by the Minister of the Environment under section 30 of the Environmental Assessment Act, 1975, is, to say the least, questionable. We recommend that steps be taken legislatively to put their validity beyond doubt.” That is on page 21 of the report.

I asked the minister, in his estimates I think it was, or in the House, whether he intended to take that advice and perhaps amend the legislation to put that exemption power beyond doubt. My recollection is that he took the attitude that the courts should decide and that he intended to carry on using that section until such time as it was challenged.

The basis upon which the committee challenged it is interesting. The committee said the exemptions were of a legislative nature and therefore came under the Regulations Act. Consequently, they must be registered with the registrar of regulations and published in the Ontario Gazette. The ministry contended before the committee that they were not of a legislative nature and therefore did not have to be registered with the registrar of regulations, but the ministry did state that it was in effect following the procedure of gazetting the exemptions and that they were kept in a place in the ministry to which the public had access. In effect, they are complying with the same rules that would apply to a registered regulation but they are not complying with the letter of the law for a regulation that is considered of a legislative nature.

[9:00]

The committee took a rather serious view of this deviation from the normal treatment of regulations. That is why it questions the validity of the exemption orders.

It stated that the deviation amounted to a serious undermining of the Regulations Act, “to a point where its purpose would be completely frustrated.” Therefore, it recommended that steps be taken to put the matter beyond question, but it made no suggestion as to the steps. Presumably it left that up to the ministries.

This is why I rise to speak on this matter. I would like to ask the minister to take some steps to put those exemption orders beyond question. I would like it to be clear whether an environmental assessment is now required on Darlington, if the exemption order is invalid.

I would like to suggest that the use of the exemption power has been excessive and that it has rendered the Environmental Assessment Act virtually a piece of window dressing, or if you want me to be stronger in my statement, Mr. Speaker, a nullity.

We have had practically no assessments under the Environmental Assessment Act since it was passed in 1975. The whole of the private sector is exempt except by designation and not more than half a dozen projects have ever been designated. The municipal sector has not had the act applied to them because they are still considering, as they have been over the past four years, how it should be applied to the municipal sector. A great many projects in the government sector, as I have mentioned, ranging from hydro projects to highway projects to parks projects are exempt. When the act came in, it was touted as requiring environmental assessment of all new undertakings or additions to existing undertakings to see that they were environmentally sound. We have had very few real environmental assessments under that act in the four years since it was proclaimed.

If we want to make that act operative it would be very valuable to make sure that section 30 exemptions are valid and that section 30 is used only for situations where there are good reasons for not having an environmental assessment, such as the project is so far advanced that there could not be an assessment within the time required for its completion without causing great public hardship.

I think the committee did a very important job in drawing attention to that possible illegality. It did note that there is another section in the Environmental Assessment Act which also gives some power to exempt. They thought that these two sections should be clarified as to which one takes primacy and which one is the one under which exemptions should be given. They felt the other one was probably valid but had not been used to any great extent. That is section 41(f).

The committee pointed out: “The present two alternative methods of making exemptions from the act, i.e., under sections 30 and 41(f), are redundant and ill advised. We recommend that the ministry study the situation in the light of our comments and decide upon one or the other and, in any event, making it perfectly clear whether or not the Regulations Act is to apply.” That quote is from page 22 of the report.

Now you can’t get a much stronger statement from the committee that it has found something very ill advised in the present setup under the Environmental Assessment Act. I think it is up to the minister to see that situation is clarified.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I only want to speak very briefly on the report of this committee. Interestingly enough, the existence of this committee for practical purposes came about through the concern and consideration over a long period of the then member for Woodbine, Kenneth Bryden, who sat here and who was very much concerned in this whole topic. In the final event I don’t think the form of the committee and its limitations quite accorded with what he intended, but it was at least a start.

I want to refer particularly to the problems put forward in guideline (a) of paragraph 1 on page 11 of the second report, chapter IV: “The regulations should not contain provisions initiating new policy, but should be confined to details to give effect to the policy established by the statute.”

Perhaps the members of the House will recall that I spoke at the time of the second reading of the bill to amend the Securities Act to draw attention to the kind of problem this assembly was faced with in a very technical bill to which the commission was devoting the total amount of its time and the difficulty which an assembly like this had in dealing with that kind of expertise. I pointed out that the Securities Act, having gone through four or five drafts as a bill, was finally passed by this House as a complete revision of the Securities Act and there wasn’t a single amendment initiated by any member of the House. All of it was done by consultation between the industry and the government.

The net effect of the practice which has developed is that many policies of the Ontario Securities Commission find their way from practices of the commission into regulations and then into statutes, so that, in fact, it is an inversion and a reverse procedure to what is recommended by the guidelines. The policy matters should be in the statute, should have their origin in the statute, should come though the statute by debate in this assembly and not because they have been formulated first of all as regulations and then find their way into the statute.

