Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

PROPERTY TAXES IN WEST CARLETON

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the points made in an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on July 7 last, entitled, “West Carleton Fed Up; War Waged on ‘Stupid’ Tax System.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): That was a bad article.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The article stated that a group of local taxpayers are experiencing property tax inequities at present.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): And how!

Hon. Mr. Meen: I would like to review the background of this matter briefly, Mr. Speaker.

On Jan. 1, 1974, the Province of Ontario amalgamated the townships of Huntley, Torbolton and Fitzroy to form the corporation of the township of West Carleton. The former municipalities of Huntley, Fitzroy, and Torbolton were autonomous and employed their own assessors who themselves employed a variety of assessment techniques in use at the time.

On Jan. 1, 1967, the county of Carleton adopted the county assessment commissioner system of assessment. The county intended to reassess all the municipalities within its boundaries using one method. This reassessment programme was not completed prior to the formation of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton on Jan. 1, 1969. On that date, the regional municipality became responsible for completing the assessment of the 17 municipalities within its boundaries. This work was not completed by Jan. 1, 1970, at which time the responsibility for assessment was transferred to the province.

The newly formed assessment division adopted the assessments as they stood in each of the 17 municipalities within the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and employed its resources toward completing a reassessment of the entire region at market value by 1976.

Bill 231, entitled An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act, which received royal assent on Dec. 4, 1973, contained among its provisions a remedy to overcome the fact that different levels of assessment would exist between the wards within the newly formed municipalities, particularly those three municipalities forming the new municipality of West Carleton. This was necessary because each ward comprises the entire area of an old municipality and, as stated, each of the old municipalities used a different method of assessment.

The provision of Bill 231 is intended to equalize taxation by instructing my ministry to revise, equalize and weight the last revised assessment roll of each of the merged municipalities. Officials of my ministry are presently reviewing the assessment roll for West Carleton in order to equalize 1975 taxes.

I hope to have the work completed by July 18 next. My staff have scheduled a meeting with the municipal officials in West Carleton for July 21 in order to help them arrive at mill rates for each ward that will overcome the present inequities in assessments between the wards.

The township of West Carleton has already sent out interim tax bills in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act. However, the mill rates will be adjusted before the final tax bills are issued. This means the taxpayers in the most highly-assessed ward will have prepaid a larger percentage of their final tax bill than those in the lowest-assessed ward.

There is one other matter, Mr. Speaker, which I feel I must clear up. The Ottawa Citizen stated, and I quote: “Nor do they” -- they mean the people of Torbolton -- “understand why some properties have never been assessed at all, including one belonging to an Ontario tax assessor.” The facts are that the assessor’s house was under construction and that construction was not completed by Dec. 17, 1974, when the assessment roll was closed.

This, indeed, was the case with a large number of other buildings and structures. The land was assessed. This means that the house could only be taxed as of the date of occupancy in 1975 under the provisions of section 43 of the Assessment Act. Assessments made under section 43 must be added to the collector’s roll in the municipality and not to the assessment roll.

As I understand it, the municipality does not have a collector’s roll as yet, even though assessors have assessed the houses. Taxes will commence as of Jan. 1, 1975, when the municipality has completed the collector’s roll and has struck the applicable mill rate. In June of this year, the assessor who owns the house referred to in the article received his assessment notice, but the record of the assessment will only appear when the municipality has finalized its collector’s roll. Therefore, I feel the allegation implied against the assessor is utterly unfounded and completely unjustified.

ENERGY PRICES

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, in my statement to the House on July 4 last, announcing the terms of reference for the royal commission respecting the pricing of petroleum products, I referred to the willingness of a prominent Canadian to accept the appointment, but was unable to divulge his name at that time.

Today, I am pleased to confirm the appointment of Mr. Claude Malcolm Isbister. I am sure the hon. members, having heard his qualifications, will agree that this outstanding Canadian public servant has the independence and the expertise to fulfil this appointment.

Mr. Isbister is returning to Canada from his present post as executive director of the World Bank group in Washington, DC, a post he has held for the past five years and to which he was elected by a group of countries including Canada. To avoid any appearance of conflict of interest, his appointment and remuneration as royal commissioner are planned to take effect on Aug. 1, 1975, the date contemplated for his resignation from the World Bank.

In the meantime, he has already visited Toronto to consult with officials about arrangements and to make plans for the establishment and staffing of the royal commission, which will report to the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Prior to 1970, Mr. Isbister was employed in Ottawa in the public service of Canada as deputy minister successively of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, as chairman of the Dominion Coal Board and, before that, as assistant deputy minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Finance.

Mr. Isbister was born in Winnipeg in 1914. He attended the University of Manitoba and the University of Toronto and obtained a PhD in economics.

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

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Energy whether Mr. Isbister is going to be as expensive as Judy LaMarsh? What are we paying Mr. Isbister beginning Aug. 1?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The details of the remuneration for Mr. Isbister have yet to be finalized, Mr. Speaker. I will report on them to the member when they are completed.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Maybe he won’t take it.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary: Inasmuch as the Premier expressed some worry about the commissioner getting the work done in 90 days, and inasmuch as we are blowing 30 days, since he is not starting until Aug. 1, how does the minister expect him to be finished within the time period?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t accept the latter part of the member’s premise; a lot of the organizational work is under way now and will be completed by the time Mr. Isbister is free to devote his full-time attention to this. In the meantime, before Aug. 1, he will be here one or two days a week to oversee the establishment of the organization for his commission. So, I don’t accept that that is the case. I suppose it is not beyond the realm of possibility that if he does find that 90 days is too much of a stricture on him, he may submit an interim report, although we would still hope that it all can be done within the 90 days.

Mr. Sargent: Sure he will.

HYDRO RATE INCREASE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a further question of the Minister of Energy. Can he indicate whether Ontario Hydro, in reducing its application to the Energy Board for rate increases for electrical energy, is going to be governed only by the two requirements put forward by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) -- that is, removal of $1 billion from its capital requirements and a reduction of approximately 10 per cent in its administrative costs -- or are there going to be other factors affecting the costs of hydro which will have to enter into a revised rate request? Can the minister give us some indication as: to whether we are looking at a reduction of just two or three per cent or perhaps a significant reduction, perhaps as much as 15 per cent, in the original application?

Hon Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think anyone, including Hydro, is yet able to give an indication to the latter part of that question.

In response to the government’s policy directive, Hydro indicated it was going to examine all its other expenses in addition to capital -- not just straight administrative costs. If we look at the broad classification of maintenance, operations and administration, it is going to look at everything to see what can be cut or delayed to save money. In addition, of course, I would point out that in the Treasurer’s remarks and the directive from the government, it was told to find at least $1 billion in capital. The more it can find the better. That will all be taken into consideration.

In addition, there are other things such as the revised load forecast for next year and the revised calculations for secondary revenue. For instance, in the five months up to the end of May this year, Ontario Hydro had only sold, by way of export of off-peak power, 10 per cent of what it had calculated for the whole year. That has caused problems on that account as to what revenues it can expect.

All of these things will be taken into account as it makes its subsequent submission to the Energy Board at the end of this month.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the minister and the Treasurer have both indicated they are appalled at the rate request from Hydro, why wouldn’t the minister give some serious consideration to instructing Hydro to make do with less grandiose corporate headquarters and use this $43 million as a revenue producer rather than just as an additional expenditure? Would the minister not seriously consider, under these circumstances, instructing Hydro that if it must expand for more offices, to do so at a lower cost and rent these offices out at a net revenue to the government rather than them being simply a continuing drag on Ontario Hydro’s resources?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is well aware that it’s not a cost to the government, it’s a cost of operation of Ontario Hydro.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It would be revenue for Hydro.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I surely don’t have to go back over well-known information as to the cost to Hydro of the building on a yearly basis. I think really, on balance, it would probably mean a loss, if anything.

