Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the second report of the standing committee on procedural affairs re agencies, boards and commissions.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, in this report we dealt with six different boards and commissions: the Ontario Research Foundation, the Ontario Telephone Service Commission, the Ontario Housing Corporation, the Ontario Food Terminal Board, the Ontario Council of Health and the Ontario Municipal Board.

That is the variety of boards and commissions that we dealt with. When we talk to the Ontario Telephone Service Commission and then with the Ontario Municipal Board, there is quite a comparison, because of the broad spectrum of government policies the Ontario Municipal Board has to arbitrate on.

The first one on our list is the Ontario Research Foundation. I was never too familiar with this organization until it came before the committee. Maybe that is one of the good things about the committee -- we do at least get a better insight into some of these boards and commissions we have in the province. I found the Ontario Research Foundation one of the better organizations. It has been in effect for a number of years.

I will read a paragraph from our report that I think is pertinent to our investigation of the ORF. Reading from page six: “The committee believes that government ministries should be making greater use of the ORF services. It is indicative of the limited use being made of the foundation that only three per cent of its contract revenue comes from the Ontario government, while 12 per cent is derived from the federal government. Not only would more government contracts give the Ontario Research Foundation the proper support it deserves as an agency of the Ontario government, but it would help eliminate overlapping and paralleling. Though the present overlapping between ministry research programs and the ORF is limited, it does not seem logical or cost-effective that ministries develop facilities and expertise if they already exist at the foundation.”

We are not saying government ministries and their own officials and employees should rush down to the Ontario Research Foundation every time someone gets an idea of something they should be making or experimenting with. I would imagine one could get carried away with that. What we are suggesting is closer co-ordination. We are even recommending that the Deputy Minister of Industry and Tourism and the Deputy Provincial Secretary for Resources Development be on the board of directors of the Ontario Research Foundation.

We feel this organization has a great deal to offer, and does, in fact, offer a great deal to many industries. I think it has a role to play in Ontario, maybe more so in the future. We are looking at research and development in many industries. Many of us in this government and in the federal government are realizing that in Ontario and in Canada we have not got into research and development in the way that we should have over the years.

I suppose that goes back to the old saying about hewers of wood and drawers of water.

It is like the fellow at the cottage who was asked if he had running water. He said: “Yes, you run to the lake and get a pail and run back with it.” Of course, that is what we sometimes had to do many years ago, but now we are in a different era and I think the Ontario Research Foundation can certainly add something to help out in some of the new developments we are looking forward to in the coming years.

The Ontario Telephone Service Commission, as I said earlier, is a very small organization. It served quite a purpose a number of years ago when there were hundreds of small community telephones. Many of them were privately owned. Many were municipally owned. There was a lot of co-rdination in approvals, rates and so forth of telephone systems operated within the province. Having been the chairman of our own telephone commission for six years in one of the townships of my riding, I got to know quite a bit about the Ontario Telephone Service Commission in the 1900s. I found them quite a help to us.

I suppose hindsight is always 20-20 vision, but if we had expertise in the telephone service commission and methods of financing which were always a problem in a municipally owned service, I suppose many of the smaller telephone systems would still be operating in Ontario. One of the problems I found in the telephone business was the high cost of putting in new and modem equipment. You certainly get your money back within a few years. There is no doubt it was an excellent investment but the problem was finding that money to acquire the new equipment to be installed.

The Ontario Telephone Service Commission does require some updating. The legislation is quite old and has not been revised over the past number of years. I suppose one could look at some of the potential uses that could be made of the Ontario Telephone Service Commission. Maybe with cable television coming around, and some thought that the province will have more control over that in the coming years, it could be an area where it could take part in the overall supervision of cable television or something similar to that. In many areas, in co-operation with the telephone companies, they do use their own cables and lines.

Another organization we dealt with is the Ontario Housing Corporation. Actually, we had some reservation about the operations of the Ontario Housing Corporation. One of the things that concerned a number of the members of the committee was the right of people living in Ontario Housing Corporation units to have access to their files, to knew what was put on their records.

It is a similar concern to what we dealt with a number of years ago here in the House and in committee with regard to credit organizations. At that time, changing some of the legislation gave people with credit ratings the opportunity to go in and check their credit rating with a certain company if it had a credit bureau. They could find out if something was on their record that they were not aware of or if it might contain misinformation. I think that should be the right of a person living in an Ontario Housing Corporation unit because sometimes these records can get misconstrued. I think it is a good recommendation.

I visited the Ontario Food Terminal organization a few years ago with the regulations committee. I was chairman of that committee. It was not very active, but that was one of the things we did do that year. We went to the Ontario Food Terminal and looked over their operations. We had them before our committee this year. There were some recommendations we felt could improve the operation. We had some concerns with regard to the leasing of the stands there. Some people had acquired these leases over the years and would transfer them to someone else and so forth.

8:10 p.m.

We have in our report, on pages 22 and 23, some of the recommendations with regard to food terminal operations and whether we should be looking at operating in other areas of Ontario. If I remember correctly, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) a few years ago brought in a private member’s bill or a resolution with regard to opening a food terminal in northern Ontario. We say in our report that was something government should be looking at and that maybe it should be expanding that type of operation.

With regard to the Ontario Council of Health, we found in their coming before the committee that they are doing a very good job in the work assigned to them by the ministry on certain occasions. The only problem we found is they are not actually required to make a report to the Legislature. That is something we have recommended here -- that they should submit an annual report to the Legislature which would assist us in understanding just what their work is. I am sure many members of the Legislature like myself were not aware of their operations until they appeared before our committee.

Everyone is pretty well aware of the Ontario Municipal Board and its operations. There were many reports and recommendations from a select committee of this Legislature a few years ago on the operations of the Ontario Municipal Board and there have been piecemeal changes once in a while. There are many people throughout Ontario who feel it does serve a purpose to allow people to make objections to certain zoning plans and so forth in municipalities and give people the right to go before this board. It is a pretty unbiased board, out of the political stream with independent opinions, and I think on the whole it does carry out its functions reasonably well.

We are concerned, though, that in making applications to the Ontario Municipal Board, the time required to get a hearing sometimes has been a major concern to many people with regard to planning and zoning changes and so forth. Sometimes it takes four or five months to get a date set and it may be almost a year before they would have a hearing. Some of their hearings are over what we call minor severances and I suppose with the work load they have had, that is part of the cause.

We are saying, and we had quite a discussion in the committee on this, it is hard to get just the direct route of how one speeds up hearings and yet have people have the rights they should have to protect their property and so forth. We are trying to figure out ways of getting around the perhaps frivolous applications that are made. I have noticed on some occasions when only one objection comes in that the board has considered sometimes that it was frivolous after investigating and did not require a hearing. That is something we discussed at some length in the committee and quite frankly we really couldn’t come up with a complete answer to it. Some suggested we have what I would call a cursory examination of an appeal to see if it really required a full board hearing.

We do have our general recommendations, but they are very limited in this case because it serves such an important purpose to many municipalities. If the government isn’t sure how it should handle something, quite often the matter is turned ever to the Ontario Municipal Board to have hearings on it.

In effect that is a report of the six boards and commissions that we had before our committee this year. With regard to the latter part of the report, responding to the 1978 report, I wasn’t on the committee at that time. I will leave that to other members who were on the committee at that time to report to the House.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak this evening about the report itself, the process and the committee. I am chairman of the standing committee on procedural affairs and I want to offer to the members some consideration as the committee members have managed to do something that is unique in this House. The procedural affairs committee manages quite nicely to change roles from time to time, from being a committee that deals essentially with procedural matters to one undertaking once a year this matter of reviewing agencies. It is no mean feat to change that substantive a role but the House, in setting up the committee, initially decided that this should be part and parcel of its work -- the prime consideration would be that all these agencies would be reviewed by a committee of the Legislature itself.

Over the past few years there have been a number of attempts to get some control of agencies, to have some understanding of what they are for, to get them to clarify in their own minds and in the minds of the ministries they work with, precisely what it is they are supposed to do. There have been attempts to clarify their function and, in particular, their relationships with this Legislature.

Part of our deliberations has been to try to firm up that relationship. In our first report last year we spent considerable time and effort to try to go as much into the process as into the agencies that came before the committee for review.

In this year’s report we have attempted to define a smaller number of agencies more carefully, agencies which tended to be larger in scope, ones which seemed to have more staff, more budget, more responsibility, agencies which the people of Ontario might be more aware of than were some of the ones we looked at last year.

In our first year of operation we attempted to bring before the committee a cross-section of the agencies in this province. In the committee report the heavy emphasis was on clarifying the status of the agencies, in attempting to clarify the function and role they performed and in providing the House with an opportunity to read what some of these agencies were up to.

In this year’s hearings we brought before the committee some six substantive agencies. In this year’s report we were attempting a more detailed look. We are inhibited somewhat. No committee of this Legislature has the staff resources one might find at congressional hearings in the United States. No committee has the resources on a regular basis to do investigative work or to compile research such as we might find with our select committees.

We do have, though, the beginnings of a standing committee of the Legislature investigating what agencies do and asking them to come before the committee to participate in a dialogue about their roles. If we could generalize, I think we would say the committee has been impressed in its two years of review with the quality of the people who serve on those agencies. Each one seems to have many good intentions to provide some form of service to the people of Ontario.

On the negative side -- something we ought to think about a good deal -- we found that with almost all of them there was not exactly a crystal clear concept of why they were in business, or what they were to do. We attempted last year, and will again in this year’s report, to clarify that, to get it in writing, to provide that they table an annual report in the Legislature so the members and the public can be aware of them, to make them accountable for the things they do.

I don’t think many members will find the report of the committee to be extremely controversial in nature. I think members will find its tone to be supportive of the work that is done by agencies. I want to go through them briefly.

8:20 p.m.

One major agency brought before the committee was the Ontario Research Foundation. The committee was impressed with the quality of the people there.

The committee does make some recommendations in here which attempt to clarify the role. We were impressed that that kind of research was done here in this province. We are happy to see something which many of us in other roles, other than sitting on the committee, had talked about, namely, that to meet the need for research and development of new projects, of new products and of new product lines and of satisfying the needs of both the ministries involved here at Queen’s Park and the private sector at large in Ontario, there was at least in place an agency which could do precisely that kind of work. If one looks at the recommendations which the committee put forward in this year’s report, I think one will see they are positive in nature.