The second point I want to make is that the Ontario Securities Commission has done one very good thing -- it has done a number of very good things but in this particular field it has done one very good thing. It held public bearings with respect to the draft regulations under the Securities Act to give people the opportunity to see the regulations before they were enacted into law.

I would earnestly hope that this committee of this assembly would be the body which in the future, not only for proposed regulations of importance under the Securities Act but for proposed regulations of importance under any act, would be the body to which those regulations would come in draft form. It would be that committee which would have the responsibility for holding public hearings about those regulations to inform the public and to inform themselves, so that at the time they were about to be published in the Ontario Gazette and filed with the registrar of regulations a committee of this assembly would be knowledgeable about them, rather than to have this practice where the filing takes place with the registrar, the publication is in the Ontario Gazette and the first that any of the members of the assembly or anybody accountable to this assembly sees of them is when they are published.

I think it should become standard practice. If, for example, the Minister of the Environment were to publish a new set of regulations about a specific area in his area of responsibility, they should be done in draft form and referred to this committee with the obligation to hold the hearings before they become law by filing with the registrar of regulations. It would be immensely comforting to the members of the assembly to know that delegated legislation had been looked at by a committee of the assembly before it became part of the administrative law of the province.

There are many examples which would be equally important, for example, the regulations that have been published under what has been known as Bill 70, the occupational health bill. It would have been very important that they be seen to be reviewed by a committee of this assembly and public hearings and submissions received by a committee of this assembly before they were finalized, filed with the registrar, published in the Ontario Gazette and became law.

It’s a matter that I’m sure is not going to be done overnight. I hope to speak on it again. I do hope that the members of the committee, when they meet again to consider these matters, would take those remarks under advisement and perhaps consider whether there is, after exploration and consideration of them, any real merit in proceeding in that way. If the committee were meeting at some time and wished to have any elaboration on those matters I would be glad, of course, to accept an invitation to appear to discuss it with them in some further depth.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Is there any other member wishing to speak to this motion?

Report adopted.

BUDGET DEBATE

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to move into chapter 18 of my budgetary address, or so it seems, based on the rather broken manner in which I’ve had to bring my thoughts to the Legislature. I hope this evening I can continue to provide some continuity by quickly touching on the highlights of the things I’ve mentioned, while addressing myself to the two last issues that have given me some concern and which I’d like to speak on for a few moments this evening.

I just want to remind the members of the Legislature that when I commenced speaking to the budget I clearly pointed out that the budget had been designed to reaffirm the co-operative stance of this government with regard to its dealings in the private sector. I think I clearly demonstrated ways and means by which the budget was designed, along with the activities of this government, to help rather than to hinder the private sector and that we should continue to work in a co-operative manner rather than in an adversarial stance in dealing with the business concerns throughout our province.

[9:15]

I’ve never felt that an approach of confrontation and mistrust really brought about any productive results. To operate in that type of atmosphere is not conducive to encouraging the private sector to improve upon itself and, in so doing, to improve upon the wellbeing of the economy of this province and the standards of living which flow therefrom and which the citizens of our province at large enjoy.

I think this government can take pride in the fact it has enacted positive legislation and developed a positive legislative climate, as reflected in the budgetary papers, along with a general government attitude that is favourably disposed toward the industrial sector. There is a need to create this confidence.

I pointed out that while the function and role of the opposition parties is to be critical, sometimes they can take those criticisms to excess.

Instead of endeavouring to make points against the government of the day, they are doing irreparable harm to our province as a whole as a result of the way these criticisms are viewed by people beyond our borders. Those industries and business concerns that feel there may be justification in wanting to invest or come into the province to set up business and shops can sometimes be discouraged just by the general attitudes that may be expressed by the legislators of the jurisdiction.

We always have to be mindful of how we criticize. There are differences between positive and negative criticism. While it makes good press at home to be critical and show that the opposition is fulfilling its role in that regard, sometimes it has been carried to excess and it hasn’t helped anyone, particularly the workers of this province, who can only succeed if there is full employment and opportunity within the province.

Those were issues I pointed out at the beginning of my budgetary remarks. Moving from there, I addressed myself to another problem that gave me considerable concern at that time, which was a need I felt existed to destroy the myth that had been conjured up by the opposition parties in trying to portray Ontario Hydro as a secretive, cringing crown agency that was without desire or intent to be accountable to the people of this province. On more than one occasion, opposition members have seen fit to use Ontario Hydro as a whipping boy in this type of setting. I think I clearly set the record straight when I pointed out that, factually speaking, Ontario Hydro is anything but those things which the opposition occasionally has endeavoured to characterize it as being.