UTILIZATION OF FEDERAL HOUSING FUNDS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development: Does she consult with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) from time to time on the policy associated with tying the provision of housing into the other areas of social development? In fact, does the Minister of Housing sit in on meetings of her policy group in the social development field?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Housing is not a member of the social policy field but he often does sit in on meetings that are concerned with special items on which we feel it is necessary to have discussion with him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: In the absence of the Minister of Housing, since it is obvious that the policy in that area does have a relationship with the general policy purview for which the provincial secretary is responsible, is she in a position to make any comments at all on the charges made by the advisory committee that advises the Minister of Housing on the utilization of funds as to why these funds remain unutilized in the area of co-operative housing and non-profit housing? Has that come into discussion in the policy area, as I believe it should?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, Mr. Speaker, that has not been in our policy area.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Perhaps I could direct a question to the Treasurer in this regard. Has he followed the charges made by a majority of the members on the advisory committee responsible to the Minister of Housing on the utilization of certain federal funds, with the indication from this advisory committee being that he has acted in bad faith, that he has deliberately obstructed the non-profit housing programme and that in fact it appears that up to $7 billion of federal funds will remain unexpended again this year because the policy is not to utilize it?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have followed the charges.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the Treasurer has been very concerned about the full utilization of these funds, would it not be in Ontario’s interest if the Treasurer himself took the responsibility of seeing that the funds are fully utilized, even though he himself feels they are inadequate?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Housing, when he is here tomorrow, will be able to answer the Leader of the Opposition’s question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Okay, we will talk to him tomorrow.

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the other Provincial Secretary, the one responsible for natural resources policy, if he will use his good offices with the Premier to see that those citizens who continue to be concerned about the Hydro corridor between Bradley Junction and Georgetown have an opportunity to express their concern to the Premier; that they can in fact express to him their dissatisfaction with the statements made, I suppose by the Minister of Energy and others; and further that there should be a full public review of this Hydro corridor and that it is something that should not he brushed aside, since it concerns the utilization of farm land and the activities of many citizens in the 90-mile length of this corridor?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Premier is well aware of the concerns of those citizens; and I am sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition is also well aware of the fact that after there have been public hearings, at some stage or other these public hearings must come to some conclusion and a decision has to be made by the government.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There has not been an adequate forum for hearing evidence.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I believe my colleague the Minister of Energy has replied to this quite adequately. However, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition thinks my drawing this matter to the attention of the Premier will be of any further assistance, and maybe of some satisfaction to the people who are concerned, I would be glad to do that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): In view of the fact the citizens requested a complete review, an independent assessment, of the entire line, wouldn’t the minister feel it’s particularly important that the citizens have an opportunity to meet the Premier in view of the fact they have only been given a partial assessment since only part of the line is being reviewed?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me whether, because of certain circumstances, it’s indicated that the Premier should see this particular group. I am sure he will also appreciate that it’s impossible for the Premier to see every group. He has ministers who are available for this purpose, and they attempt to do their job as fully as possible. In order to carry on the functions of government, it is necessary for him to continue to do this.

Again, I say, I think that everything that needed to be inquired into in respect of this line appears to have been done. I can only reply to the hon. member as I replied to his leader, that if he thinks it would be of any greater satisfaction to himself and to those people involved for me to draw it again to the attention of the Premier, I would be glad to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Just before we proceed with the question period, I would like to introduce two distinguished gentlemen who have now arrived in my gallery. I know all hon. members will wish to welcome His Excellency, Maximilian Graf Von Podwell-Durnitz, the ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany to Canada. His Excellency is here on his first official visit to Toronto, and is accompanied by Mr. Winn Engemann, the deputy consul general of the federal republic in Toronto.

The member for Wentworth.

MORTGAGE MONEY

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. The Treasurer will recall when he read his supplementary budget that he indicated discussions were taking place between government and banks and were soon to take place between the government and trust companies and insurance companies regarding mortgage money. Can he tell us how those discussions are going?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: To date, in a very satisfactory manner, I think, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deans: Can the Treasurer indicate which trust companies and which banks and which mortgage companies have so far had the pleasure of the meetings?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Housing, the Premier and myself have met with the chartered banks, and expect shortly to meet with the trust companies and the insurance companies.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Oh, it must be urgent.

Mr. Deans: Can I ask then, whether there is some sense of urgency? Given that the Minister of Housing has been screaming at the top of his lungs about a lack of mortgage financing at adequate interest rates, is there some sense of urgency about these meetings? My understanding was that the meeting with the banks was taking place on the day of the budget or the day immediately after, and the others haven’t yet taken place.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there is a sense of urgency, yes.

Mr. Deans: When can we reasonably expect that the meetings will have been concluded and that some report will be made to the Legislature -- or, better than that, some mortgage money at decent interest rates will be available for people in order that they can get homes?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In the fullness of time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question: Could I ask the Treasurer if they’re going as well as his colleague indicated when he said that they were very successful, that the banks had not given a blanket refusal?

An hon. member: Or a blank cheque.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has the Treasurer a goal for the amount of additional mortgage funds that he or the government wishes to cajole the lending industry into providing? If so, how is progress toward reaching that goal?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the amount needed for the private sector was spelled out in the supplementary actions tabled here a week ago -- $360 million in the one programme and $100 million in the other programme, which I believe totals $460 million.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, they really are anxious to get it.

Mr. Speaker: Has the member for Wentworth further questions?

YORK UNIVERSITY CATERERS

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Labour: Is the Minister of Labour aware of the situation which has developed at York University regarding the caterers for the university, the recent agreement that was signed with a new catering firm, and the fact that perhaps a maximum of six of the old employee has been taken on by the new catering firm? Doesn’t the minister feel that, since those employees offered to work and to negotiate at whatever level of wages was suitable, they should have some form of successive rights?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of the situation, but I will get some information and report back to the House.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Would the minister agree that the practice of calling tenders and then throwing people out of work is wrong, and that people who are doing a decent job in the Province of Ontario deserve some protection from the law?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, yes. I don’t like the practice and we hope that when the contracts are turned over in that way the new people will take on the former employees.

Mr. Shulman: The government did the same thing here right in this building.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: As I said, I don’t know the facts of this case, so I’m not prepared to comment specifically on it.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Inasmuch as the minister thinks that practice is wrong, why does he condone it right here in this building?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I said generally speaking I think it is wrong.

SYNCRUDE AGREEMENTS

Mr. Deans: A question of the Minister of Energy: Could the minister indicate whether the Syncrude agreements have now been signed?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deans: Is the minister prepared to table these agreements in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, I will consider that.

Mr. Deans: He will consider it? Would the minister like to tell us when he will consider it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will take it up with my colleagues in the government and let the House know.

Mr. Speaker: The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development has the answer to a question asked previously.

HOUSING INSPECTION FOR MIGRANT WORKERS

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on July 11, the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Spence) asked the following question:

“Is the minister aware in the county of Kent there are a great many farm workers, whose housing has to be inspected before it can be inhabited? Last year this inspection was carried on under the Minister of Health. This year it is not available. This year applications for inspections are a lot more than they were last year.

“This is a concern of the migrant worker. They will not be able to move into this housing if it is not inspected. What is the minister going to do?”

Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has checked with the community health protection branch, Ontario Ministry of Health, responsible for the inspection of seasonal housing units where workers are placed by Canada Manpower or the Canada Farm Labour pools on farms.

They advise that Canada Manpower contacted them about a backlog in Kent county approximately two weeks ago. A public health inspector was immediately placed in that area and I am advised also that as of this morning the backlog which had existed has been cleared up. They are not aware of any further demand for inspection.

I also understand there was a backlog in Essex county where 50 requests for inspections are required and the local health unit in Essex county is unable to cope. The same man will be sent into this area to assist in clearing this backlog. We are assured that the assistance is being provided to the local health units where and when required. They already had extra staff working in Middlesex county, Haldimand-Norfolk and in Elgin county.

I have another reply. May I give it while I am on my feet, sir?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

EGG BOARD RESIGNATIONS

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce asked a question on July 10:

“Can the minister clarify whether or not under provincial farm marketing legislation the use of funds raised through levies for payment of penalties would be legal, which was really the point at issue which led to the resignation of the egg board members some weeks ago?”