We were somewhat concerned that there was not a total, combined carefully thought- out use of the Ontario Research Foundation. We are making some recommendations here that there be a concerted effort by the government itself to make greater use of the services that are offered by the research foundation.

In the second recommendation we found what seems to be rather common, that a number of these agencies have been studied by other people and that certain recommendations are from time to time made about these agencies. If we find something that is consistent here, it is that somehow these recommendations get lost in the process. In part, perhaps that is because there has not been a great deal of activity on the part of legislative committees here at Queen’s Park to deal with reports once they are tabled somewhere.

One of the things we noticed initially in looking at agencies is that there has been a tendency to have examinations made, very often by very prominent people and sometimes at rather substantial expense to the public of Ontario. The report is then tabled and forgotten about. One of the things we are doing as we go through these agencies is picking those up.

In our second recommendation, we are reiterating a recommendation put forward a few years ago by the Lapp study, that an internal government of Ontario research foundation advisory committee be established and that the Deputy Minister of Industry and Tourism and the Deputy Provincial Secretary for Resources Development be appointed to the Ontario Research Foundation board.

The next recommendation is somewhat unusual. We found that this agency of the government had been paying retail sales tax since its inception. Upon further examination, we could find no reason why it was paying that. It turned out to be a substantial amount of money, I believe in the order of $200,000 annually in its budget. That is money which it could well have used to do research. We make the recommendation here that they cease payment of a tax that, in our view at any rate, and in the view of our staff, they do not have to pay.

There is a recommendation which members will find rather commonly repeated throughout the report, that the act itself be reviewed and clarified, because there are certain sections of the act which seemed to be no longer applicable to the foundation itself.

The other thing we found is common strains that go through the work of all of these agencies. We found that the research foundation, which essentially we thought, and after listening to its staff we had that thought clarified, was a body which was in business to make the industrial sector of Ontario work and to devise new products and product lines, did not in itself have a buy-Canadian policy. That, in part, relates to the kind of slippage that is involved because these agencies are not a direct part of the ministries of the government.

The government of Ontario can have a buy-Canadian policy, but its agencies do not necessarily have to have it. We thought it would be appropriate if the government of Ontario thought its own ministries ought to buy Canadian, then surely agencies that were created by the Legislature or by the ministry involved ought to follow along with similar recommendations and adopt similar policies.

The second agency we looked at was the Ontario Telephone Service Commission. I believe many members who come from urban areas may not be too familiar with this particular agency and the work that it does. Those of us who have parts of our ridings that are rural in nature will be aware that this particular agency has substantive control over the provision of telephone services throughout the province and makes recommendations about the kinds of services that are provided and the rates that are charged.

Once again, we are recommending that the Telephone Act itself be revised so as to permit the Ontario Telephone Service Commission to keep pace with changes in the telephone industry and to simplify the regulatory process. I think that is a simple admission on the part of the committee that we have an agency in place that in a technological sense has seen dramatic changes since its inception, but the legislation which governs that agency has not kept pace with it. We recommended that change should be brought into place. This government will now move, we would hope, to provide us with that.

The next agency exists in almost all parts of the province now. The members will be aware of the Ontario Housing Corporation and its functions. Like many of the other agencies, it has changed in nature since its inception and has a different role in different places. In many of the urban settings we will have a local housing authority which will, by and large, be carrying on roles previously performed by the OHC. Certain policy changes announced by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) have certainly had a dramatic effect on that changing of roles.

The first recommendation we made on this particular agency is that OHC’s policy delivery and administrative functions should be transferred to the Ministry of Housing and that the corporation’s board of directors be reconstituted as an advisory agency. In part we feel that is a reflection of actual practice now as opposed to what it might have been a few years ago.

To some people that might seem a rather dramatic shift, but in the testimony of the OHC before the committee they were well aware there had been a substantive change in the role they were expected to play by both the government and the people in Ontario and that this would not be a dramatic change a far as the OHC itself was concerned.

Another matter brought before the committee during our hearings was that of the OHC holding files on people, the kind of information in those flies, how it got there, and whether people had a right to see it. We did find that there were some discrepancies from one part of the province to the other. We felt it was only reasonable that applicants would have access to their own files and that there should be some formal and publicly stated procedure, outlining what information may be placed in an applicant’s file.

It was most dramatically pointed out to us that there was an inference of some kind of psychological assessment on an application someone had put in for an OHC unit. It was not clear exactly who did that kind of assessment nor whether it was a medical opinion or simply a notation. We did feel that whole field certainly ought to be clarified.

In a strange way the next agency, the Ontario Food Terminal Board, reflects the province because it is seen by many to be basically one which deals with the production of agricultural goods in Ontario. This agency is located here in Toronto and is actually an urban facility. Again it points out that there is a need for certain sections of the Ontario Food Terminal Act to be repealed because they are no longer applicable.

Practices concerning leases at the terminal itself seemed to cause some difficulties to people who were using the terminal and perhaps did not serve the best interests of the people of Ontario. Leases should be altered to eliminate the effective granting of perpetuity and to place restrictions on subleasing and the assignment of leases. Also a limit should be placed on the number of units any one wholesale interest can control. The committee also recommended that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) review the Ontario Stock Yards Board for problems which this committee has identified in the operation of the Ontario Food Terminal Board.

The final recommendation is that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food consider expanding the Ontario Food Terminal Board to other areas of the province, as other members have mentioned from time to time. This kind of proposal has been put before the House, for example, so that the northern part of the province would have a food terminal of its own.

The next agency was the Ontario Council of Health and once again we felt that this one dealt, for the most part, in an advisory capacity to the minister. We did recognize, in reviewing the material that has been generated by the Ontario Council of Health, that it serves a rather useful function in terms of gathering opinion, of doing research and of disseminating that information to health practitioners in the province and to the population as a whole.

The only flaw that we found in this entire operation is that once again the fine work which is done by the Ontario Council of Health and by a great many of our citizens in Ontario is not a matter which is put before the House. So we reiterate a request or a recommendation we made last year that they ought to table a report in here. This annual report to the Legislature would provide the mechanism whereby members of my committee and other committees may have access to that kind of information.

8:30 p.m.

The Ontario Municipal Board is an agency which has been reviewed almost to death inside and outside of this House. It has been covered in the report of a selected committee and in a rather substantive report referred to in our references as the white paper on the Planning Act. This is perhaps one of the prime examples of an agency in operation. It is one which has great power and influence and is used by the municipalities, those that are looking for zoning applications, those that have objections to official plans or those that are preparing official plans. It is one which has been studied a great deal and one about which very few of those recommendations have ever been implemented.

Again, the committee was caught by the fact that the government was in the process of having issued a white paper and several ministerial statements which clearly indicated some review of the process of the OMB, the way it does its business and perhaps even of the scope or the nature of those matters which come before the Ontario Municipal Board. All of that was now under review and some changes in a legislative sense or in government policy were imminent.

We did not feel we would make substantive recommendations in that regard, but we did note that in a number of parts of the province some of the functions, in particular that matter where the OMB itself provides an oversight of capital expenditures and decisions on municipal boundary adjustments, are essentially administrative matters which could be handled effectively by the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs: On occasion, though, issues raised in these matters are such that they are more appropriately decided by an independent tribunal like the OMB, rather than by the ministry.

I think we have pointed out once again that we have an agency which is rather a powerful one, one which is expensive to operate and one which is having some operational problems. Those problems have been examined. It appears that no resolution to the problems has been possible so far, but once again that appears imminent. Perhaps the government and members of this Legislature should be looking on a regular basis at the performance of the agency and whether our expectations as members of the Legislature or members of the governing party are realistically being met by the agency that is involved.

Those six agencies were brought before the committee in a relatively short time period. In part of our deliberations we simply had to recognize that with an entire staff of one, we were not going to get an Encyclopaedia Britannica on each particular agency. Whereas our reviews took the better part of a day and sometimes a bit longer for some of the agencies, that hardly constitutes a thorough review of everything that they have ever done.

One of the problems we are struggling with is whether a particularly accurate perception is presented before the committee. To date we have rather contended ourselves with the notion that we will call before us those people who are part of the functioning agency itself. We are rather grappling with the notion of how we could get before the committee, without really unleashing the floodgates, other perspectives on the work of an agency.

We included in this report a kind of box score of what occurred last year and what we found has occurred since we last reported to the House. I think the members of the committee are relatively pleased in general terms that a variety of people, including this legislative committee, the government’s own agencies review committee and other functionaries of the government, are attempting finally to get a grasp on how many agencies are in place, what they are doing and whether they are serving a useful purpose.

By and large we felt the recommendations which this House voted upon last year had at least been matters which were clearly put before the government and that the government had taken action on several of the matters we had asked it to look at. We include in here for the members’ information a kind of running total of the recommendations we made in our last report and that the House approved and their current status from statements by the ministers who are involved.

The problem is working its way through the system, as they say, and some changes have occurred, sometimes of a substantive nature and sometimes of a small and administrative nature. Not all of the recommendations which were voted on by the members on last year’s report have been totally implemented, but by and large we are relatively pleased that we see some progress.

I want to include in my remarks this evening a couple of references to the agencies review committee, which is the government’s own committee reviewing agencies. As I said in last year’s session, we attempt to work with this committee so the efforts of the legislative committee and of the government’s own in-House committee do not conflict and that they work towards the same objective of providing us with agencies at work in this province that in the first instance we know about, and in the second instance, that we have some control over, and I guess most importantly, that perform some useful function for the people of Ontario.

We are relatively pleased that if there is any conflict, the conflict is marginal between the work of the two committees. For example, the chairman of the government’s committee appeared before the procedural affairs committee within the last month. We attempted to once again clarify what the agencies were up to, and their status.

I think the problem is of such a size that it is going to take more than the work of one committee, with a staff of one, to resolve. If there is another agency carrying on this review function within the government, that can only serve to narrow down the problem. It appears to me that we are making some headway.

Unfortunately, the members will not get the opportunity of debating in this House the second report of the agencies review committee -- which is the government’s committee. I do find that report interesting. I do not totally agree with it but I do certainly agree with the thrust of it that there has been a major problem with agencies in Ontario and that with the work of the Management Board of Cabinet and the agencies review committee and the procedural affairs committee we might in the foreseeable future get a handle on the problem and begin to rectify the process.

We’re not really looking for conformity in the agencies, but we are looking to see there is a rationale being followed and that the members of this Legislature are aware of what is going on and can have some influence on what is going on and on the work they do.