I pointed out, in particular, that Ontario Hydro is a crown agency that probably has more need to be accountable to the people of Ontario through different boards and agencies and commissions than any other crown agency heretofore. I pointed out that Ontario Hydro in the past five-year period has had the responsibility of reporting to four different boards, three different committees of this Legislature and four royal commissions.

The number of hearing days held involving those different groups over that five-year period totals 771 days; in other words, over two years of hearings. Those hearings have involved hearing from no fewer than 1,600 witnesses, of which over 440 have been Ontario Hydro witnesses, not to speak of the support staff it has had to make available at all times to assist those witnesses in making their representations to those various boards and commissions.

The number of transcript volumes that have been published is in excess of 980. Last but not least, I pointed out the immense cost, not only in time but in money. I pointed out that to the end of June of this year over $11.5 million had been spent in these various hearings by Ontario Hydro. I think, Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly concluded at that time that, contrary to the way in which Ontario Hydro had been portrayed by the opposition parties, never before has any crown agency testified so frequently, so continuously, so readily, so openly, so fully, so willingly and so capably.

I think that Hydro has bared its soul in accounting to the people of Ontario and in so doing I think it has served an important purpose not the least of which is to ensure to the people of Ontario, through its accounting, that indeed there is and will continue to be a security of supply of energy to this province that can be provided in an economical and efficient manner at cost.

Mr. Speaker, at the time of my concluding remarks on that particular concern, my time expired and I was obliged to return to the debate. I am pleased to take up again this evening where I had left off by coming to two further matters of concern to me.

The first concern, Mr. Speaker, relates in a way to remarks that I had made at the beginning of my address on May 11, so I want to indicate there is this continuity flowing through these remarks, even though they have been widely spaced through circumstances beyond my control.

I had commented, as I said a few moments ago, on the negative factors working against industry in this province and working against our economy. Some of those negative factors have been legislative in nature. There have been international economic conditions. There has been the bureaucratic red tape that the private sector experiences at all levels of government. There have been the geographically-advantaged provinces -- such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, with their vast raw resources -- that have made them exceptions to the economic programs we have been experiencing, in Canada as a whole and in the world beyond. Those provinces, because of their rich resources, have attracted a large pool of manpower. So these have all been negative factors, in a way, working against full-employment opportunity in this province.

I wanted, however, to touch in particular on one specific negative impact of bureaucracy that has affected one of our larger and more important industries. That, Mr. Speaker, is the housing industry.

We all know that the housing industry cannot exist without one essential ingredient, namely land. The history of the industry since the end of the Second World War has been marked by two important considerations. First, the phenomenal growth in every town and city of residential, industrial and commercial development. In conjunction with that phenomenal growth we have seen growth in government of the checks and balances introduced with the enactment of planning legislation to regulate and appropriately control land development, such as has impacted directly on the housing industry.

This concern and involvement in the public sector has been reflected in the enactment at the provincial level of our Planning Act in 1946, which has proved over the years to be one of the cornerstones of provincial legislation that has served the people of this province well in an orderly growth and development within the land development field.

The Planning Act has been a blueprint of planning practice and procedure that is still in place and intact 32 years later. It is one that has been studied by other jurisdictions and has even been copied because of its proven worth, both in principle and in practice. Notwithstanding the fact there have been revisions and expansions of the original act since its enactment in 1946, I think one must realize there had been no comprehensive reappraisal of the Planning Act until 1967. I think it is important that no matter how good our legislation may be, and no matter how well it has stood the test of time, one must always be prepared to review, reconsider and reassess those laws to see whether they are still relevant in a later day and age, under given changed circumstances.

In 1967 members will recall the Ontario Law Reform Commission published the first of several reports that formed the first reasonably detailed study of municipal planning in Ontario since the original 1946 Planning Act. That review process has evolved continuously since that time.

Subsequent studies by the law reform commission have indicated there is room for change and improvement in the system, bearing in mind that we have changing community and social values, including new housing concepts and land-use needs, coupled with greater public involvement and refined and more complex municipal planning procedures. All of these have begged for a comprehensive review in light of this changing environment.

Mr. Kerrio: John, are you going to run out the clock?

Mr. Williams: I think that’s a possibility.

Mr. Kerrio: I thought you should just tell us in fairness. For this festive season, you shouldn’t lead us on.

Mr. Acting Chairman: Order.

Mr. Williams: If you want to invite your friends in, please do so.

Mr. Kerrio: Thanks, John.

Mr. Roy: Not too fast, John; I’m taking notes.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The drama in Ottawa tonight is only secondary to the tension in this chamber.