I am advised, sir, that during the discussions convened by the federal Minister of Agriculture with the provinces the question raised by the hon. member was brought up. Subsequently, a meeting was held between legal advisers of the provinces, local egg marketing boards and the federal officials to clarify the matter.

The levy in question for the payment of penalties would be administered under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, which is a federal statute. The federal authorities are satisfied that the payment of penalties under this statute is legal. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

POLICE TREATMENT OF YOUNG MAN

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General. Is the minister aware of the circumstances surrounding the charging of one Harry Sutton, an 18-year-old man, by the Peel regional police in connection with a so-called confession he gave to the police under questioning, during the course of which, if the newspaper story is correct, he was denied the opportunity to phone his father and the so-called confession later proved to be a fabrication? If he is not, which I would guess he might not be, would he undertake a full and complete inquiry into the actions of the Peel regional police in connection with this matter and the reason why this young man was apparently substantially harassed into this difficult and embarrassing position?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, I don’t know all the circumstances of this particular case. As a result of this morning’s article I do have some preliminary facts surrounding the charges which were laid. The information I have is that the police acted in a very proper manner. The young man was warned, as the police are required to do, before a statement was taken from him. I am trying to find out whether, in fact, he was denied the right to make a phone call as is alleged in the newspaper article.

The matter went to trial and the question of the admissibility of the statement was part of voir dire. I understand it was eventually admitted at the trial but, as the hon. member knows, the jury does not usually give reasons why a person is acquitted of an offence. However, the information I have now is that the young man was picked up and questioned and charges were laid in a proper manner. I will get further information as requested.

Mr. Singer: By way of a supplementary, and again my only source of a reference is this newspaper article, it would appear that even though the young man confessed to arson, the charge against him related to public mischief and not to arson, so one would wonder about whether the Solicitor General has not wondered about the usefulness of the questioning and the extraction of a statement even though in fact a warning might have been given? Would the Solicitor General not agree that all of the circumstances surrounding this should be fully investigated, reported upon and the information brought to the attention of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

RIOT AT MILLBROOK

Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain the outcome of the riot at Millbrook last March? Specifically, why were the OPP called in to lay charges against the prisoners, how many prisoners were charged, what was the outcome of the court cases, if any, and how many prisoners are still in solitary?

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): I’ll have to get that information for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

ONTARIO HYDRO BUILDING

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Energy advise me if I heard him correctly earlier when he said, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, that be felt it was not certain that a profit could be returned by renting the Hydro headquarters building to private enterprise?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s right.

Mr. P. Taylor: Is the minister saying that the new Hydro headquarters building has been constructed on a scale and in a style that is beyond the ability of prevailing Toronto commercial office rental rates at least to break even or even to return a profit? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. P. Taylor: Then why is it not possible that an office building in downtown Toronto can do that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, what I was indicating was that, given the rental market and the vacancy rates in Metropolitan Toronto today and given a number of other factors such as Hydro’s costs in other locations for space to house staff who will be moved into the building -- with all these things together, I doubt that the proposition put forward by the member’s leader is a reasonable one.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions? The member for Ottawa Centre.

EVICTION OF MOBILE-HOME OWNERS

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Treasurer. I would like to preface it by saying that I have another vignette of what it’s like for ordinary people to live in Tory Ontario that I want to raise with this minister.

Is the minister aware of the situation of 20 mobile-home owners at Martin’s Trailer Park at Wasaga Beach who have received notice that they must leave their sites at the end of the month and have no place else to go, and who face losses of up to $10,000 on trailers they cannot move with them but which the new owner is refusing to accept even as trade-ins? What intention does the government have to rescue these tenants from a situation in which they’ve been put by the lack of effective legislation?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of the situation but I’ll be happy to look into it and report back to the House.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: Since the new owner, Mr. Ralph Murray, intends to bulldoze the sites and redraw the lines separating the lots on which the mobile homes stand, would the minister specifically look into the matter to see whether subdivision control ought not to apply to the redrafting of the lot lines within the trailer park and, therefore, look into whether the government can’t threaten the new owner that it will withhold subdivision control unless there is adequate treatment for the existing tenants?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be glad to look at that, but I want to make it very clear that it is not part of the philosophy of this government to go around threatening anyone.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the people being threatened are 20 low-income families with about 30 kids among them, including some people who are disabled and some who are pensioners, does the minister not think it is the responsibility of this government to try to protect their rights rather than make fatuous comments about not making threats?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be very happy to look into the situation, bearing in mind the government’s responsibility, but the government does not take unto itself the responsibility or the power of threatening anyone in this province nor does it propose to, even if it makes the member happy.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

PROCESSING PLANT STRIKE

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Can the minister report any success at all with regard to the strike at Omstead’s, particularly at the terminal warehouse, which is preventing the harvesting of hundreds of acres of the snap bean crop that it is very urgent to get off at this time?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, regretfully I can’t report any progress in the Omstead matter. As the member knows, that has been going on a good length of time. The members of my ministry have been working with them. They were in touch with Omstead’s counsel, as recently as today. We will continue to do our best to try to get the parties together. The member knows the background of the company, I suppose. It’s a long-established firm, still pretty much individually owned and operated by the Omstead family. I can’t see any immediate break, although we are continuing to be hopeful and continuing to work on it.

In regard to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, which is very much concerned about the lack of processing for the products of the area, I understand it is doing its best to make other arrangements. I’ve been away for a few days. When I went away, my report was that no products had been missed and that they had all been processed. That may have changed now, but I know the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is doing its best to find other places to process them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

PC FUNDRAISING ACTIVITIES

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): I have a question of the Minister without Portfolio, the member for London South (Mr. White). In the Progressive Conservative organization manual, “Campaign 1975,” on page 45, in advice to fund raisers, these words appear: “Never voice your own opinions on issues. Obey the fundamentals of grassroots fundraising: Love everybody, avoid the issues and get the cheques.”

Mr. Singer: That’s not bad.

Mr. Foulds: Would the minister care to comment on how the “love,” “avoid” and “get” should go? Should it involve physical contact in the first instance, nonphysical contact in the second instance, and physical contact in the third instance?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Doesn’t the member believe in love?

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I’ve never been in the fundraising end of the business, so I’m not the person to ask But I suppose the instructions are to advise fund raisers not to get into difficult, complicated policy matters, but rather to leave that to the candidate and to the government.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Get the cash.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: Are we to understand that we are paying the minister to be organizing for the party? Is that his function in the cabinet? What does he do?

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): We never see the member for Grey-Bruce here. What is he talking about?

Hon. Mr. White: No, sir. I am paid $15,000, plus $7,500, to be a member of this Legislature and represent my constituency. If there is any doubt about my ability to do that, look at the numbers from previous elections.

Mr. Sargent: Does the minister deny that he is doing that job?

Hon. Mr. White: Just a minute. Point No. 2, I’m paid $6,000 a year net, after our five per cent reduction, to be a Minister without Portfolio, chairman of cabinet and chairman of the legislation committee, in contrast to the member’s leader, who is paid $18,000, which is to say $1,000 a month more.

Mr. Sargent: The minister doesn’t rate that.

Hon. Mr. White: If there is any doubt in the mind of anybody in this chamber about whether I’m earning that $6,000 relative to the member’s leader, let us ask the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid), who is the chairman of the public accounts committee, to call the Liberal leader and myself before the committee and assess the contributions we are making toward the public life of this province dollar for dollar. That’s a challenge I’d he delighted to accept.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: Does the minister deny that his function has anything to do with organization?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member is a net loss.

Mr. Sargent: Let the Treasurer keep quiet.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: The member is a dead loss.

Mr. Sargent: I will get to him in a minute. Does the minister deny that his function has anything to do with the organization of the party?

Hon. Mr. White: I don’t deny I do a lot of things.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He has got one thing to do and that is chair the election organization. He is the minister in charge of re-election.

Hon. Mr. White: I do know that I’m giving better value for my $6,000 than my hon. friend is for his $18,000.

Mr. Sargent: What does the minister do, then?

Hon. Mr. White: If somebody denies that, let the two of us go before the public accounts committee.