In conclusion, the final part of the report deals with the review process. It goes back to a problem I spoke to initially. That is, a procedural affairs committee may not be the world's greatest vehicle for reviewing agencies. The facts in this House are that the procedural affairs committee is the only legislative review possible, and the House decided that.

We once again wrestled with that problem of should we set up an additional legislative committee. That was rejected more from a practical point of view than any other. We felt there were sufficient committees at work now and that unless one was prepared to accept a major reorganization of the committee structure here, we had the capacity to deal with the problem at hand.

We looked at the possibility of putting this review of agencies off all together or sending it off to the public accounts committee or several variations of that. We felt the prime thing to be considered is there ought to be a committee of the Legislature duly charged with reviewing agencies. Though we might see some conflict in a procedural committee doing this review, we felt it was possible to do so and we were prepared to continue with that particular function.

I want to say in conclusion that the exercise is an interesting one, but I do not feel by any stretch of the imagination that we have come to the absolute best way to deal with reviewing agencies, to provide a balanced argument on the good side. A legislative committee provides for an open and public review of agencies. I think that is essential. Secondly, it provides the members of the Legislature, at least in theory and I feel to some degree in practice, with a working knowledge of what these agencies are doing, how many there are and what kind of influence they have on the working of the government of Ontario.

I feel we have been relatively successful at that. We have not, as I said previously, arrived at a perfect formula as to whether or not we should go on for more than a day and a half or on into three mouths of investigative work into the work of any given agency. We are not about to recommend to this House that we spend $1 million investigating a $100,000 problem. We are relatively content that we are free to do a bit of experimentation, and we will again this year in our review of agencies, change our ways. We will attempt to provide some variation to see if there are other things we can do.

8:40 p.m.

The one outstanding problem to which I do not have a good answer, and to which I think the committee does not have a good answer, is this matter of getting other points of view.

We have in this province some rather unusual ways of going about our business. Sometimes we open up the floodgates and anybody, absolutely anybody who has got a beef about what is going on, whether that is a city council, or this Legislature, or Ontario Housing Corporation or anything else has the opportunity to say whatever they want to say. It does not, as many of us who have participated in that kind of a review know, necessarily mean that they change what they are doing at all, it simply means you get a chance to vent your anger.

We are groping for ways in which we can get other perspectives. In this year’s review of agencies, we are considering inviting on a selective basis those people who work with the agencies under review on a regular basis. We will do this mostly on the theory that if we have before us the people who are making the agency function, and also those people who have to deal with that agency, we will get a better perspective on whether the agency does good work or has a few flaws in it.

I think in last year’s debate a number of the members said it is not very realistic to call before a committee of the Legislature a group of people who are appointed, some of whom are civil servants many of whom are civil servants and expect them to come before a committee of the Legislature and say: “Here we are. We were appointed in 1939 but no one quite knows why. The act that provides for a review of this agency has not been reviewed in hundreds of years. No one knows who we are. No one knows what we do. We are not too sure ourselves what we do.” That is the nub of the problem.

We are not very happy with the notion that a review of these agencies will be totally done behind closed doors. We are concerned that the members of the Legislature have, at least, the opportunity to be aware of what is going on, to participate in the process and to make some changes.

I urge the members of the House to support this report, but not on the basis that it is the definitive word. If you want the definitive word, it will probably cost you an extra $4.5 million and we will manage to abscond with 50 or 60 extremely talented researchers. We feel we have made a beginning and that we are fulfilling the mandate which was given to the committee by the House from its inception. We feel the report, though not perfect in nature, is a reasonable and rational attempt to look at agencies, their functions, and their relationships to this Legislature and to the various ministries under which they operate. I guess, ultimately the most important thing is whether or not they serve a useful function to anybody anywhere.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in the discussion on the second report on agencies, boards and commissions prepared by the standing committee on procedural affairs of this House.

As members of this House are aware, the government has taken a number of significant and positive steps since the first report of the procedural affairs committee was published in November 1978. The intent of each of the 11 general recommendations of the first report was dealt with in whole or in part by this government and appropriate implementation measures have been taken. It was indeed pleasing to note that the committee’s second report expressed some satisfaction with those measures.

However, the government has gone beyond the 11 general recommendations of the procedural affairs committee. A month ago, in my capacity as chairman, I tabled the second report of the agencies review committee in order to make it available to the House. Copies were made available to all members so it was brought before a public forum. That report outlined an integrated formal process for the establishment of administration and the review of agencies.

One particular element of the process is, of course, the introduction of sunset review for all of the province’s advisory agencies. Other important measures included guidelines for agency legislation, term appointments for members and conflict of interest guidelines for government appointees.

As I indicated in my statement to the House on March 25, 1980, the new measures, coupled with existing policies, demonstrate the government’s resolve to ensure that agencies are used in the most effective and efficient manner possible.

I also indicated at that time in my statement that the necessary policies, procedures and guidelines to implement the initiatives with respect to the establishment of agencies, the administration of agencies and the renewal of agencies were being developed in co-ordination with the Management Board of Cabinet also with the agencies review committee. I indicated they would be published in the government’s manual of administration within the next few weeks.

I had the honour to attend before the standing committee on procedural affairs on Thursday, April 3, of this year to discuss with the committee the second report of the agencies review committee. At that time it was indicated those guidelines, except for the sunset guidelines, would be available before the end of April. I may be 24 hours out, but I would still like to have those guidelines because of that promise I made to the committee.

The bulk of the second report of the procedural affairs committee deals specifically with the six agencies and the ministers responsible for those agencies will be responding, those who are here, as necessary to the recommendations. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has expressed his apologies to the members of the procedural affairs committee and to the House for not being present here this evening, but this morning his response to the report was delivered to my office. I would like to read it into the record in its entirety:

“Your letter of February 7 refers to the review of the Ontario Municipal Board by the standing procedural affairs committee in its second report on agencies, boards and commissions.

“When referring to its review of the operations of the Ontario Municipal Board, the committee expressed the twin concern that while the board is overburdened with unnecessary appeals, the right of appeal is of fundamental importance and must be treated with extreme care. These twin concerns have been fundamental to the ongoing deliberations that have been taking place both at the board and in the ministry in an attempt to resolve the time factor on appeals.

“Frivolous appeals are a real concern in this regard, but it is imperative that the board retain the widest latitude of what it may or may not hear and not be precluded by statute in determining on an individual basis what is frivolous and what is not. This determination in many instances is one of preconception and a determination in some instances can only be made after a hearing has commenced.

“The pros and cons of various suggested solutions to the aspect of the overall time factor, such as instituting a leave-to-appeal system, are presently, as I have stated, under examination.

“Another avenue being actively considered is that of attempting to further streamline the system, a measure that is complicated because, to be effective, it must involve ether ministries and of course all the municipalities. It will take time fur the effects of these measures to become apparent.

“The effects of decreasing the responsibilities of the board are also under examination. For example, what would be the end results on the board’s work load if its responsibilities under the Assessment Act were transferred to another tribunal? Finally, none of us actually knows the effects the new Planning Act will have upon the work load of the board. It might well be that the new act will have a positive effect on decreasing the length of time the Ontario Municipal Board proceedings consumed.”

It is signed on behalf of the Attorney General by his deputy minister.

There were a couple of other points raised by the previous speakers that I would like to address myself to. To bring the members up to date, the issue of a northern Ontario food terminal has been held up by a committee of citizens from northern Ontario who were appointed last fall from the Cochrane area, the Tri-town area, Timmins, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Kenora, Sault St. Marie and a number of other communities. They have been given money by the Ministry of Northern Affairs to hire consultants with respect to feasibility and management studies which have been deemed to be prerequisite in making a decision over this matter.

In addition there has been a management and accounting study under the auspices of the Agrimat program of the federal government in Prince Edward county for the establishment of a food terminal in that area, and there has been a study in the Sudbury basin area done by the Agricultural Economics Research Council of Canada, if I have the name correctly. I think that is the correct name. So there has been some progress in that area.

The other point that was raised by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) related to access to the files of the Ontario Housing Corporation by individual applicants for accommodation. That issue falls within the terms of reference of the Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy headed by Dr. Carlton Williams. It is of concern to the government. We believe it is one of the issues that commission will be addressing in its report which we expect this spring.

The government will be responding to those issues when the report is issued and following the issuance of that report. I would hope by the time the next session rolls around we would have before the House some indication of government response to the kinds of problems that the honourable member is raising, because they involve not only the Ontario Housing Corporation but many other agencies of the government and many other departments and ministries of the government.

As I mentioned earlier, I did appear before the standing committee on April 3. I do think there is a good degree of mutual understanding of the functions that are being performed by the agencies review committee and a realization by the members of the standing committee on procedural affairs of the willingness of the agencies review committee and the government to make public not only the reports of the agencies review committee but the administrative guidelines for the establishment, the administration and the determination of these agencies. These details will be filed with the House, with the criteria for the sunset review of advisory boards as well as specific details on individual reviews of individual agencies as they take place.

I would like to emphasize that we do not consider this review process to be a paper exercise. We will try to restrict the volumes of paper that might be generated by this review process. Bear in mind that our predisposition is towards the termination of some agencies which no longer perform a useful function.

I would conclude by saying that we do agree with the recommendation contained on page 48 of the second report, that the standing committee on procedural affairs continue to review agencies, boards and commissions from time to time. As I expressed on April 3 to the standing committee on procedural affairs, I think it is appropriate for a committee of the Legislature to perform a functional review of selected operational and regulatory agencies as it sees fit, from time to time.

I am hopeful the kind of co-operation that the member for Oshawa has alluded to and his satisfaction in general with the response of the government to their suggestions will continue, and that together we can make a real effort at the needed examination of the entire structure and function of agencies, boards and commissions of the government of Ontario.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues who are here tonight will reply in detail to some of the other specific matters raised in the second report.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to participate in the discussion this evening concerning the second report tabled by the committee on procedural affairs concerning the boards, agencies and commissions that we had called before our committee this past year.

I wish first of all to state that the process of calling these boards, agencies and commissions before the committee is one process I as a member of this House certainly am glad to participate in, to find out in more detail and depth exactly what some of these commissions are all about, how much money they spend, what they do, and how they have been carrying out their functions of responsibility over these past few years.