Mr. Williams: Members may recall that the next significant development since the Ontario Law Reform Commission reported in 1967 was the establishment of the Planning Act review committee in 1975. That committee was asked to review the nature of municipal planning in Ontario to do three things: first, to determine what it should be directed towards; second, to define the rules of the different levels of government in the planning process; and, third, to look at the legislative framework, administrative procedures and regulatory mechanisms that are at the centre of the present system.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Planning Act review committee report was published in June 1977 and received wide distribution among many interested parties and municipalities. As a result of that wide distribution and great public response, along with our own intergovernmental review of that committee’s report, we published a white paper on the Planning Act which came out in the spring of this year. There is no question the white paper proposes sweeping changes, although they are basically in accord with the recommendations contained in the Planning Act review committee report.

[9:30]

I think we realize the white paper proposes the provincial role be dramatically revised, giving the municipalities much greater powers. The paper stresses the importance of official plans being continued. That whole concept is deemed an integral and important role within the success of the planning procedure.

The report recommends subdivision land procedures be improved and public involvement in official plan, zoning and subdivision proceedings have their procedures standardized. At the same time, the report recommends the role of the Ontario Municipal Board be somewhat contained so the greater powers can remain with and now be vested in the municipalities and dealt with at the municipal level.

There are two concerns that arise out of this process and where we’re at today. One of the concerns I have is the recommendation contained in the report that planning boards, as such, be eliminated. It is suggested that in this manner the planning process could be expedited and would eliminate one step in the planning process.

Many of us who have had involvement in municipal government as elected representatives are well aware of the important role the independent, citizen-appointee planning boards have played in the planning process since the inception of the 1946 Planning Act. I have had the privilege, as I am sure a number of us have, of serving on local municipal councils and sitting on local planning boards as one of the elected representatives.

I have found through my experience, and I’m sure other members will agree, there is a great deal of merit in having an independent planning board deal initially with planning proposals that come before it to consider all facets of the applications, whether it be a subdivision application or a rezoning of existing land uses. I’ve always found that local planning boards -- certainly those I have been involved with -- acted fairly and objectively in trying to deal with matters on a strictly planning basis. I felt this provided an appropriate buffer between the elected representatives and the people so that the initial problems and considerations could evolve and crystallize in an environment that was less political and more directed to the true planning process.

While the recommendations would eliminate that particular step in the proceedings, I’m not sure in the long run it will be proven to expedite the process, but rather it may remove an important element we will regret losing from the planning process. I do have grave reservations about that particular recommendation endorsed in the white paper and proposed by the Planning Act review committee.

The other concern is the one I don’t see clearly addressed in the Planning Act review committee report or in the white paper. I refer to the one of coming to grips with the social cost of delay in bringing housing programs and projects on stream.

The bureaucracy and red tape involved when developers of residential projects bring them before the municipalities, and on to the provincial level, have discouraged developers in bringing the necessary housing into place. It has been shown that the discouragement has been so great that some of our more substantial business concerns in this industry have found it to their advantage to bypass this impediment in their development programs and have gone to other jurisdictions where they have found they could undertake the same works in half the time.

Quite often people say: “Why do we care? If it’s not in the social interest, let the proposer or the applicant bear the cost of it.” The unfortunate thing that’s said all too seldom is that it’s the consumer that ultimately winds up bearing the cost, because there is no question the builder and the developer do not absorb that cost beyond a certain point. Where there are diminishing returns and no reasonable profit to be made, they simply pass that add-on cost to the consumer.

This government, on more than one occasion, has chided municipal governments for taking too long in the processing of land development proposals. I must say we do not come out with clean hands at the provincial level either, because there is no question that, once it’s passed through the municipal offices and departments, delays have been experienced at the provincial level too. So we’re not totally blameless in that situation.

The important point is that government at all levels has got to recognize the harm it is doing in not addressing itself seriously to this problem. We cannot afford to have our responsible industries in the housing market going to other jurisdictions and leaving us devoid of the necessary resources and skills to provide the necessary housing to meet the social needs of the people in our communities.

To illustrate the point, I will simply refer to one case. I will not identify it specifically but I can assure honourable members it is a specific instance of a land development project within Metropolitan Toronto. In the spring of 1975 a developer started to bring forward a residential proposal, hoping that he would be able to bring the project to fruition within a 12- to 18-month period. There was unofficial encouragement from the local municipality.

It turned out it was a full year before the particular builder even got his project before the local planning board because, after he had made his initial expenditures, investigations and cost projections, the municipality decided that the applicant probably should not proceed until the adjoining land owners were also ready to put their property into the housing pool and let not only the applicant’s lands, but also adjoining land owners’ lands, be developed concurrently.

Notwithstanding the fact that the adjoining land owners had no intention or desire to develop their lands, nevertheless the municipality stood firm for more than a year before it finally agreed to let the applicants proceed on the merits of their own particular property holdings and the proposal they wished to apply to their property holdings.