Mr. Sargent: Okay.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I dare the minister to come to Brant and talk that way.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Let everybody find out what a two-bit guy he is. That’s all he’s worth.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES IN TAP WATER

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware that recent studies in the United States have found that drinking water which sits in household pipes overnight has been found in many instances to contain poisonous levels of metals such as cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese and zinc? Can the minister assure the House that no such levels of these metals can be found in Ontario waters, as such metals can cause high blood pressure, arterial problems, as well as mental retardation?

Mr. Deans: So that’s the problem.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, that’s a very good question.

Mr. Sargent: Yes or no?

Hon. W. Newman: No. To exercise a little caution, I would like to see that article. To my knowledge, there is not, but of course there are always possibilities. We are always constantly checking this. Where we have a dead-ending of a line, for instance, where there isn’t a lot of water coming out of it at the far end of the line we do special checks on certain water systems to cheek just for the sort of things the member is talking about.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: In case there is a problem, would the minister put out a directive that everyone allow their taps to run for five minutes before they take a drink?

Hon. W. Newman: It all depends how dry it is.

UNION CARBIDE EMISSION LEVELS IN WELLAND

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: Has the minister any progress report on the reduction of air pollution at the Union Carbide Canada Ltd. plant in Welland?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I was asked about that in the House last Friday and I said I would get a report in some detail about that -- I believe it was for a colleague of the member. I haven’t got it as yet.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): A question of the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the environmental assessment bill will likely be proclaimed within the next week or two, would the minister require Ontario Hydro to submit an impact assessment on the Bradley-Georgetown power line and would the minister also permit the opponents of such a line to appear before the newly-established Environmental Impact Assessment Board?

Hon. W. Newman: No, Mr. Speaker, but I’ll explain why. I believe the board has a hearing on presently, set up by the Minister of Energy. The member has been at the standing committee with us for a little over a week on that bill. As far as proclaiming the bill, we have to put staff in place and have to have a great number of meetings. The Environmental Assessment Act will not be proclaimed within a week.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

PENETANGUISHENE HOSPITAL CONDITIONS

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, Mr. Speaker: What response is the ministry or the government going to make to the petition signed by the guards at the hospital for the criminally insane at Penetanguishene in which they express their deep unhappiness at the way in which the minister is now running that organization?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I have not even seen such a petition.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

DOUGLAS POINT GENERATING STATION

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Energy: Would the minister advise the reasons why 20 trailers of pipe from Douglas Point are being trucked to Calgary by the Lummus Co. for fabrication at an extra estimated cost of $1 million to the Ontario taxpayer? Is he aware that this is going on now, and is it the fault of Lummus Co., or whose fault is it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As a matter of fact, I was at Douglas Point on Wednesday evening and that point, that allegation that the hon. member makes, was not drawn to my attention. I will have it investigated and will report.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have another question of the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer explain the new programme that is being established within his ministry to provide short- and intermediate-term economic forecasting and analysis if developments which affect the Ontario economy? Is the new programme being created because of the failure of the minister’s first budget to forecast accurately Ontario economy this year?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain the programme, and can he also say that the reason an economist is being advertised for in the New York Times to direct the programme at $24,000 a year is some kind of comment by the minister on the quality of advice he’s been getting from Canadian economists?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t aware that any such ad appeared in the New York Times. I’ll be glad to look into that particular aspect of it. I would just say this, that we generally are very pleased with the forecasts done by people in our ministry, verified by and cross-checked by a number of independent forecasts, conference boards, the C. D. Howe Institute, chartered banks. These are brought together from time to time. Sometimes we are better than other forecasters, sometimes we are not as good.

The point which I think should be made in connection with any difference between the forecast which we made on April 7 and the revised forecast which we made on July 7, is the fact that the stall of Treasury and their minister and this government take the responsibility for those forecasts. There seem to be three forecasts which are somewhat questioned -- or two out of the three: the gross provincial product, the unemployment forecast, and the rate of increase in the consumer price index.

I would call to my friend’s attention that although we are not always right we do, in fact, make those forecasts. One can go through Mr. Turner’s budget of last November or his budget of June 23 and find not one of those three figures forecast. Inevitably, the easiest way would be not to make those forecasts. Over the last five years -- if not a little longer -- we have stuck our necks out and made the forecasts and we propose to continue to do so. But it isn’t an exact science and we don’t expect to be always right.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

COST-SHARING PROGRAMMES

Mr. R. S. Smith: I have a question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker, in regard to his statement at the time of the budgetary changes, when he stated the provincial government would no longer enter into any federal-provincial agreement as far as cost-sharing programmes are concerned. Could the minister explain to me what effect this has on the rail relocation studies programme, which is a shared programme between the federal and provincial governments and which has not yet come to full agreement? Secondly, would he describe what is going to happen to the DREE programme as far as Northeastern Ontario is concerned, as he indicated to me last week that he would?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there are differences in programmes; some are open-ended and some are closed. The member made reference to particular programmes which I would describe as having some termination, which have some fixed cost element and which, by separate agreement, are agreed to. We know what we are getting into ahead of time and can get out at the appropriate point of time and that’s it.

In terms of the effect on DREE, most of the subsidiary agreements under DREE -- Cornwall being a case in point -- have had a total dollar amount and a degree of cost-sharing, whatever the percentages may be. In the case of Cornwall, it was necessary to amend that agreement but at least we each did so in the knowledge of what was going on. I don’t see any particular effect on future DREE agreements insofar as what I said on July 7 last is concerned.

Mr. R. S. Smith: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister has not answered my question insofar as the rail relocation studies are concerned. Is he indicating in his answer that these will go ahead regardless?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the government has taken the position, through my colleague and fully supported by all members on the Treasury benches, that the government of Canada should pay 100 per cent of the cost of rail relocation. What I have had to say about shared-cost programmes in that area could hardly be applicable. We have agreed to a shared-cost, an extension really of the normal Ministry of Transportation and Communication’s planning studies. We have not as yet agreed to a cost-sharing arrangement for actual construction, if, as and when.

Mr. R. S. Smith: If you might permit me one short supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister going ahead with the study programme on the 50-50 agreement which is in the works of being agreed to with the federal government?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, but it is not 50-50.

Mr. R. S. Smith: What is it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am sorry, I haven’t got that percentage. It works out for the municipalities to 12½ per cent; and then 50 per cent to 37½ per cent; something like that, I have just forgotten.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

SPENCERVILLE PARK

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): In view of the Treasurer’s comments last week, could the Minister of Industry and Tourism inform the House what role his ministry will be assigning to Spencerville Park in terms of economic development for eastern Ontario?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, in the current year we will be proceeding with some long range planning and development; and at the same time, along with the Minister without Portfolio, the member for the London South continuing to discuss with industry the possibility of some of the major industries in this country locating in that park.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, what priority is the minister assigning to locating industry in the Spencerville area, in view of the Treasurer’s announcement last week?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as far as priorities are concerned, we will continue to find industries that are interested in major developments. May I inform the House that at the present time in the economy of this country, and with some of the lack of encouragement that comes from the federal budget, it’s difficult to find industries that wish to expand their investments in the country at this very moment.

That does not mean to say, Mr. Speaker, that we will not continue to explore with each and every major industry in Canada at this time, as well as with some of the foreign interests, the possibility that they come and locate in Edwardsburgh; and we have several that have indicated that in a long range plan they anticipate setting up secondary, or at least a second, manufacturing base in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

OTTAWA-CARLETON DETENTION CENTRE

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since the mini-debate on Friday with respect to morale and other factors at the Ottawa-Carleton regional detention centre, can the Minister of Correctional Services say whether or not additional information has come to his attention in the interval to prove that morale is very low and that much has to be done there?

Hon. Mr. Potter: No, it hasn’t, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is only in Carleton East that it is low.

Mr. Deans: What was that outburst all about?

Mr. Speaker: The member or Port Arthur.

PC FUNDRAISING ACTIVITIES

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister without Portfolio, the member for London South: On page 34 of the PC organization manual, “Campaign 1975,” this advice to local candidates appears: “Local issues are sometimes important in an election but not very often. If a survey has been done in your constituency, you will know what the local issues are and the feeling of the voters on them.