I can honestly say that the standing committee on procedural affairs of this House probably works as well as or better than any other committee. We do not seem to have the high political tone that permeates the other committees and the members of the committee seem to work very well. I think the report substantiates that.

I know the government has given the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Pope) the responsibility to investigate boards, agencies and commissions on his own and to report to his government as to which agencies we should keep, which we should ask be disbanded and which others should possibly have some changes.

I want to say to the Minister without Portfolio and to the government that although I have a lot of respect for the minister and although I am sure he would do an adequate job -- I have no qualms about that -- I do not think he should be doing the job. I think the procedural affairs committee should be doing that job. The all-party committee of the Legislature should have the responsibility of reviewing these agencies, boards and commissions.

Over the past two years, and with the second report, it has now been proved that we are the proper committee to have this done. We are capable of doing it. We have adequate staff. We have members who are interested and who are capable of putting out reports which are nonpolitical, impartial and to the benefit of the people of Ontario. I wonder if the minister, as he further deliberates these new responsibilities given him by the government, would consider possibly turning those responsibilities over to this committee. We are the proper body to investigate this, and we are the only body which can send reports to the Legislature for full debate.

If the Minister without Portfolio, the member for Cochrane South, does an extensive review of all the agencies, boards and commissions, we are not sure if all the information will be tabled in the House. We would not be sure he had adequate staff to review all these agencies. We would not be sure who he called upon for assistance so he could write a report or have these agencies questioned. When it is done by the procedural affairs committee, those aspects of my concerns and the concerns of other members on this side of the House can be dealt with properly.

The member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) gave a good recap of what the committee did for this particular report. We called before us the Ontario Research Foundation, the Ontario Municipal Board, the Ontario Council of Health, the Ontario Food Terminal, the Ontario Housing Corporation and the Ontario Telephone Service Commission. We did not have as much time to spend with them as we would have liked but I believe the members of the committee got a good idea of what these commissions were doing and how they were carrying out their responsibilities.

As an individual member of the committee, I am not sure if the Ontario Telephone Service Commission is any longer relevant. I notice, with joy, that the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) is here this evening. I am told he is going to participate in this debate. I would like to know his views on the Ontario Telephone Service Commission, as it comes within the jurisdiction of his ministry. The work that commission does could probably be better done within the ministry itself.

9 p.m.

I wasn’t impressed with the presentation made to the committee or with the action that commission took on many complaints that were brought to its attention. I know the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) has on many occasions brought complaints to the awareness of the commission. The action we received from the commission, in my view and in the view of the member for Wentworth North, has been less than adequate. I cannot understand why an official within the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, with proper staff, cannot look after the responsibilities this commission looks after at the present time.

The member for Essex North pointed out very well that, probably 20 years ago or better, this commission did need to exist because of the many different telephone companies we had in Toronto. There was a need for this type of commission to oversee these different telephone companies and to ensure to the best of its ability that the people of Ontario were being serviced properly. But now, with the gigantic monopoly that Bell Canada has in Ontario, I think the purpose the Ontario Telephone Service Commission once served is not as great as it used to be. We would be better served if the Minister of Transportation and Communications would see fit to take this responsibility within his own ministry.

I would also like to take a moment to make some comments concerning the Ontario Research Foundation. This, to me, is a jewel in the Ontario government. I have had personal experience with the ORF stemming directly from my involvement as a member of the procedural affairs committee. When the ORF came before the procedural affairs committee, I questioned them as to their involvement over the Bruce AgriPark, where the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Energy wish to create a new greenhouse industry in the Bruce Peninsula using waste hot water from the Bruce nuclear plant. I asked them if they were involved in that work because I felt that, as an independent foundation, they should not have been involved.

They informed me they were not, but they were interested in the problems of the greenhouse growers. They would be willing to take any work that was sent to them and they would be willing to make this information available to the greenhouse growers after they were finished. It was only through their co-operation, I want to say in this House -- not because of any co-operation that we got from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food or the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) or that we got from the Ministry of Energy or the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) -- that we were able to get a research feasibility study done on greenhouses in Essex county.

We were able to get that done because the ORF, along with the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, saw a void, and they were willing to fill that void as long as someone was there to ask them to do the job. I think the ORF should be congratulated. As a matter of fact, they also informed me that over the past year -- I see the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) coming into the House.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I always punch in for overtime.

Mr. Mancini: I was just mentioning the $50,000 that we received from his ministry although he did not have anything to do with it. It was through the very able Assistant Deputy Minister of Industry and Tourism, Duncan Allan, through his aggressiveness and foresight, that we were able to get this money. It was not because of the minister, because I am sure he is not the least bit interested in greenhouses.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Who does the member think okayed it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I am responsible for the mistakes there, my officials are responsible for the successes.

Mr. Mancini: I believe I corrected the minister’s press release.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member spent more time on the press release than on the project.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, the minister said I spent more time issuing a press release than on the project. If the minister had attended the meeting with me, with Duncan Allan, and with other representatives from the Greenhouse Vegetable Producers’ Marketing Board, he would know I spent the whole afternoon in that meeting. The minister might want to know I went to London, Ontario, at my own expense. I do not have a minister’s chauffeured limousine to take me to London, charged to the people of Ontario, and I did not have funds available to me so I could charge the room that I had to use at the Holiday Inn in London to the Ontario government. I paid for those expenses out of my own pocket and I spent the time. So before the minister says I didn’t spend any time on the project, he should get his information straight.

The government has a fleet of limousines to take its members wherever they want to go -- to fancy restaurants and lounges and all over this beautiful city of Toronto.

But anyway we are dealing with the Ontario Research Foundation at the present time and I don’t want to get into a long discussion of whether the Minister of Industry and Tourism deserves a chauffeured limousine or not. I think we should stick with this report.

I just want to emphasize the point that we have the Ontario Research Foundation. It is there to be used by the citizens of Ontario, although the support given to this foundation has been less than adequate since 1975 due to this government’s freezing of the funds that it appropriates for the foundation.

But here is a typical example that I want to point out to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Pope). Here is a typical example of why these agencies, boards and commissions should go before an all-party committee of the House. I, as the member for Essex South, have a problem in my own riding which I could not get appropriate ministries to act upon. Therefore, being a member of this committee and having the right as part of the committee to call this agency before us, we were able to use them, we were able to find out they would assist us in our problem -- that they did have the resources, that they were interested.

As long as the Minister without Portfolio and some members of his executive staff are the only ones who can meet with these commissions, that is one less opportunity the members of the House and the citizens of Ontario have to make an appeal to different commissions and agencies which are set up to solve some of their problems and some of their needs.

The committee is making plans now to call more agencies, boards and commissions before it, I hope some time this summer. I also hope we can go into more detail than we have in the past two years and we can bring more information to light as to what they do. I strongly urge the government to give the procedural affairs committee the total responsibility for reviewing these agencies. We can do the job; we have demonstrated that an all-party committee can do the job, that we can look at these agencies and that we can report to the House properly.

I would just like to close by making that final statement that the procedural affairs committee has done a good job and we can handle the rest of the responsibility if it was only given to us.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, as a couple of ether members of the committee have mentioned, I was a new member on the committee last year so I was not involved in the review that was done the first year the procedural affairs committee reviewed agencies. However, I found the process of that review, which is laid out in our second report, to be a particularly useful review, I think for this Legislature, for the people of this province and even more important probably for myself as a member of this House.

I think the report lays it out fairly well in terms of what has been said about each of the agencies, boards and commissions that we reviewed, but I would like to take a moment to try to put some of that together in my own words in the way that I viewed the kinds of things we found.

9:10 p.m.

One of the things that became very apparent to me very quickly, which I think was substantiated right through the process of the review, was that although most of the agencies, boards and commissions we reviewed were very clear in their own minds about what they felt their mandate was and what they wanted to accomplish, in almost every instance there was a big discrepancy between those feelings and what the original mandates of those agencies, boards and commissions were, either in legislation in one case we had or by memorandum of agreement in a number of other situations.

There were very big differences between the intent of the original legislation which set up the agency, board or commission and what we found they were doing. That is not to say that what we found they were doing was not useful or beneficial to this province. What it reflects is the problem that has been expressed a number of times in this House, which I wasn’t fully aware of myself, not having been here when the whole process started, of how many agencies, boards and commissions there are, what they are doing and whether they are really useful.

It speaks directly to the point that the government in most cases is no longer sure of what some of the biggest agencies with the largest public profiles are doing on the whole. The ministries probably have some idea of some of the things done by the Ontario Municipal Board or the Ontario Housing Corporation or the Ontario Research Foundation or any of the other agencies, boards and commissions we studied. But in at least three of the agencies, boards and commissions we studied, the very first recommendation we made was that the act that governs the agency be changed and updated to reflect the changes that have occurred since its creation in order to reflect what it is doing at present, which is substantially different from the legislation governing it.

That speaks fairly clearly to the need for the process that the procedural affairs committee has been involved in. It speaks fairly clearly to the need for some restraint on the part of the government in terms of the creation of more of these kinds of things before it knows what it already has on the books and which existing agencies may be able to take up some of the new things the government feels have to be done or looked it.

Mr. Bradley: Did I hear a New Democrat use the word “restraint”?

Mr. Charlton: They call it a muzzle over there.

One of the things, for example, about the Ontario Research Foundation that we found fairly disturbing, although we were extremely pleased with the function of the research foundation -- and I would have to agree with the member for Essex South on that point -- was that one of the original intents of the Ontario Research Foundation was to perform a research function for this government. As it turns out, this government happens to be the smallest user of the Ontario Research Foundation.

That disturbed the members of the committee, not because we found great gobs of duplication, though we did find some, but because the duplication one finds when looking at any year becomes a lot of duplication over the long run if the ministries that were intended to make use of this agency when it was originally set up to serve the ministries, to serve the government and to serve the people of Ontario are spending money elsewhere, though perhaps not even intentionally.

I would think, from what we learned for the most part, the duplication we found in terms of research and research facilities was based on ignorance. It was ignorance on the part of the government, the ministries and the people in the ministries charged with having this research accomplished of the fact that they had some place to go that had the facilities and the expertise. Because they did not understand and realize it, it was not done. This is one of the major reasons why this kind of review of agencies, boards and commissions has to go on.

The committee made a number of other recommendations on the Ontario Research Foundation, which others have already gone over -- for example, the buy-Canadian policy which would probably be a very logical thing to apply to all agencies, boards and commissions in the particular times we are in. However, the major one for me was the fact that the ORF was set up to serve the government, this House and the people of Ontario, and has not been effectively used in that way.