In 1976, they were finally able to go through the normal municipal process of going before the planning board, having public hearings, awaiting the return of reports from the various municipal departments to the planning department so they could submit their reports to the planning board and hold a public hearing.

One of the strengths of new Planning Act review committee, as endorsed by the white paper, is that the public involvement process and procedure will be strengthened by standardization through regulation -- regulations we talked about earlier this evening in a different context. That is encouraging, and any of my remarks must not be taken to suggest that I would discourage public involvement and participation. It is an extremely important ingredient in the whole planning process.

However, governments at all levels must have some criteria, some ground rules by which they can set some reasonable time limits so all parties know they have full opportunity to have their say, and yet not to the point where time becomes so heavy that it makes it uneconomical to consider proceeding further or even to embark upon a reasonable project.

In the particular case I referred to, I found they ran into great difficulties after they had them before the planning board with their various hearings. A number of conditions were imposed on the developer that had not even been contemplated at the time of their initial discussions with the municipal planners involved. It was two years later, after further deliberations and meetings and discussions, that the matter came before the local council. Then, once having received approval, because it was within the Metropolitan Toronto area, the whole proposal had to go from the local council to the Metro planning board for its input and consideration.

Three years later, in 1979, to my knowledge, a brick has yet to be put in the ground or a foundation constructed on this project, the physical housing project has yet to come off the drawing board, and the frustrations experienced by this particular applicant are only illustrative of the problems confronting the housing industry in the private sector.

Some recognition of this problem has to be spelled out more clearly and addressed specifically in any major revision of the planning laws we bring forward in the ensuing months, after the white paper has been fully considered and the final legislation prepared for debate by this Legislature. I am sure that is a consideration that will be addressed carefully in the coming months and will be an integral part of the ongoing work of the ministry involved and the members of this Legislature. I can’t stress too strongly, however, that we must give more serious consideration to that aspect of our planning process than we have in the past.

[9:45]

As I’ve said, I can find nothing in the documentation published to date on this matter indicating that particular problem has been addressed as clearly as many of the other issues, as spelled out in the white paper. The expeditious dealing with these matters at all levels of government has to be an important consideration if the system is to be truly improved and capitalized upon.

I would like to conclude my discussions on the budget by moving to a second area of concern of mine. It’s one of a more general nature, yet probably fundamentally more important, since it pertains to the role of government and the leadership it must provide, than any other single issue. This government can clearly take credit for having shown leadership in a number of significant ways over the years that it’s had the opportunity to serve as the government of this province.

First, through the enactment of progressive legislation that meets the needs of the people throughout the width and breadth of this province, the government has shown leadership in the development of policy that provides the people with both the hard and soft services to which they are entitled and for which they have a need. We’ve certainly shown leadership in the maintenance and preservation of a fiscal policy that is both responsible and responsive in providing the services to which I have just referred.

However, within this framework there is also a much broader obligation on government to show leadership by way of a demonstrated support for the rights of the individual, coupled with clear endorsation of the basic traditions and values that have been the strength of our western civilization and culture.

It’s not so much a matter of program or of identifiable projects, but rather a matter of behaviour or attitude, a matter of response to societal activity.

Mr. Conway: Williams for family unity!

Mr. Williams: I’m particularly addressing myself to this concern tonight, because I know the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) is here and he encouraged me to speak on matters that are close to his heart. I will be alluding to the concept of the family unit, because I don’t want him to go away feeling cheated this evening.

Mr. Conway: You’re the poor man’s pope.

Mr. Williams: If the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) can refer to the Premier as the Oral Roberts of the Legislature, I guess I’ll take my friend’s comment as a compliment as well.

Governments traditionally have passed laws and set policies supposedly to reflect public attitude and aspirations, but governments must not be hesitant to defend the status quo in the area of individual rights and in preserving the basic moral values and traditions of our society.

Mind you, talking about the fundamental rights of the individual means different things to different people. For instance, self-indulgence in pursuit of material wellbeing without assuming responsibility for or accountability to any other person or persons is very much in vogue in our society today.

Let me illustrate the point by referring to two educational commencement ceremonies, apart in time and place, yet each in its own way and from a different perspective coming to grips with the fundamental freedoms of the individual. The only similarity between the two, however -- and I am going to refer to it -- is that each was charged with a certain sense of despondency -- but for very different reasons.

First, I refer to a high-school commencement ceremony I was at not too long ago at which the valedictorian was making his presentation to the students. He chose to cite the case where three students in the school had been denied participation in school activities because they had committed a physical assault on one of the teachers.

The valedictorian came to the conclusion that the establishment was wrong, that the school board should not have invoked that type of restraint on the students, because he had investigated the incident and was satisfied that the students were only having a bit of fun and that the assault on the teacher didn’t justify that type of reprimand and restriction of their activities.