Would the minister care to inform the House what constituencies he has done a survey in; and secondly, is the first statement -- about local issues not being important very often -- an indication that the PCs are going to run a very centralized campaign?

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): I think that was borrowed from the member’s party.

Hon. Mr. White: I have no knowledge of these matters. They are not part of my responsibilities. In point of fact, we’re having a highly decentralized campaign.

As a matter of interest, Mr. Speaker, I was reading a research paper this morning showing the degree of decentralization and de-concentration which we’ve accomplished here in this province in the last three or four years. I’m going to send it to Mr. Lewis Mumford, who is the principal proponent of decentralization, and invite his comments. When I have, then, perhaps the hon. member and our colleagues in the House would like to have some observations from that innovative thinker -- on the subject of our progress here in Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. It has been indicated the hon. minister is not really responsible for these matters.

Mr. Foulds: I was just going to ask him: Doesn’t he find it rather schizophrenic -- the difference between his responsibility as campaign chairman and his responsibility in the cabinet

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

OIL AND GAS PRICES

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Energy again: As the OPEC countries raise oil prices -- and there is an increase forthcoming shortly, I understand -- the Canadian oil companies, with their production and their reserves, will reap new bonanzas in profits; does the minister have any plans to put a freeze on these companies in the future?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that’s a very interesting question. First of all, let me just give a little hit of background. It is the policy of the member’s party at the federal level that domestic oil prices should reach world levels --

Mr. Sargent: We meant the province; this ministry.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Just a minute, just a minute.

Mr. Ruston: The minister is speaking to the press gallery. He keeps looking up to them.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Secondly, it is the policy of his party --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): It is the minister’s friend Lougheed.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that domestic natural gas prices should be on a parity, on a heating value basis, with natural oil. In other words, it is the policy of the member’s party to chase this moving target at the world level. It is not the policy of this government.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s the most stupid policy that has ever been operated by any government.

Mr. Sargent: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The answer is in the form of a bill that passed this House last week; we have frozen prices in this province for 90 days and we have appointed a royal commission to advise us on how best to cope with these situations in the years ahead. But let it be absolutely clear that it is the member’s party, it is his party, that is wreaking this on the country.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

LOAN SHARKING

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker: Is the Solicitor General, now that he has had an opportunity to look into the loan-sharking business -- and specifically the more recent incident involving Mr. Hovey -- prepared to make some statement on the matter. Specifically, would be agree there is now a need for a royal commission into the problem of organized crime in this province?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as far as Jack Hovey is concerned, as was indicated earlier -- I believe not only in this House but in press reports -- he is missing. His whereabouts are not known at the present time.

Mr. Shulman: Try Lake Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why doesn’t the hon. member send him a questionnaire?

An hon. member: Ask the member for High Park who inspired it.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The speculation centres on one of two possibilities: (1) That he is dead; or (2) that he simply absconded with some money and can’t be found.

An hon. member: He can be found in BC.

Mr. Shulman: He left a finger behind, I understand.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Susie Toddler is in town she may know; I don’t know.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: In any event, the various police forces are trying to locate him because of the request of his wife to find him. Until we locate the man and find out where he is and why he is missing, there is really nothing more we can say.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that he left behind many hundreds of thousands of dollars owing to him --

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Is the member for High Park sure?

Mr. Havrot: Maybe he was rubbed out.

Mr. Shulman: -- would the minister not think it unlikely that he left voluntarily, particularly in view of the circumstances? Would the minister answer the second part of my question with relation to the royal commission?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I don’t feel an incident such as this warrants a royal commission into organized crime.

Mr. Shulman: No, the whole situation.

Mr. Speaker: The time for the oral question period has expired. I’ll recognize the member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, through you sir, I’d like to introduce to the hon. members a group of students from the Province of New Brunswick who are visiting the west gallery today as part of the Young Voyageurs project.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

The member for Huron-Bruce.

NON-RETURNABLE BOTTLES AND CANS ACT

Mr. Gaunt moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to prohibit the Use of Nonreturnable Bottles and Cans.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Gaunt: The bill, Mr. Speaker, is self-explanatory.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 14, the Environmental Assessment Act, 1975.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Chairman, in presenting the Environmental Assessment Act to this House at this time, the bill has been amended and approved by a standing committee of this Legislature. As I said in this House when I introduced this bill, I believe the Environmental Assessment Act is pioneer legislation which establishes a precedent which will serve as a landmark of environmental protection in Canada. The principle of this bill is to provide what amounts to preventive medicine in this field, the vital fuel of environmental protection, by establishing a systematic process of environmental assessment at the earliest stage of an undertaking. This bill ensures this objective and provides a means by which the individual, as well as the highly organized group, may clearly advance opinions and be heard during the decision-making process.

I wish to emphasize again that the application of this bill will not hinder or delay environmentally acceptable undertakings anywhere in this province. Concern has been expressed that the bill will effect the construction of houses in the province.

I emphatically assure this House and the people of Ontario that the Environmental Assessment Act will have no restrictive effects upon the construction of housing in Ontario. This bill will apply ultimately to all major undertakings -- governmental, municipal and private -- in our province.

Municipalities will be exempted until we have had thorough discussions with them. As worded, the bill does not apply to the private sector until such time as the necessary regulations are passed. We would like to point out that our decision that the bill will not have general application to the housing industry was endorsed by the standing committee. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, I believe this had general unanimity among all parties of the standing committee.

It is not the intention of my ministry to hinder or delay progress although, at any point in the future, when this bill is widely applied, it is the intention of my ministry, in co-operation with other ministries of this government, through this bill, to safeguard the natural, the social and economic environments.

This bill provides full and ample opportunity for public participation in the consideration of environmental assessments and public hearings under the terms of the Act. The Environmental Assessment Board will have the authority to make decisions when public hearings are held. The Minister of the Environment and the cabinet will exercise their rightful and necessary responsibility to serve as the final arbiters of these decisions.

Many submissions and recommendations were received by the standing committee and by my ministry during preparation and consideration of this bill. Those submissions and recommendations resulted in important amendments being adopted into the bill.

The standing committee served as a forum for public participation. I believe that all who wished to comment were able to do so. The committee spent many hours considering these submissions. Mr. Chairman, great effort has been expended in many quarters to refine and improve this most important piece of legislation to make it workable and efficient.

I believe the Environmental Assessment Act is an innovative and comprehensive piece of legislation which will protect the environment of this province in the infinite future.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, criticisms or amendment to any section of the bill in committee and if so which section?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Section 2, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Section 2. The hon. member for Huron? Which section?

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Section 2.

Mr. Chairman: Shall we deem section 1 as carried?

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to offer a few remarks inasmuch as I fail to see why this has gone into committee of the whole House unless it is a case of one addressing oneself to certain clauses of the bill to get them recorded on Hansard.

We have undergone considerable study of this in standing committee and we offered several amendments, some of which the minister accepted, many of which he did not. The minister brought forth amendments on his own to several sections of the bill so really I think it is an exercise in futility in going over this clause by clause.

As far as section 2 is concerned, we suggested in standing committee words be added in section 2 so that the section would read, “The purpose of this Act is the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for their rights the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment.”

The reason we made this suggestion was that we wanted to protect the interests of the people. We felt Ontario citizens should have an input into the impact assessments which were done on major projects. If they saw a reason to object they should have a full hearing before the board because actually it is their right that we have a clean environment in Ontario.

As the section is now written, it would appear that the environment is pretty much left to the discretion of the minister and if he feels that an assessment should be accepted or rejected really he is the one who has the discretionary powers to do so. You would think that it is left pretty much to the whim and fancy of the minister as to whether Ontario tries to clean up its environment We feel the public should have just as much input and just as much say because actually it is their right to a clean environment. We suggested the addition of three little words there; the minister refuses to accept them. I trust that he will still take that stand although we would strongly advise that somewhere in here we should indicate that the people of Ontario have a right to a clean environment and that it is not just the ministers right to decide what part of the environment should be cleaned up or what part should be polluted if it happens to suit the intentions of a major developer who wants to undertake a major project. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick moves that section 2 of Bill 14 be amended to read as follows: “The purpose of this Act is to establish the right of the people of Ontario to the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment.”