In a different vein, but to the same bottom line, with regard to the Ontario Telephone Service Commission, the main recommendation we made on that commission was that its act be revised to permit the commission to keep pace with the changes in the telephone industry. We found the commission was operating under a piece of legislation so outdated that if they had stuck to the letter of the legislation the independent telephone companies in this province would have been selling crank phones to their subscribers. In some instances, they may have been.

A number of people have already been over the committee’s recommendations on the Ontario Housing Corporation. Of the issues on the OHC, the one that disturbed me most is the recommendation on the right of applicants to OHC or to one of OHC’s operating housing authorities to see their files, to know what is in their files and to understand the process by which they are evaluated when they make application, and by which things go on once they become tenants of OHC.

Most of the people out there in the province who are now tenants of OHC, who have applied to OHC and never become tenants, or who may in the future at some point, due to some economic hardship or change in their circumstances, have to become applicants to OHC do not understand, for example, the system by which OHC specifically here in Metro, and OHC’s operating housing authorities out there in most of the rest of the province, rate an applicant when he or she applies for accommodation with OHC.

They do not understand the point-rating process used for applicants. They have no right to dispute the rating they are given after an interview. They have no right to show that rating may be wrong because they do not necessarily understand what the questions they are asked mean when they are interviewed. I have seen a number of those rating forms used, for example, by the Hamilton-Wentworth housing authority, and the way in which the questions are asked by the people who do the interviews can very easily mislead or misinform the applicants as to what the housing authority is actually trying to glean from them.

9:20 p.m.

I think it is important in terms of things that have already been said tonight in relation to freedom of information and in relation to a person’s right to know what is being said about him or her. We are not suggesting files should not remain confidential in terms of the rest of the world, but it is their right to see their own files.

I think it is extremely important, not only with Ontario Housing Corporation, but probably with a lot of other agencies, boards and commissions and even some ministries, that we soon establish the right of access by individuals to information on themselves and on the way in which that information was determined. We have talked a lot in this House about the Workmen’s Compensation Board, Ontario. I have spent a lot of time in my constituency office and in the Hamilton-Wentworth housing authority offices dealing with complaints from constituents who feel they were unfairly turned down for accommodation, or unfairly asked to leave accommodation, or whatever the case happened to be. They were comparing themselves with someone they knew who had got accommodation. They could not understand why the housing authority had chosen another person as opposed to them. They could not tell, in some cases even having talked to that person, what the basic differences were between their applications and the other person’s application.

It always will be important for the people in this province, who put us here, who created the democratic society and process in which we operate and in which these agencies, boards, commissions and ministries are set up, to know and understand what is going on. It is important they know what this government is all about and they understand that, in relation to others, they are being treated fairly. It does not seem to me that the secrecy that goes on in relation to these files makes that clear to them.

I will be brief in wrapping up. The bottom line is that this process of reviewing the agencies is important. We have learned things that not only opposition members did not know, but members of the government did not know. We have learned that ministers did not know what agencies structured under their own ministries were doing. It is important we learn what we have, not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of what functions there are, how useful they are, whether some functions can be combined, whether some new functions that come out of government policy can be fitted into existing agencies, boards and commissions. None of those things can happen without the review we have been involved in and without the ongoing review that has to happen in this province.

Mr. Bradley: They were working on the Skyway again today.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m glad. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a few moments on the recommendations of the committee regarding the Ontario Telephone Service Commission. I believe the recommendations are accurate, positive and realistic.

The report recognizes that since the last revisions of the Telephone Act in 1954, the independent industry has changed significantly in terms of the number of companies operating in the province, the technology employed and the nature of the business. Although the industry has changed significantly, the committee recognizes that the independent telephone companies are natural monopolies providing essential services. This being the case, the committee states that there is a continuing need for regulations. This is a realistic assessment and frankly the only conclusion I believe the committee could have reached.

The committee notes that the last time the Ontario Telephone Act was revised was in 1954. In view of the major changes that have taken place, the committee recommends that the act be brought into line with these changes. This is a recommendation that I not only agree with but I am already acting on at the present time. In fact, well over a year ago my ministry began an extensive review of the state of the industry, of the government policy with respect to the industry and of the regulatory process and the existing legislation. I made public the first phase of this review just a couple of weeks ago on April 9, at the annual convention of the Ontario Telephone Association in Peterborough.

This first-phase report outlines the policy issues facing the industry and the government and requests industry and consumer input. On the basis of this input, and our ongoing analysis, we will set out a new policy framework for the sector and will bring forward revised legislation. We are well on the way towards achieving this recommendation of the committee.

In this revision of the act, the committee expresses a view that considerable scope exists for improvement and simplification of the regulatory process without adversely affecting the commission’s mandate of ensuring that the independent telephone companies provide adequate economical service to the public. There are many provisions of the act which have become outdated or unnecessary. In short, I agree with the committee’s observation and have built this trust into our review.

At the same time I want to emphasize the importance of ensuring that efforts to improve the regulatory process not reduce the capabilities of the commission below the level necessary for effective control over rates and the quality of service provided to the public.

The committee raises specific questions about the regulation-making power granted to the commission by the current act. In our review we will be looking at this power to determine the degree to which it may be more precisely defined and put within a framework providing for greater policy guidance by elected officials.

In conclusion, I would like to indicate my general agreement with the thrust of the report and its recommendations. As I have noted, we are acting on the recommendations in the context of our policy review at this time.

Mr. M. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Most of what has been said regarding the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs has already pretty well summed up what this report discusses. There are two areas I would like to touch on briefly.

It was interesting during the course of the hearings before the committee, particularly with the Ontario Research Foundation -- and I believe the chairman of the committee pointed this out when he was speaking to the assembly -- that it would appear that the Ontario Research Foundation is operating in a manner that one could actually say is contrary to the act under which it was developed.

The Research Foundation Act, when it was first established in 1944, set out as the objectives of the Ontario Research Foundation the following: “(a) the conservation, development and utilization of the natural resources of the province; (b) the development and utilization of the byproducts of any processes involving the treating or using of the mineral, timber or ether resources of the province; (c) the development and improvement of methods in the agricultural industry and the betterment, welfare and progress of farm life; (d) the mitigation and abolition of disease in animal or vegetable life and the control and destruction of insects or parasitic pests, and (e) the improvement and development of industrial materials, products and techniques.”

9:30 p.m.

So the basic thrust at the time the research foundation was established was primarily in the natural resources field and in the development of the natural resources area and the byproducts that may come from there and the agricultural industry.

What we have today, however, is the same research foundation operating under the very same act dating back to 1944. It now lists its objectives -- in one of its own papers called The Ontario Research Foundation, What It Is, Role Markets Future 1979 -- as: “(1) performing scientific and engineering research of an applied nature in fields judged most likely to lead to the economic and social development of the province; (2) performing applied research, development and other scientific, engineering or technological services for industry and government, under contract or for fees; (3) assessing and bringing to the attention of the industry and government new scientific and technological concepts that have potential economic or social benefit for the province.”

So over the years the objective of the research foundation has developed into something other than what the act itself calls for. Members will note in the report that we are suggesting, as a committee, that the act relating to the research foundation be revised so that it lays out more specifically the role of the research foundation as it is today and not what it was back in 1944 when it was first established.

In our discussions with the people from the research foundation, they were of the opinion that should someone want to make an issue of the manner in which they are operating these days, we could probably take them to court for not living up to their mandate in the act. It’s not that anyone would do that, but we feel that in order for the people of this province and in order for the research foundation to act in a manner that is within the realm of the act, the act should be revised in that direction.

I would also like to speak just briefly on the Ontario Food Terminal, but before doing that, I would like to add to some of the comments that were made by the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini). I have had the opportunity of sitting on the procedural affairs committee both during the initial review that took place and during this past review of agencies, boards and commissions.

I think the member for Essex South pointed out that it is a committee made up of members from all parties -- either by design or by accident; I am not sure which. The people sitting on that committee, particularly in dealings with the agencies, boards and commissions review, the members from all sides of the House, treat that in a very serious manner. We are concerned as to how these agencies, boards and commissions are operating, but we do not get into the political conflict that one might suggest could develop.

We are interested in establishing exactly what it is that the boards and commissions are doing, what their role is within the Legislature, within the operations of the province, and whether or not they are carrying out their role in a manner that perhaps is beneficial to everyone concerned, and perhaps on occasion we are offering them some advice where we see or we feel that they could do a better job. I think as a result of that, the manner in which that committee functions during the hearings on agencies, boards and commissions does bring out, as I believe the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) just said, the type of recommendations that are sound recommendations, that do make sense and, as the 1978 report indicated, much of which the government is able to accept and implement. I think that is a result of the makeup of that committee.

It has been a pleasure for me to have been there with the people who sit on that committee during the course of these hearings. I know I have learned a great deal out of them, and I am sure that all members of the committee have, as to what the roles of the agencies, boards and commissions are.

Another area where we had some concern with was the Ontario Food Terminal Board. We feel there is some need for revision or deletion of certain sections of the Ontario Food Terminal Act; for example, section 12 should be repealed. What bothered some of us on that committee was the manner in which the food terminal itself operates, the manner in which they rent out the stalls in the food terminal. There are some 60 units or stalls, consisting of loading platforms, selling areas, basements, and so on. The committee was surprised to learn that these stalls are leased almost in perpetuity for somewhere between $250 to $350 a month. They are all well-occupied. There is no question about that. Occupancy is, and has been for quite some time, running at 100 per cent. The thing that bothered us was that, although there are 28 lessees for these 60 stalls, almost half of them are leased by three companies. We looked upon the purpose of the food terminal as being to provide an area where people were able to sell their produce and that would give them the opportunity of doing so in an organized and much better manner. When we found almost half the stalls were leased by three companies, we looked upon that as perhaps giving some of the larger operators a greater advantage over some of the other people who may be interested in getting units at the food terminal.

We have taken a look at some of the recommendations as to how that could be accomplished and the leases altered to eliminate the effective granting of perpetuity and to place restrictions on subleasing and the assignment of leases. I, and I am sure the other members of the committee, feel that is a good recommendation, and that the food terminal does serve a very useful purpose. We feel, however, that because half the stalls are taken up by three companies, it does restrict others from having the opportunity to sell out of that terminal. The transfer of leases and so on should be looked at. Also, we do not believe that once someone has a stall at the food terminal, it should be his or hers forever. If someone else wants to move in there, we feel there should be a means whereby he can do that. We certainly hope the government will take a look at some of the recommendations we have put down.