He felt a distorted sense of justice had been applied, the students should have had more freedom of opportunity and they shouldn’t have been imposed upon.

He went on to discuss something that was quite timely, because it was at the time of the Lord’s Prayer incident in the Toronto School Board setting. He indicated support for objecting to the use of the Lord’s Prayer in the schools, because he felt he might not want to recognize it; therefore, others shouldn’t have it imposed on them either.

He pointed out too that he felt his own personal individual rights were being imposed upon because we have a censorship board in Ontario with regard to the movie industry.

Mr. Conway: Is it true that the government caucus gets to look at the year-end tapes?

Mr. Williams: Not to my knowledge. The member will have to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea).

He pointed out how these were some of the individual freedoms that he felt were being imposed upon improperly by this society, and his only consolation was that he had his friends there at the school who somehow would help him fight that mean old world out there.

In concluding his remarks that evening, he felt that the only solution to the problem was to go out to the party they were holding after the commencement ceremony and get drunk.

This type of speech didn’t make me angry. But it did make me rather sad, because it was full of despondency and despair. It was devoid of high hopes or aspirations for the future which you normally would anticipate would be contained in a valedictorian’s speech. It seemed to condemn the present social conditions and values by which we live, and yet it offered no alternative in return.

The other commencement ceremony was starkly different. It was one that involved a speech given by the noted writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn. This was given in a commencement ceremony at Harvard University in 1978. I want to cite three paragraphs from that speech, because it gives a marked contrast of attitudes here.

He pointed out first that “destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defence against the abyss of human decadence such as misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be a part of freedom and theoretically counterbalanced by the young people’s right not to look or not to accept.

“However, he went on to point out that such a tilt of freedom has come about gradually but it was evidently borne primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept wherein the world purportedly belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems which must be corrected.”

He went on to make one further statement that ties in with that, when he stated: “It is feasible and easy everywhere to undermine administrative power and, in fact, it has been drastically weakened in all western countries. The defence of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenceless against certain individuals. It is time in the west to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.”

Mr. Roy: If the member doesn’t stop here soon, I won’t send him a Christmas card.

Mr. Williams: I just saw my friend sign it; so I am not worried. In fact, if he would have a page send it over I would be most appreciative.

Mr. Speaker, humanism and pluralism are concepts which today appear to dominate our social thinking and attitudes and as such would tend to give a different meaning and emphasis to the two basic considerations: (1) rights of the individual and (2) retention of our basic traditions and moral values.

I have just illustrated a point with regard to the rights of the individual, and I would like now to turn to the matter of retention of our basic traditions and moral values.

There is a lot of talk about our changing values system and the supposed inevitability of it all. The basic traditions and moral values that are the real cornerstones of our society in the free world are founded largely on religious beliefs. In western society those beliefs are entrenched in the Judaeo-Christian religions. This is not to deny the powerful influence that other major world religions play in other parts of the world; Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are examples. In some countries of the world, any one of these religions may be not only the official religion of that country, but also the only religion practised and recognized in that country.

[10:00]

In North and South America the Judaeo-Christian religions flourish, but not exclusively. Nevertheless, they are the predominant official religions in this part of the world. In countries of the Middle East and Far East, their religions are totally integrated into their whole social fabric without question or challenge. In contrast, in this part of the world, when we talk about basic traditions and moral values, particularly in the political arena, we seem to do so reluctantly and to associate those principles with basic religious beliefs seems to be approached with a sense of fear or trepidation. Some people do so almost apologetically for fear of being ridiculed or considered old-fashioned or even of being accused of proselytizing.

Governments must not be caught in the trap of trying to reflect in legislation and in policy contemporary thinking and attitude if it is but transitory, illusory or without basic value or substance. Governments at all levels must show leadership in speaking out in a constructive and aggressive way in support of our conventional values and traditions, whether or not they are founded on religious beliefs, whenever they are challenged or rebuked in the political arena.

These are not the times for showing complacency. On the other hand, legislators should not rush headlong into legislation and policy decisions which might be deemed politically expedient simply because such action might appease a militant minority group intent on dismantling some of the traditional values of our society.

The dilemma that is created by contemporary pluralism and the current climate of virtually limitless tolerance that it engenders, was addressed frankly and skilfully by the prominent Toronto surgeon, Dr. Harley S. Smythe, in a speech he gave at the Ontario prayer breakfast this past May. At that time he pointed out that:

“The mainspring of pluralism as we know it today is political liberalism, which says that the state must not interfere with the actions of its citizens except where those actions infringe upon the external freedom of others. The role of the state is thus limited carefully to the preservation of the external freedoms of all. Moral freedom must be left to the individual. It is thus paradoxically on moral grounds that the best state is the morally neutral state.”