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I move this amendment in this committee in order to point out to the ministry in particular that we have got to get to the point where a government in Ontario is not frightened about creating rights. I think we have passed the point in time where the rights of the people of the Province of Ontario can be dealt with only within the framework of procedural safeguards.

The reason that I move this amendment is to state clearly that we are not engaged in the establishment of a continuing paternalistic concern by the government about the environment but that we are establishing the right of people to the protection of that environment so that everyone concerned with the administration of this Act, in the government and in the Environmental Assessment Board, knows that they are talking about their obligations to protect the people’s right to that environment. It becomes of extreme importance, because later on in the bill there is an amendment which goes some way to establishing the right of public interest bodies to appear before the Environmental Assessment Board -- I grant that that particular amendment is a vast improvement over the bill, and I grant that a further amendment to which we can make a reference when the time comes is a substantial improvement in the bill -- but everyone knows that in the jurisprudence in our province, both in the courts and before administrative tribunals, it is very difficult to establish the right of public interest bodies which have come into being over the course of time in many fields, but particularly in the field of environmental protection, to have a standing before the very tribunals that are going to make the decisions about the protection of the environment.

That’s the reason for the amendment I do not propose to ask that the matter he dealt with now by way of a vote but, assuming as I always do, that we have sufficient members to ask for a vote, we would then ask that the amendment be stacked.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept this amendment. We did discuss it in the standing committee. This amendment creates some legal uncertainties in the other sections of the Act --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): So does the bill.

Hon. W. Newman: Well, I think the purpose is spelled out pretty clearly under section 2 of the Act: “it is [for] the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment.” I think that spells it out pretty clearly.

As far as public participation is concerned, I think the member for Riverdale did mention that further into the Act we have made a great deal of reservation on the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and before the hearing board that any individual will not be denied the right to be heard before the board. So I think as far as the hearings are concerned, and as far as this bill is concerned, we have certainly made it very clear that people will have these rights.

Mr. Chairman: The members have heard the amendment as read by the Chair. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this amendment before we put it? Does the hon. member for Huron wish to speak?

Mr. Riddell: I understand what the member who just spoke is getting at, but I’d be awfully afraid that this wording changes the entire purpose of the bill. In other words, we’re endeavouring to protect the environment in the bill; I don’t think we’re endeavouring to establish a person’s right. I think these are two completely different things, and to my way of thinking, if we accepted that amendment we would almost have to draft a new bill, because the original principle, I feel, would have been changed.

I didn’t put forth the amendment, because, I say again, I think it’s an exercise in futility. But if we simply added the words to the section -- leaving the fact that we’re protecting the environment -- providing for the rights of the Ontario citizen, “the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment,” as I see this amendment, to my way of thinking it’s changing the original purpose. It’s changing the original principle of the bill, and dear knows, I don’t want to have to go back and sit through another two or three weeks discussing this whole thing if a new bill has to be drafted.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Is it the pleasure of the committee that we stack these votes?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comment to any other section of this bill?

Mr. Renwick: Section 3, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Section 3, the hon. member for Riverdale.

On section 3:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to place this motion.

Mr. Renwick moves that section 3 be amended to read as follows: “This Act applies to,

“(a) only on and after a day to be named in a proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, undertakings by or on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Ontario, or by a municipality or municipalities;

“(b) undertakings of public bodies and undertakings of persons other than a person referred to in clause (a), on and after the day this Act comes into force.”

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, while the language is phrased somewhat in legal jargon as, unfortunately, must be the case apparently with these bills that we have before us --

Mr. Stokes: Why?

Mr. Renwick: I don’t know why.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Renwick: I think that we have expressed ourselves, both in the debate on second reading and during the discussions in committee, that so far as this caucus is concerned, we understand the need for the implementation in stages of a bill which, in its ongoing features, will encompass all of the undertakings which are of significant importance in the Province of Ontario, whether they are carried on by the government, by the private sector, or by public corporations such as Ontario Hydro, or the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, and that a priority must be established as to the way they are going to be implemented.

I think I would like to say also that, regardless of the section and regardless of my amendment, whether the section stands as it is presently drafted in the bill, or whether the amendment which I have just put finds favour, it doesn’t of course, alter in any way the complete authority of the minister under the regulatory clause, section 41, of the bill, to determine the order under which any undertakings come within the purview of the bill.

So, in a sense it is a little bit of gobbledegook, because the fact of the matter is that the exempting provision -- the power for the minister to exempt undertakings, the power of the minister to exempt classes of undertakings, the power of the minister by way of regulation to designate even among exempted classes those undertakings which are going to be subject to the bill under the regulatory power -- reposes in the minister almost absolute and complete control. All we have to go on in the bill, all that the public has to go on, are the express statements of the minister as to the way in which he envisages this bill being implemented in its application to particular undertakings.

The minister has said, as I understand it, that he expects this bill to be proclaimed in force in the next few months -- presumably in three, four or five months’ time. At that point in time it will be applicable, as he sees fit, to the undertakings of the government of the Province of Ontario, and as he sees fit thereafter to the undertakings of various municipalities and the undertakings of public bodies. Then he has stated, both in the assembly and in committee, that he foresees 18 months hence -- give or take some time -- the ministry may be in a position to make the statute applicable to portions, or some portions, of the private sector with respect to their major understandings. Now, that is the priority that the bill envisages -- subject always, as I say, to the total overriding power of the minister to change the order under which any particular projects come into the purview of this statute.

What we have been saying, and what we have been saying time and again, is that the ministry over a period of years has realized the importance to the public and the public concern about the protection of the environment -- and this bill is evidence of that. The government in its undertakings has in various specific and in many cases on an ad hoc basis, in fact, provided within the individual ministries of the government some kind of assessment of the environmental impact. I am not saying it is perfect; I am not saying it is fine; I am not saying in each case it has been exactly what should be done. But this government, having come with this bill before us, can now leave to a later date, as a matter of priorities only, the undertakings of the government of Ontario to be within the purview of the bill.

The minister can also leave it so far as the municipalities are concerned, because they, too, are responsible governments which are involved in the public impact of environmental assessment with respect to their undertakings. That is part of the political atmosphere at the present time. It is part of the response of government in this particular period of time to the express needs and wishes of the electorate which determines the fate of governments, both at the provincial and the municipal level. So they could be left to a later date.

Where the problem is with respect to environmental assessment and environmental impact is in the major enterprises and undertakings of the private sector and in the major enterprises and undertakings of public corporations such as Ontario Hydro or the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, not being necessarily agents of the Crown but something called a public corporation as distinct from a part of the private sector.

My amendment simply reverses the priority. It endeavours to say, in place of having the Act apply to the undertakings of the government of Ontario in the first instance, it will apply to the undertakings of the major undertakings of the private sector and the major undertakings of Ontario Hydro and that later on in the time span that the minister speaks about, some 18 months or two years hence, it can be made applicable to the undertakings of the government of Ontario.

This doesn’t preclude the minister, if my amendment were accepted, from designating a particular undertaking of the government of the Province of Ontario as deserving of, or requiring this kind of environmental assessment or environmental impact hearing to determine the extent and nature of that impact. But the priorities must of necessity be obviously right. As suggested in my amendment, I cannot for one single moment concede that a chemical complex, such as Petrosar, is going ahead, regardless of its expressed good intentions to do all of the good corporate things about environmental protection on its own and without any government intervention at all. Of course, if that were the case, we wouldn’t need this legislation.

I can’t conceive that a project, an undertaking such as Petrosar, should not be subject as quickly as possible to a full-male environmental impact hearing and assessment as to whether or not it should be allowed to proceed; in what stages it should be allowed to proceed and what the problems are with respect to it.