Some people probably wonder why it is the role of the standing committee on procedural affairs to review the agencies, boards and commissions. I, unlike the member for Essex Sooth (Mr. Mancini), have no disagreement with the Minister without Portfolio, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), in the role that he is carrying out. I think the more we can do this, the better off we will be as the Legislature of Ontario. There is no question that we do have to have agencies, boards and commissions. We do, on occasion, have to question whether some of those now in existence should perhaps not have been put directly in the hands of, or taken over completely, by the ministry. Maybe their use is no longer valid. The ministry itself could probably carry out some of the commitments assigned to them. But there are so many of them within the province that I do not believe the procedural affairs committee itself could probably review the entire number of them. Even with those we are doing, we would like to have more time to get a fully knowledgeable understanding of what the commissions and boards are. But we have to take them as we can get them and more or less rush them through and, based on the knowledge we are able to extract from the persons who are representing them, try to come up with a committee report.

9:40 p.m.

I know the Minister without Portfolio is doing a similar kind of work. It may very well be that some people may look upon that as being a government committee that may have a tendency to cover up certain things it may find. I do not think that is the case. I am quite sure the intent and purpose of the committee set up by the government and headed up by the member for Cochrane South are basically the same as, or similar to, those of the procedural affairs committee.

We have been able to exchange information on certain occasions. By carrying out the review in that manner, I think we will eventually get some kind of a handle on some of these agencies, boards and commissions and give both ourselves and the people of this province a better understanding of the purpose they serve in the governing of this province.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to participate in this debate this evening, because it flows from an important and interesting review of the Ontario Research Foundation. As some of the members have mentioned earlier this evening, one of the benefits of having the standing committee on procedural affairs look into the agencies, boards and commissions is that it gives some of the members of the House, as well as their constituents, an opportunity to learn a little bit more about the day-to-day operations of some of the quite good and important ABCs that are in business.

I must say the Ontario Research Foundation surprised me a bit after I took over these responsibilities, because it was truly, and I suppose to an extent it still is today, a largely underestimated institution which is performing very good and important works for the people of the province. One of the challenges we have been trying to mount is getting it better known to members of the public.

I think that is important from two standpoints: first, from the standpoint of letting potential clients out there know of the ORF’s existence and, second, from the standpoint of building a base of support amongst the public at large for the kinds of work the Ontario Research Foundation is doing.

I know members, both on the committee and here this evening, have reflected on the degree of government support for the ORF. I want to assure the members of the committee and the members of the House that we too are concerned. One of the first things we did when we reviewed our fiscal plans for 1979-80 was to increase our grant to the ORF. In 1978-79, it was $3,069,000. We increased that by $400,000 for 1979-80; so that it is now $3,469,000. I think that indicates a continuing awareness by our ministry of the importance of the works of the ORF.

I should also indicate to the House at this time that in accordance with some comments made in the throne speech we are looking at substantially more assistance to the ORF to make sure its facilities continue to be updated and are large enough to accommodate its ever-growing clientele.

When one looks at the profile of the clientele of the Ontario Research Foundation, it is interesting to note that in almost any calendar year the ORF serves about 1,500 or more Canadian industrial firms, which is a fair number of firms considering the size of the institution. Approximately 30 per cent of the manufacturing firms in this province with more than 100 employees had some interface with the ORF in 1978. That is a pretty fair cross-section and a pretty fair penetration in terms of the numbers of firms that are having access to ORF.

As the world changes, however, we too are trying to work more closely with the ORF to make sure it is keeping up with things such as computer applications, in both hardware and software, changes in terms of how to handle the environment and the various mechanisms and challenges we face in all the matters we hear discussed in this House day after day, and in the energy field as well, where the Ontario Research Foundation is now more active than ever before as a result of very many projects being brought to it and in some cases instigated by ORF in that area.

In the energy area, for example, I was thinking of work that has just been completed or is still going on at ORF in areas such as conservation, storage systems, solar collectors technology, energy-efficient building materials, systems and controls, fuel replacement and substitutions such as methanol and ethanol in vehicle fuels -- just to name a few. All those works are going on at the present time at ORF, or are just concluded.

On a day-to-day basis, but not in a high-profile way, we do see instances in which the day-to-day contracts being carried out by ORF are applied in the small- and medium-sized manufacturing firms throughout this province. We are trying to work to get ORF more profile so that more of its potential clients will access the ORF.

It is important to note that one of the new programs announced by us a couple of weeks ago in the area of small business was one designed specifically to bring the small businesses of this province in more day-today contact with the Ontario Research Foundation. To this end, as members will recall, we as a ministry are prepared for the first time to pay 90 per cent of the cost of research done at ORF, or other research institutions in this province, for small businesses that need some particular work done by that institution. As well, our field staff is for the first time actively out in the field suggesting to firms that those firms that should have a potential new product or an application of an existing product should take advantage of the new program we have developed and get in to see our people at ORF.

One of the reasons that sort of development has occurred is that our ministry has responded to the Lapp report, which is referred to in the report of the procedural affairs committee. That recommendation in the Lapp report, reflected in the report of the committee, suggested that the foundation -- and I will quote directly from the report of the committee -- “be brought more closely into contact with the government, namely, the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and the Policy Secretariat for Resources Development.”

By way of doing that, the president of the Ontario Research Foundation, Bill Stadelman, who I think appeared before the committee, now is a full-time member of the ministry’s policy committee. Our policy committee meets every Monday morning for several hours. That’s the committee in which all the major policy decisions by our ministry are made. Having ORF there on a day-to-day basis puts them in a position to know what the ministry’s priorities are in terms of industrial development and puts us in a position to have access to information they are learning on a day-to-day basis. All in all, that has been an important new interface between our ministry and ORF on a day-to-day basis.

An example of that is that our field staff has had a chance, for the first time, to spend some time with some of the people at ORF, and Bill Stadelman in particular, and has begun for the first time to have an appreciation of what goes on behind the four walls of that fine institution.

As of today, a fair number of our field staff, working with small business throughout the province on a day-to-day basis, have spent time at ORF and have a good feel for the abilities and strengths of that institution, and therefore are able to bring those strengths to their clientele throughout the province.

Again, I remind members of the House that the program we developed, where we will pay 90 per cent of the cost of accessing the ORF, will be an important supplement to the activities we now have instituted.

In the report of the committee it is also pointed out that an unfreezing of the performance grant be undertaken by our ministry. As I said earlier, last year we increased the grant by $400,000. This year we are looking at perhaps an even larger increase, provided the current discussions going on between the government and ORF can satisfy us that the current demand requires that sort of further infusion of capital.

9:50 p.m.

We are not at all shy about putting more money into ORF. In fact, if we had the opportunity there and saw good potential for further research activities, and ORF could present that case, and had presented that case to us, then we would make those moneys available. To date, the Ontario Research Foundation is running at pretty close to full capacity. It is spending a lot of its time working with our field staff to increase its clientele. I think the results, although they are not terribly visible to the public as being attributable to ORF, are seen on a day-to-day basis by the small- and medium-sized businesses throughout the province.

I want to conclude by saying I share the concern, in a sense, of some of the members who spoke earlier that they only developed an understanding of the ORF and its activities because of the existence of that committee. I, for one, was in exactly the same position. Had I not held the responsibilities I currently hold, then I, too, would not have been in the position to be even decently aware of the activities of the ORF.

When I think of the number of business people with whom the average member of this assembly comes in contact on a day-today basis, I get quite concerned. If we all had a full understanding of what goes on at the ORF, then we could be adjutants, as it were, to the efforts of ORF and my own field staff in letting the world know that there is a tremendous research capability in this province specifically available to our manufacturers throughout the province. That concern is one that I continue to have. I would appreciate the input of the members, both those who sat on the committee and those who have not had the opportunity to sit on the committee. I would appreciate the input from them with regard to how we might continue to get the message out there.

I have looked at some opportunities whereby, by way of some very visible examples of the successes of ORF, we might bring to the attention of the public some of the new designs, new inventions and new applications that ORF has succeeded in developing. There is one in particular in the field of waste disposal that we may be able to put together in a reasonable display something the public might more easily understand and appreciate. If we are successful in doing that, we will succeed in bringing an awareness of the works of ORF one level higher and one level closer to both the members of this assembly and the constituents we all seek to serve.

In any case, as a result of the efforts of the procedural affairs committee and the people who served on it, and the access they had to some of our very good people at ORF, I hope the members of the House will do some more thinking on the matters that have been raised. The ORF clearly has tremendous potential. We are working in our ministry on a very close basis with ORF to maximize its potential. We encourage the members of this assembly to give us some ideas and suggestions as to how those efforts might be increased and show some more visible results, and even non-visible but real results, over the years to come.

I want to thank the members of the committee for the time they took to study the ORF. I do not know what the experience has been of some of my colleagues and some of those who are responsible and sit on the agencies, boards and commissions of the province, but I, for one, have found the experience quite useful and helpful. Some of the playback information the ORF people had from their experience at the committee has proven most helpful to them. All in all, I think it has been a healthy and important exercise, and I welcome further input.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about a couple of portions of the report. I must say there is a certain concise excellence about the reports of the standing procedural affairs committee which reflects a great deal of credit upon the chairman, the other members of the committee and the staff of the committee for the way in which the reports come before us.

I certainly endorse the final recommendation of the committee that the standing procedural affairs committee continue to review agencies, boards and commissions from time to time. I think the committee very carefully outlined the options available to this assembly in deciding how these agencies, boards and commissions should be made mere accountable to this assembly in a very real sense. Of the options considered for this review process, I believe the committee has come to the right conclusion.

Certainly had there been any suggestion that we would have returned to a standing committee dealing only with boards and commissions, which was the case some time ago, I would have been strongly in opposition to it. That committee, as it turned out, whatever it may have been before my time, by the time I arrived here and sat on that standing committee, was a useless way of trying to achieve some form of accountability to the assembly.

The problem as I see it is the problem to which the procedural affairs committee has not specifically directed its attention, but certainly indirectly it stated its concern, namely, how to go about in any given parliament selecting those particular agencies, boards and commissions which, within the limited time of the burden of all of its work, it would be able to deal with. I hope the committee will establish a procedure and a method which will make certain that during the course of a given parliament, or at least in some measurable period of time, every agency, board and commission would have occasion to be reviewed by this committee.