I would like to quote one paragraph from his speech that pointed out some of the paradoxes that existed and confronted him as a surgeon. He stated:

“Let me, as a surgeon, sharpen the focus on this issue by exemplifying it in some current deep concerns arising within my own profession. We are faced with numerous current paradoxes and sometimes sharp contradictions. Consider this paradox: There is an entirely new speciality known as perinatology which devotes a wealth of new medical technology to the care of the foetus, the unborn offspring of man as a patient, seeking to make his nine-month journey to birth as safe as possible. Against that, we have the political reality that over 50,000 new Canadians for whom one plan was full citizenship have not arrived amongst us this year, their journey is interrupted by the practice in our midst of mass elective foeticide.

“Or consider this paradox: We have remarkable new programs to help our mentally retarded citizens play a fuller role in our community, and our own Ministry of Community and Social Services sets a commendable example in this regard. Over against this, however, we have strong advocates of a policy which would seek to prevent, by any technical means available and by foeticide, the arrival of any new children who would be retarded. In the same connection, there are medical papers on record advocating infanticide for the multiply handicapped. As a final example, we have seen the emergence of new palliative-care units devoted to skilled, high-quality medical care for the terminally ill; yet, over against this, we have seen in our own Legislature the tabling of bills which form the early basis for euthanasia legislation.

“These three examples -- and they represent only a few of such paradoxes -- all speak from the outward surface of a sphere of much deeper conflict, a conflict of basic belief about man. They also make it clear that the persistence of the most nearly absolute value in human history, the value placed upon a single human life, is far from guaranteed in our society.”

For those who see merit in wanting to tear down our present value system and replace it with a new code of ethics, there are those within that movement who see the need first and foremost to remove the core from our traditional social standards and values, which core is unquestionably the religious component. Hence, it is not surprising that in recent times there have been efforts made by some groups to remove from any government institution, program or function any passing reference, tacit knowledge or fitting recognition of society’s reliance on that belief or in that religious component.

A case in point, which I alluded to a few moments ago, as the Lord’s Prayer issue within the jurisdiction of the Toronto Board of Education, where it was argued that the use of the Lord’s Prayer should no longer be tolerated because it would offend certain people in this pluralistic society, and that it is better to have no recognition than one which purportedly would offend in this way. I must refer to the Premier’s comments on this posturing by referring to the letter he wrote to the chairman of the Toronto Board of Education in rebutting the board’s supposed justification for taking the stance it has.

The Premier stated: “I believe the people if Ontario and the people of Canada do share some common strands of culture and identity which are not an unfair imposition on the cultural heritage or freedom of many who have come to our country as a matter of choice and who have justifiable pride in their own culture heritage. I also believe that the Lord’s Prayer establishes a common respect for a society where morality, humility and faith in God are important pillars of stability and social norm.

“I offer the view that it is not a prayer which imposes an exclusive religious doctrine upon anyone and, while it may not have specific meaning for some, its general application for so many surely is sufficient to evoke respect from all. From time to time Canadians express legitimate concerns about the shape and fabric of our society and the values which determine that fabric. I believe the Lord’s Prayer is important to that set of moral values and that it could in fact be continued in the school system without at all threatening a society which makes tolerance, freedom and cultural diversity basic tenets.

“I do not believe I am being old-fashioned when I state to you my belief in the need for a spiritual basis to our society. I personally remain opposed to any move that would erode that basis, for in so doing I believe we jeopardize not only an important aspect of the society we know today but that of future generations as well.”

Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest that all members of the Legislature recently received correspondence from Reverend Leonard Self of the Westminster Presbyterian Church in Toronto who has, along with many other people, shown a great deal of interest in this particular situation. He wrote to all members of the Legislature on October 18, sending us the views he had communicated to the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) on the breakdown of values in the public school system and citing the Lord’s Prayer issue as but a symptom of the broader issue.

He made an interesting comparative study of humanism and Christianity. I believe he did make a strong case about the materialistic influence today of humanistic philosophy on our traditional social values and morality.

There is no question that Reverend Self raised an issue which we, in the secular community at large and in the field of politics in particular, seem to have chosen to ignore in large measure. The inevitable involvement of religious considerations in any discussion of our moral values gives the politician an excuse for handing the issue off to those within the ecclesiastical community. Some prefer to leave this issue clearly within the realm of the theologians -- for discussion behind the closed doors of our churches and synagogues.

In fact, it is not inappropriate for theologians and politicians alike, within their own fields of endeavour, to address themselves to the same issue that raises concerns deserving of consideration in both jurisdictions.

Recognition by the government of this shared responsibility was made evident this past October, when the government of Ontario saw fit to honour His Eminence Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter. It’s unusual -- or it certainly had been up until recent times -- for any government representing the state to recognize any important occurrence in the religious community. I think there is a great deal of significance attached to that function, because the government had no hesitation to acknowledge that there had been an important event within the religious community and that it did, unhesitatingly, deserve recognition.