We had before us in committee Dominion Foundries and Steel. We had, I thought, a very interesting and valuable discussion with Dominion Foundries and Steel. I took it that what they were saying is that in the forward planning which is required in a complex industry such as the steel industry -- or, as I’ve said, in a complex industry, such as Petrosar in Sarnia -- that they have to forward plan a considerable period of time; that they’ve got to say that, everything else being equal, they have an undertaking which is of a 10-year duration and they intend to implement that undertaking over a period of 10 years. They cannot implement it all at once for any number of reasons, a good portion of it being that the capital is not available immediately to deal with that kind of gigantic expansion.

Obviously, a 10-year undertaking in a major industrial enterprise in the Province of Ontario cannot put that drain on the skills available for the implementation all at once. You can’t do it, presto, as if you’d thought about it for a long time and then overnight it could come into force. Dominion Foundries and Steel were expressing their concern that they would get part way into their 10-year undertaking and find that at some stage in it the government would insist on an environmental assessment and create an aura of uncertainty with respect to the completion of the overall undertaking in such a way as to make it difficult for Dominion Foundries and Steel, for example, to proceed and make it difficult for them to raise capital because of the uncertainty which would be created at any point in time.

Rather than being concerned about whether or not there was going to be an Environmental Assessment Act, I took it that what the spokesmen for Dominion Foundries and Steel were saying was, “All we want to do is to know what the rules of the game are going to be. We want to know right now what they’re going to be.” It seemed to me that supported the argument which I am making to the minister that at the earliest possible moment, in accordance with the amendment which I have introduced, this bill should be made applicable in the first instance to the major enterprises and undertakings of the private sector.

Let me refer to a third undertaking in the private sector which has been of great concern, to me. I simply quote from the notification which appeared in the New York Times some time ago and I haven’t pretended for one moment to follow it up. My colleague, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier), would be much more knowledgeable than I am about it.

Texasgulf Inc. which is, of course, in the riding of my colleague, the member for Cochrane South, as far as the particular mine up there is concerned, said it has signed a letter of intent with the Mitsubishi Metal Corp. covering engineering of a continuous smelting process for its previously reported more than $200 million copper smelter and refinery plant for Timmins, Ont.

Texasgulf said its new smelter, due for completion in 1978, will be the first such facility outside Japan to use the Mitsubishi process, described as “the most efficient and environmentally sound pyro-metallurgical copper smelting process in existence today.” If we have come this far with this kind of a bill after an immense period of gestation -- both with respect to the bill and with respect to the gradual awareness of the government over many years to the need for environmental assessment -- all I’m saying in the amendment is that’s the kind of undertaking to which this bill should apply at the earliest possible date.

Those are three obvious examples which I’ve used for the purpose of supporting the argument behind the amendment which I put forward.

Leaving the private sector it seems to me, as my friend from Huron said quite recently today in relation to his question which he put to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell), that there are undertakings of Ontario Hydro, of necessity, all of which for practical purposes, because they’re usually major ones, require that this bill apply to them as soon as possible. It seems to me it’s most important therefore that, along with the examples I’ve given from the private sector, it should apply to those of Ontario Hydro.

The bill, as it’s presently drafted, does allow the minister to apply it immediately to Ontario Hydro. I have retained that in the amendment which I have put before the minister. He will see I have referred to public bodies and undertakings of what can be colloquially referred to as the private sector in the one portion of the bill and I’ve left the undertakings of the government of Ontario and of the municipalities in that portion of the bill to be delayed some significant period of time.

It seemed to us in our caucus that any reasonable understanding of the needs of the environment, the needs of the people for the protection of that environment would mean that the order which I have suggested is a reasonable one. It relates to the factual situation as it exists in the Province of Ontario and does not relate to the priority and order of priority which the minister has enshrined in his version of section 3 in the bill. I would ask the minister to reconsider his rejection of this reversal of priorities and to accept the amendment which I put before you now.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: I simply want to support this amendment. I really fail to see why the greatest polluters of our environment would be excluded from this bill until such time as the minister felt he had his administrative offices set up to handle the various assessments as they come in and what have you.

Again, using Ontario Hydro as an example -- although I expect it could be considered a public body now -- I’m sure there wouldn’t have been this hassle right now over the Bradley-Georgetown line had Ontario Hydro been required to submit an impact assessment study to the minister and had the opponents had an opportunity to appear before the assessment board, and certainly if Ontario Hydro is not required to put impact assessment studies on projects which it expects to undertake, then it wouldn’t surprise me a bit but what we would see another power plant established in Huron county, somewhere south of Goderich, before Hydro would be brought in under this Act -- and, of course, then the damage is done. The minister, having had some experience, or quite a bit of experience, in agriculture, knows full well what I am talking about when I say it is imperative that we try to keep pollution out of some of the best agricultural areas in the province.

I really think the private sector should be brought in as soon as this bill is proclaimed, because, really, who pollutes the environment more than the private sector? I just fail to see where the public sector or the municipalities are contributing all that much to pollution; I think they are taking measures now to correct some of this, whereas the private sector has one motive in mind and it goes ahead on this basis. Dear knows how long the minister will exclude them from this bill, until such time, as I say, as he feels that he has his administrative offices set up to handle the situation. I would support these amendments.

Mr. Chairman: I will not reread the amendment proposed by Mr. Renwick. We’ll take it as read.

All those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s amendment -- does the minister wish to respond? I’m sorry.

Hon. W. Newman: I would just like to respond very briefly, Mr. Chairman. When I first brought the bill forward I said government and government agencies -- and, of course, we are both talking about Hydro -- and Hydro would be brought into that classification. The municipal organizations will come under the bill at this point in time but will be regulated out until we have had a chance to discuss it with them. We now have the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act, under which we keep a pretty close tab on the industrial sector. It’s a lot cheaper for industry to go ahead and do a voluntary assessment, which many of them are doing, rather than pay the price after the fact, as is the case for many of the industries now. It’s costing them a great deal of money to put on the necessary abatement equipment which we are demanding. We are now asking them to come forward on a voluntary basis and many of them are, because it’s a lot more practical for them to do it at this point in time.

The member for Riverdale mentioned Dominion Foundries and Steel Co., where they do plan 10 years ahead. I think I made any position very clear to them the other day when I agreed that yes, they are 10 years down the road in their programme, and if they have started something now, they should be looking at environmental assessment down the road when they start into their next phase of the programme.

You know, some of us think that just because the Environmental Assessment Act will be in place everybody is automatically going to be a major polluter. I don’t think so. I think, on the contrary, most people are going to adhere to the Act. Most people are going to try and be good corporate citizens. I would like to say that for any industry to go ahead, knowing this Act is going to be proclaimed, without some sort of environmental assessment within their own organization in the future, would be looking for a great deal of trouble. We decided to go the route of government and government agencies, Hydro being one of them, and then the municipal and then the private sector; but keeping in mind, under section 41, as the member for Riverdale pointed out, if we find a flagrant violation in the major industrial sector, or somebody trying to create a major problem for us, there is no reason we can’t actually deal with it under section 41. But it is just physically impossible to get the staff and the technical expertise into place to bring them all in at the same time, and thus we want to go the route of government and government agencies, municipal; out, and back in after discussions, and then the private sector after that; but keeping in mind that we already have two Acts which give us a fair amount of control over the private sector.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s amendment to section 3 will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack this amendment as well?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions, criticisms or amendments to any other section of the bill, and if so, to what section?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have no further comments until we come to section 12.

Section 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): On section 5(3)(b)(iii), Mr. Chairman, during the discussions in committee, this line, “the alternatives to the undertaking,” caused some difficulties. The section says that the environmental assessment submitted to the minister shall consist of several things, one of them being a description of and a statement of the rationale for, in section 5(3)(b)(iii), the alternatives to the undertaking. “The alternatives” means all the alternatives not just some alternatives, and this created quite a bit of discussion.

During the discussion it was pointed out that if, say, Hydro proposed a nuclear plant, this section would require Hydro to outline the environmental advantages and disadvantages of such alternatives as fossil fuel, steam plant, steam plant fired by wood from an energy plantation, a wind-energy alternative system or possibly even a solar-energy alternative system.

I would just like to have this on the record because, Mr. Chairman, you probably realize that for some strange reason the committee refused to allow the discussion to be recorded despite the recommendations; of the procedural affairs committee on bills of such great importance.