It is a large task, but presumably in the course of time the selection process can be carried out in such a way as to make certain the members of the agencies, boards and commissions do understand there is an assembly to which they are accountable and where there is an obligation intelligently and adequately to make an accounting so that we, as members of the assembly, can have some sense of assurance that these multitudinous boards, agencies and commissions, which in a sense carry on the delegated work of the assembly, are not some spinoffs into outer space, which only on very remote occasions touch back to the base of the assembly through one of its committees.

I, therefore, endorse fully that final recommendation of the committee and look forward to the way in which it tackles the very difficult problem of selection and assurance that in a measurable period of time all of the agencies, boards and commissions have some tangible sense of their obligation of accountability to this House.

I am glad the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) is here. I was not here earlier, and I do not know whether he has spoken to that matter of the assessment and evaluation of the Ontario Housing Corporation. If he has not spoken, perhaps he would care to comment some time after the conclusion of my remarks and before the debate is finished.

We were faced with a very traumatic experience in the Metropolitan Toronto area which was precipitated by a staff report of the Metropolitan Toronto social services and housing committee about the negotiations that were being carried on between the Ontario Housing Corporation and the Metropolitan Toronto corporation about certain financial matters. While it was not dealt with entirely as a financial matter, nevertheless the staff report brought out considerations with respect to a total reorganization of public housing in Metropolitan Toronto. Fortunately, the report was made available and was made public and concerns could be expressed before the process had taken such a deep-rooted course that there was no way to stop it.

10 p.m.

Having said that, the staff report performed the one excellent function of bringing to the surface the sense of ambiguity and the difficulty we in Metropolitan Toronto have in dealing with the Ontario Housing Corporation. Those who have perused either the staff report of the committee of metropolitan council or this report will see very clearly that there is a unique situation in Metropolitan Toronto. The management and administration of the public housing of OHC is done directly by OHC. There is no housing authority in the sense that there is a housing authority in all the other municipalities across the province which have a direct municipal relationship with the administration of the public housing stock.

The result is that we have had, as I have said on other occasions and in other places, an absentee landlord who administered the affairs of this vast stock of public housing through agencies and private corporations which carry out the managerial functions for a goodly portion of the public housing stock. We do not know the answers with respect to that stock of housing in Metropolitan Toronto. Many of us feel very strongly that the sooner OHC in its present form disappears from the scene, the better. Whatever purpose it may have served in the past, its present usefulness is long since spent in its capacity to deal with and manage the housing stock in Metropolitan Toronto.

Having said that, there has as yet been no clear focus about how that housing stuck will be administered and what is the best way to make it an estimable landlord of many people in the Metropolitan Toronto area who must perforce, for various reasons of economic necessity, live within a social housing framework.

We in this party are committed to the concept of social housing -- the concept of a public rule in the provision of the kind of housing which must be made available fur low-income people in the province. I, therefore, agree with the substance, as I understand it, of the recommendation of the committee that the OHC as structured at present, certainly in the one aspect to which I have made reference, must be reorganized. Its affairs must be dealt with in a different way.

I caution the government not to carry out in any expeditious way the recommendation if it only involves some kind of formal dissolution and reorganization of affairs. There must be consultation with respect to the public housing stock in Metropolitan Toronto, not only with the municipal authorities, but also with the tenants of the OHC buildings in Metropolitan Toronto about the best way in which that public housing stock can be administered from now on. I need not repeat any of the deep feelings I have about the kind of management to which many people in my riding who live in the Blake Street development are subjected because of the inadequacies of the OHC. I have great difficulty sharing the rather kindly way in which the standing committee on procedural affairs has dealt with the board of directors of the Ontario Housing Corporation. If OHC is going to be disbanded over time, one of the first steps would he to disband the board of directors of OHC and let them go about their other businesses on their lawful occasions but not to have any further role with respect to public housing in the metropolitan area.

I make the usual caveat that I am speaking about the board as a collectivity which appears to have an attitude towards people from which attitude I want to see this government separate and dissociate itself. They are estimable people on the board of directors in their individual capacities, but the organizational form with which they carry on their collective irresponsibility has become a hallmark of an absentee landlord which would not be tolerated if the corporation were a private body operating within the municipal area. I do not take kindly to that portion of recommendation seven which says that the corporation’s board of directors be reconstituted as an advisory agency. I do not support that recommendation in any way.

I want to say very succinctly to the Ministry of Housing that it is only by consultation and communication and a very positive effort made by the Minister of Housing, as the minister responsible for this corporation, that the mass of problems related to the functioning of OHC in the metropolitan area can be dealt with.

If the minister were to ask those members of the assembly from Metropolitan Toronto who have Ontario Housing Corporation buildings in their ridings to assist him, along with the municipal representatives representing the same areas, together with a mechanism -- to use the colloquial jargon of our time -- to be developed to represent those people who live in OHC housing; and if he convened a group to discuss openly and clearly the best course to be followed which would not only implement over time the recommendations of the standing committee on procedural affairs, but would also deal with the kind of vexed problems which surfaced in the course of the consideration at public meetings and elsewhere of the staff report of the committee of Metropolitan Toronto; then I think he would be doing a service to everyone if he took it upon himself to consult, communicate and listen to the ideas and concerns that have been expressed and the proposals that can he made as to how best that can be carried out.

Those members in each party who had occasion to sit through lengthy sessions dealing with the Residential Tenancies Act will, I think, join with me in saying that one of to most frustrating periods of the extensive hearings on that bill was when we tried to find out, from the officials of Ontario Housing Corporation called before that committee, what their policies were as landlords in relation to their tenants. We were unable to get any of the answers we asked for. The information could not be extracted. There was no way in which one could get through the stone wall that was raised in front of that committee, and whatever residual respect I may have had for the collectivity of the board of directors of OHC certainly vanished in the course of those hearings.

10:10 p.m.

These are not matters upon which there is any point in dividing the House with respect to recommendations. I don’t think that’s the point and purpose of the report. I was going to say to the minister -- using the word gently, but I hope rather more forcibly than that -- that this matter has to be dealt with because it is of immense importance. It is certainly of immense importance in the riding of Riverdale, and therefore I assume it is of equal importance to each of my colleagues in the Metropolitan Toronto area who have in their midst the Ontario Housing Corporation as land owners.

I therefore express those very serious reservations about the way in which, the period of time over which, and the manner in which the Ministry of Housing involves itself in carrying out these recommendations. I would ask that they not be dealt with simply as organizational restructuring and efficient rationalization of the Ministry of Housing and a concertinaing of the role of Ontario Housing into the ministry itself.

Them are profound human and social problems involved. I, for one, would welcome any indication from the minister that he would accept some version of my suggestions with respect to consultation, communication and resolution of this very significant problem in my area.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first of all. I compliment the committee on its review of the Ontario Housing Corporation. I think the committee recognized that the corporation over a great number of years has tried to serve this province, in responding to government policy in a very effective way that is no different from the member for Riverdale’s, in making sure that there is adequate public housing. The social conscience of this party is just as sincere in seeing to that position as that of any party in this House.

We have in this province about 95,000 units. That’s a rather substantial number in direct ownership. We have a great number of mothers under the rent supplement program and, as the committee reported, we used to have the responsibility for the tenant residences which have now been turned over to the individual universities where they are located.

So that there is no misunderstanding, the report that was submitted or made public, as the member for Riverdale has indicated, was a report singularly of Metropolitan Toronto’s social services and housing committee. It was not, I emphasize, a report that was made in conjunction with the Ministry of Housing or the province. It was a view expressed by the commissioner of social services for Metropolitan Toronto on how he sees public housing being delivered in the future. We have had some discussions with the committee since that time because of the uncertainties that report brought to the minds of many of the public housing tenants, not only in Metropolitan Toronto but also, I would have to say, right across Ontario.

We will continue to meet with the social services and housing committee. I am meeting with its chairman and one or two of its representatives next week to further review some of the proposals that happened to be in that report and the directions in which we would like to see the delivery of the public housing program being carried out in the future in Metropolitan Toronto.

As the committee reported, there are already 59 housing authorities across Ontario, and the member for Riverdale is absolutely right: I have referred to the Ontario Housing Corporation in its responsibility in delivering services in Metropolitan Toronto in basically the same terms as he has made them; that is as an absentee landlord. They are not principally people from the Metropolitan Toronto area but are from all across the province. Some of the housing authorities we have in place at present are under review for some possible amalgamation with some of the areas. We think it is important to look towards a housing authority to serve this metropolitan market. The board should be made up of representatives from this community who have a better and more direct appreciation of the problems in Metropolitan Toronto than, let me say, somebody from my city, from Sault Ste. Marie or from wherever else. We are moving in that direction.

One of the reasons we are able to move with perhaps a little more certainty at this time is as a result of the remark in the speech from the throne whereby the province now accepts the original 7.5 per cent of the cost of public housing that used to be borne by the municipalities. That is now being taken up by the province where the province and the federal government are on a 50-50 basis in picking up the shortfall that exists financially in the public housing sector all across Ontario.

We have a new chairman of the Ontario Housing Corporation who is specifically looking at some of the areas the report has highlighted. He is not one who has said that because there is an Ontario Housing Corporation we must retain that particular body forever and a day. They are doing an assessment of the situation. My ministry is looking further at the overall problem. We want to try to make sure that housing delivered through the public sector in Metropolitan Toronto is adequately handled.

The member for Riverdale made the remark that some of our housing in this particular portfolio, being in the metropolitan area, is handled on a private management contract basis. That is absolutely correct. But it is a very small portion of the portfolio that happens to be in that sector. It is operated to give the ministry and Ontario Housing Corporation some way of comparing the cost of delivering services by a direct input from the ministry or from OHC as against what the private sector has been able to do. I would be wrong to say it has worked absolutely perfectly, just as I would be wrong to say the services delivered directly by OHC could be considered absolutely perfect.

There have been some shortcomings, and I have no doubt there will be others in the future. There will be differences of opinion, whether that difference of opinion happens to be with the municipality or with the tenants’ association, or whether it happens to be a direct difference of opinion even by members on the Ontario Housing Corporation. Overall, it is our intention to move very rapidly into establishing housing authorities in the various parts of the province to make sure that the 59 will grow to something in the range, I would guess this evening, of about 64 housing authorities. I emphasize again that those housing authorities are doing an excellent job in the areas where we have them established, because individual citizens, some of whom are public housing tenants, are on those authorities giving some views and ideas on how we can deliver that service in a much more practical way and, I would hope, with a reduced cost to the general taxpayers of Ontario.