What troubled me about the event was the fact that some people treated the whole affair as petulant schoolboys -- criticizing the event for even occurring, and being critical of the pomp and ceremony that surrounded the event, without really looking at the substance of what transpired that evening in the form of the very significant and important address made to all those assembled by His Eminence Cardinal Carter.

I would like to highlight the significance of that evening, and to speak to two specific points that he articulated so well and which cannot really be improved upon. They come to grips with some of the issues that have concerned me and which I have tried, in my humble way, to address in my remarks this evening.

[10:15]

First, Cardinal Carter stated as follows:

“A great deal of ink has flowed, and a great deal of breath has been expended to laud the virtues of the American formula of the separation of church and state. I would like to believe that we in Canada, in general, and in Ontario in particular, have achieved something more mature than separation. We have developed mutual respect for our fields of confidence and jurisdiction, and therefore can pool our common interests and our common resources without feeling threatened one by the other.

“No compartmentalization is possible in human affairs in any absolute degree. Church and state are both dealing with the same prime matter, namely, persons. It is impossible to postulate a kind of order in which interests would not meet, at times appear to conflict and at others to show a reality of cooperation and common concern.”

After setting that tone, which I think was extremely important, given the occasion and the circumstances of politicians coming together with religious leaders, His Eminence Cardinal Carter went on to deal about the conjunction of interests that exist. He pointed out that “the challenge is not only one of accepting and respecting our various ethnic groupings, but also of channelling in a common purpose our interest in those values which have created our civilization and which, whether we understand it or not, underpin and support it.”

It was at that point, Mr. Speaker, that Cardinal Carter came to the very heart of his address that evening when he posed the question: “Are we witnessing the collapse of our civilization?”

In response to that question, he stated:

“In order to answer the question I had to develop the present status of our civilization, and I must confess that I could not do so in entirely optimistic tones. Our concentration on the things of the moment, on the profit motive, on material possessions, on a headlong pursuit of pleasure of all sorts to the detriment of any concept of man’s most notable aspirations and of his eternal life, are the classic signs of the decay and collapse of all of the great civilizations which have preceded us.

“In the view of almost everyone in this room, the moral order is not some artificial set of norms concocted by one set of men to control another. They represent the very freedom of the human individual and the human community to achieve the purposes for which it was created. We may despise it and pretend to push it aside, but with this action we are making for ourselves a jungle in which we will all be lost and destroyed.”

That was a very powerful statement, in my judgement, the sight of which unfortunately was lost by some of the assembled guests who saw cause to be critical of the more superficial aspects of the event when they were critical of the pomp and ceremony, rather than the true substance of the evening as reflected in the cardinal’s very astute and relevant comments.

He was making clear -- and I hope I have made clear, in some small way, my view -- that there is a responsibility on government to show some leadership in preserving our basic standards, our basic values, whether or not they be couched in and strongly supported by religious beliefs and the Judaeo-Christian traditions in particular in this part of the world. It is something we have to recognize, rather than to sweep under the carpet and leave to someone else to care about and speak out about.

The cardinal clearly put it that we have distinct areas of responsibility; yet inevitably they overlap and they’re all intertwined in creating that basic tradition and set of values that have given this province, this nation, this continent, the strength that it has in its people and in its total resources.

I feel strongly that we, as elected people, must show more leadership than perhaps we have in the past. I’m pleased that this government has demonstrated some of this leadership in a very tangible way. I’ve referred to the Premier’s comments. Our ministry involved with social services has, along with the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) in her area of responsibility, spoken out strongly on the importance of the family unit as a very integral part of that strength of our society and an inseparable component of our value system.

I spoke on the family concept and unity, and its importance, on another occasion in this Legislature; so I won’t go into that at length this evening. I simply want to conclude my remarks this evening by stating that while my remarks this evening may go beyond strictly budgetary matters, our fiscal policies, our legislative programs and our public policies are of little value if we do not concurrently make an effort within these disciplines to contribute in a meaningful and positive way to the stabilization of the legitimate rights of the individual, in balance with the strengthening of the moral fabric of our society.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the patience you have had in hearing me out over the past few months, with the somewhat lengthy interruptions in the presentation of my remarks with regard to the budget. I hope that I have maintained the continuity notwithstanding those interruptions and that I have been able to make some worthwhile contribution to the budget debate.

In concluding my budgetary remarks, I would point out as a footnote that another significant event has occurred this evening in that the government of the land apparently has been defeated in a vote of no confidence in Ottawa. I’m sure that my important remarks of this evening may be lost sight of because of the ensuing consequences of that particular event in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, again I thank you for the opportunity and conclude my remarks.

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

The House adjourned at 10:25 p.m.