So that there is no misunderstanding, the members of the housing authorities are not 10 per cent provincial nominees. While all of them are appointed by order in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Housing, a third of them come from the local municipality or municipalities, a third of them from nominations from the federal government and a third, including the chairmen, from provincial recommendations.

I do appreciate what is in recommendation seven. Even though the member for Riverdale doesn’t agree, I would say there is a good justification for looking eventually, at some time in the future, at the situation where there would not be an Ontario Housing Corporation. I would not want to say to this House tonight we intend to disband the housing corporation at this time. The confusion that has been put in the minds of the public through the Metropolitan Toronto housing report would be very difficult to deal with and would cause a great deal of further disturbance in the minds of those in public housing if at this time we were to recommend or suggest that OHC no longer be a functioning body in this province.

Down the road as we look at the situation, with the present housing authorities and the various new ones that are being put in place across the province, there very well could be justification for the corporation going into limbo and having an advisory group to the Minister of Housing to recommend on policies, terms of reference and so on. I think the members of this House would agree that on policies being formulated by government, there should be constantly not only political input, but also input from others in the outside community, the business community, those in public housing and so on.

10:20 p.m.

I do thank the committee for its recommendation, and I offer it the assurance that we are moving to make some changes in the way we are delivering the service in Metropolitan Toronto. When that is completed -- and I hope there will be some general agreement by the Metro members that it is the right direction to be going -- we will he announcing, I hope in a not too distant time, some of the members who will be on that particular housing authority.

Regarding the other remarks made by the member for Riverdale about reviewing some of the things in the report, I have already said we are in that position at the moment. I am not about to call further public meetings, although my staff has been meeting with various other groups that have had a part to play in some of the discussions. I might say those groups are not isolated singularly in the Metropolitan Toronto area. We have been discussing this matter with people who are involved with public housing tenant associations in communities farther afield than this particular community.

I thank the procedural affairs committee, and we will look very seriously at some changes.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would like to speak very briefly, Mr. Speaker, because I know my friend the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) wants to take part in the debate before we conclude.

The committee met with the chairman and I believe some other members of the Ontario Council of Health, and generally speaking had some very positive things to say about the role they have played for the last 14 years, since the council was formed to act in an advisory capacity to the Minister of Health.

I think Dr. Dymond was very wise, when he was the minister, to establish this council as an independent sounding board for information and advice to him and his successors.

Since the committee deliberations were completed with respect to the Ontario Council of Health, we have announced that the chairmanship of the council is changing. Mr. Martin, who served with distinction for many years as chairman of the council of health, before that as Deputy Minister of Health for the province, before that at the Ontario Hospital Services Commission, before that at the Ontario Hospital Association, and even before that at Toronto East General Hospital, has retired. Sister Margaret Smith, the administrator of St. Joseph’s Hospital in North Bay, is the interim chairman in her capacity as vice-chairman.

Beginning January 1, 1981, the chairmanship of the Ontario Council of Health will pass to Dr. Brian Holmes, who is just completing a remarkably successful seven years as dean of medicine at the University of Toronto.

Dean Holmes is taking six months between leaving the university and assuming his responsibilities at the council to do a number of things. First of all, to use the term that he has used with me several times, he will use the time to have himself retread as a radiologist, to refresh himself in his specialty. Also, on my behalf, and on the government’s behalf, he will investigate several other health planning and health advisory bodies around the world; so when he assumes his responsibilities in January, his first task will be to come up with come recommendations on how to restructure the council for the future to make it as relevant and viable and contributory in the 1980s as it was in the 1960s and the 1970s. In particular, ho has been spending time in, and corresponding with officials of, the National Institute of Medicine in Washington, D.C. This is a similar, but even broader, body which advises the government of the United States.

As well, he will he spending time at Kingsfund College, in London, England, starting in the next few months. This is a body set up 83 years ago to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee of the late Queen which acts in an advisory capacity to the government of the United Kingdom. But it is even broader than that, in that its activities are spread worldwide.

The point of it all is that we will be changing the makeup of the council in ways yet to be determined. We are very pleased that a man of the stature and ability of Dr. Holmes would have agreed to become the chairman, and the deliberations and recommendations of the committee will be helpful in that regard.

Mr. McNeil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to place on the record the position of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food with respect to the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs on the Ontario Food Terminal.

The ministry agrees with the procedural affairs committee that the operation of the Ontario Food Terminal has unquestionably brought a desirable order into the wholesale fruit and vegetable market. We would go further and suggest that it is most important that this terminal continue to provide order to the efficient distribution of fresh produce and the pricing of local and imported commodities on a proper supply and demand basis.

The procedural affairs committee’s report recommends that section 12 of the Ontario Food Terminal Act be repealed. The Ontario Food Terminal board has recently sold the property in Vaughan township. This decision was made reluctantly but was necessitated by lack of sufficient support from long-term warehouse tenants. It will now be necessary for the board to develop and institute a renovation plan for the present terminal to (1) increase its efficiency, (2) increase cold and dry storage facilities and (3) provide additional wholesale units for any new legitimate wholesalers who might wish to commence operation in the greater Toronto area in the future.

In view of these decisions, we feel there are still advantages in maintaining section 12. It is important to keep the wholesalers together to effect a successful renovation program and to provide an efficient integrated wholesale market for the future.

For some time, there have been no applications for new wholesalers to locate at the present terminal or in the area covered by section 12 of the act. The wholesale produce business, for a variety of reasons, is not expanding. The chain stores have set up their own warehouses and handle their own distribution. It is estimated that more than 65 per cent of the retail produce business in Ontario has been controlled by the chains. The remaining market, although substantial in volume, is relatively limited to modest growth potential and currently appears to be adequately served by the terminal wholesalers and the farmers’ market. Potential wholesalers are not clamouring to get into this business.

Section 12 also allows an appeal to the minister by an applicant from a terminal board refusal. The ministry has never had to settle such an appeal, and there does not seem to be a serious problem in this area at present. Nevertheless, the renovations will include additional wholesale unit availability if required at any time in the future.

A viable farmers’ market at the Ontario Food Terminal is of prime importance. A successful central food terminal brings together the farmers’ market and the wholesalers on one location. Without this, a central food terminal would be ineffective.

I would therefore agree with the present stance of the Ontario Food Terminal Board. it is advantageous to keep section 12 in place, and the minister is not prepared to recommend that this section of the act be repealed at this time.

Present leases terminate in 1985 and are renewable for a further term of 30 years in 10-year intervals. Ministers are reluctant to alter these leases until such time as the board can determine (1) the percentage of operating costs which should be charged against the A and B type of wholesale units following the renovation program, (2) the estimated capital expenditures required for proper renovations and (3) how these renovations should be financed and charged as capital costs against the tenants over an extended period of time.

Report adopted.

10:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: A motion for adjournment is deemed to have been made under standing order 28. The member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) has indicated his dissatisfaction with the answer to a question. I will listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

Mr. Wildman: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: If you will recall, earlier today I raised with you a point of privilege regarding the answer to a written question, and you indicated at that time that the table officers would investigate. I wonder whether it is possible for us to find out if that will be tabled.

Mr. Speaker: They are investigating, I can assure you. As soon as I have the report I will transmit it to you.

AID TO PENSIONERS

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I filed my dissatisfaction with the answer of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) because I think it is very important to clarify the aspect of the question I asked.

I am satisfied with the introduction of the property tax and rental grants, because I have been fighting for many years not only to give senior citizens relief from paying property taxes for education, but also for a more equitable and progressive tax system. I noticed with pleasure that the Treasurer himself, on November 17, 1977, voted in favour of a resolution that I had the pleasure to introduce in this House.

The matter I raise today is that the grants given to senior citizens are based on a requirement that they are recipients of old age security benefits. It happens that Canada has agreements with some countries on the basis of which immigrants from those countries, as soon as they come to Canada, immediately become eligible to receive old age security benefits, which means they qualify immediately to receive the property tax or rental grants.

At the same time, we have immigrants coming from other countries that have no agreement with Canada. As the minister knows, there are many countries which are discussing agreements with Canada at this point. Those immigrants will be in a totally different situation. They will not benefit from the $50 grant that the Treasurer introduced in the budget.

I do not think it would cost the Treasury of Ontario much to amend Bill 48 and to give the grants to all immigrants who come to Canada who are pensioners older than 65, even if they come from countries that have no agreement with Canada. I realize fully that is a federal agreement, but it would be a measure that would bring justice to and treat in the same way all the residents of this country.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I should start out by saying that the objectives of my honourable friend and my own are not different. Cost is not the issue; let us understand that. We estimate that, at most, the number of people who could be involved is one half of one per cent of the total population over 65 in the province. That is not necessarily accurate, but it is the best estimate we could get from the federal government.

There is no desire to politicize the problem, and I share that with my friend, but there is a big difference between a desirable goal and one that is administratively possible. That is where the problem may hinge, because currently we in the province are provided with complete lists of those people who receive old age security benefits who could have easily fitted in to the system we were going to use of eliminating the income tax form and locating and identifying the recipients. That was the key thing we were looking at as we drafted this bill. That we left the benefit open, although not quite as rich for people who weren’t entitled to OAS, I hope was an indication that we weren’t trying to take the benefit away from people who were not eligible, or not of full Canadian status, or whatever it may be that differentiates those who have OAS from those who have not.

The member referred to the difference between people who come to Canada from countries that have reciprocal agreements with Canada and those that do not. I accept the point he makes, except to say that reciprocal agreements usually are arrived at between countries both of which are seeking a benefit for a class of people. It is possible that in striking a reciprocal benefit with Italy -- I understand we have one -- and with France, I believe, we have obtained a benefit for some Canadian citizens, or people living in that country who have been Canadian citizens, that has been given as part of the trading process. I would hope that would be understood as a natural part of the federal government’s negotiations on behalf of citizens who are elsewhere.

I am not rejecting the suggestion the honourable member has made. I have instructed my staff to work at means that could be incorporated in the bill that would achieve his objective and at the same time give us a system of administration that would give us a reasonably easy benefit.

The House adjourned at 10:37 p.m.