Section 5 agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Burr: Mr. Chairman, section 6 specifies a proponent is required to submit to the minister an environmental assessment. It had been pointed out that if those interested do not become aware of the assessment or the statement until it is published, then anyone who wishes to study the assessment and make recommendations to the minister has only 15 days -- no --

Mr. Riddell: It’s 30 days.

Mr. Burr: It was originally 15 days, and now it is going to be 30 days; however, under some circumstances, this would be an inadequate amount of time. It was suggested that the time at which a proponent is required under the Act to submit an assessment by the minister would be the time to allow those interested to know that this project was being proposed and that an assessment was being made.

During committee, the minister undertook to give as much publicity as was necessary when the announcement was being made that an assessment was being required. The minister stated that if it was administratively possible, this he would do. I would just like that put on the record.

Sections 6 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale on section 12.

On section 12:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have no amendment to propose to section 12; I simply want to emphasize to the committee the importance of what we are endeavouring to do in section 12(4).

I am content, for the present time, with the amendment which was accepted by the ministry during the course of the committee hearings as expressing the intention of this assembly about the persons who will be permitted to have standing before a hearing of the Environmental Assessment Board. Section 12, briefly, is the point in time where, if various procedural requirements have taken place, there is the first intimation to the board that a hearing is to be held. When I refer to the board, of course, it is the Environmental Board.

My concern, which I expressed in the committee, was that public interest bodies, such as Pollution Probe and the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and other bodies of one kind or another which have come into being by public-interested citizens contributing funds to establish organizations which will monitor, oversee, survey, and carry out a degree of surveillance with respect to the protection of the environment, must of necessity, in a bill like this in the present context of the society of the Province of Ontario, be assured they have a claim to standing. I’m not arguing about the fact that the determination of those who are parties to the proceeding will be specified by the board. The board can’t of necessity be arbitrary; the board must of necessity be guided by the intention of the statute with respect to who should have standing.

As I say, I accept the section as drafted, but I would like to draw the minister into confirmation of a couple of things with respect to that section of the bill, so that those who may have occasion to do so, when the Environmental Hearing Board is considering its procedures, how it will operate and how it will deal with the hearings that come before it, will have the benefit of the minister’s confirmation that public interest bodies, even though they may not have a specific, particular interest in the sense in which the rules of private litigation and other board bearings could be held to exclude them, will nevertheless be granted standing.

I referred in the committee, and it’s worth referring to it again briefly at this point in time, to the manual of practice which was put out by, as it was then known, the Department of Justice and Attorney General in February, 1972, after we had passed the statutory powers procedure bill, the statutory amendment bill, the judicial review procedure bill and the various bills which were to implement by way of procedural safeguards the basic recommendations of the McRuer commission. The problem was simply not the desire of any particular board that was set up to exclude anybody, but the fact that, on proper objection being made, it might very well be they had no other alternative. The bill, as it was drafted when we went into committee, was such as it would appear to be arguable on a very sound legal basis that bodies such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Pollution Probe and others could be excluded and not have standing before the committee.

I suppose it is trite law that the first thing a tribunal has to do before it starts into any hearing is determine who has standing and who are the parties to the procedures. I’m going to refer again to this pamphlet or manual of practice of which Mr. Mundell was the author. I think it’s an exceptionally fine statement of what we endeavoured to do by the implementation of those statutes to which I referred. He has these things to say at pages 8 and 9 -- and I’m not purporting to read into the record the whole of the portions -- in that portion of his article related to parties:

“It is essential in the interest of justice that all persons who may be affected or aggrieved by the decision of a tribunal have an opportunity to take part in the hearing in order to ensure that they may present their cases in protection of their interests.”

To the extent that is an accurate statement of the present position in the Province of Ontario, which I believe we are changing in this bill, the limiting terms are that all persons who may be affected or aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal have an opportunity to take part in the hearings. I think it is fair to say that in the section as it was drafted before we discussed it in committee that could have been an effective exclusion of the public interest bodies to which I have referred or an effective exclusion of an individual citizen, if he were not within the class of persons who might be affected or aggrieved. The point is further emphasized by Mr. Mundell as he goes on later:

“It is proposed that future statutes and existing statutes that are revised to require a hearing will specify who are the parties to each hearing as far as this is practicable.”

He refers to the Liquor Licence Review Board under the Liquor Licence Act where it states:

“The director, the applicant, or licensee and such other persons as the board may specify are parties to the proceedings before the board under this Act.

“If the board considers that a person other than the director or the applicant or licensee has a direct and immediate interest that will be affected by the decision of the board, it may and should specify such person as a party to the proceeding.”

I again emphasize the limiting effect of the use in law of the terms “a direct and immediate interest” as delimiting those persons who might be entitled to claim standing. He goes on further and says:

“Where a statute does not specify the parties, they are to be determined under the law as it existed before the enactment of the Act. The general principle is that any person who will be directly affected by the decision of the tribunal is entitled to be a party and should be recognized as such by the tribunal.”

Undoubtedly, in many cases no difficulty might arise; there might very well be a number of cases in which no difficulty can arise.

In the committee, we did enlarge the definition of persons who would be entitled, subject to being specified by the board, as having an interest. We have said that the persons who are to be parties to the proceedings are the proponent; secondly, any person other than the minister who has required the hearing.

Thirdly, we have divided it into two subclasses: “Such other persons as the board in its opinion specifies have an interest in the proceedings,” which is in accordance with the limitations which have been expressed in the article to which I referred, by Mr. Mundell; and the second subclass covers such persons as the board, having regard to the purpose of this Act, may specify.

I emphasize again -- it’s why I introduced the amendment to section 2, which has been stacked and perhaps may even now at this late date, be passed -- the purpose of the Act is designed, in my understanding and I want the minister’s confirmation of this, to ensure that public interest bodies may, if specified by the board -- and the board acting in good faith would specify them -- it would then be open to those public-interest bodies to be recognized as being parties to the proceedings. They could therefore carry out the mandate which they have as public-interest persons concerned about the environment, which has led to their original establishment. I would appreciate the minister’s confirmation of my understanding of that change which we made in the committee.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for Huron wish to comment before the minister replies? The hon. minister.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, under section 12 I think the reason for the amendment we made was that all persons appearing should be parties to the hearing. That’s really, I think, what you are asking for.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 12 carry?

Section 12 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments, questions, criticisms or amendments to any other section of the bill?

Mr. Burr: Section 18.

Mr. Renwick: I have no comment until section 18, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Section 18, the hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside. We deem to have carried the sections up to 18?

Sections 13 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 18:

Mr. Burr moves that section 18(1) be amended by adding at the end, “and shall not be members of the Legislature”.

Mr. Burr: The section would then read:

“A board to be known as the Environmental Assessment Board is established and shall be composed of not fewer than five persons who shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall not be employed in the public service of Ontario in the employ of any ministry and shall not be members of the Legislature.”

I think the reason does not need expansion. This, of course, is in line with the recommendations of the Camp commission.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Riverdale wish to speak on this section?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have no further amendments to submit on this section. I would, of course, support the amendment by my colleague, the member for Sandwich-Riverside. Perhaps, I could make the two brief comments I want to make on the balance of the section.

I may say that since the deliberations of the resources development committee I have tried again to consider whether or not I should move at this time to delete the privative clause in section 18 -- that is, subsection 19, of section 18 -- which excludes judicial review by the courts.

Certainly there was no question when we went into the committee that it was absolutely essential that that clause be deleted. There was no protection for the citizen or for those who were before the Environmental Assessment Board that they would have the benefit of even the principles of natural justice with respect to the hearing and the right to cross-examine, the right to present their case and to be fairly heard.

In the way in which subsection 12 of section 18 was drafted as we went into committee, taken and read together with subsection 20 of section 18 it meant that for practical purposes the Environmental Assessment Board could act as arbitrarily and without due regard to procedural safeguards and procedural protection of persons as they saw fit to do so. It would be extremely difficult for any aggrieved person to get the matter before the courts on the question of whether or not rise principles of natural justice had been heard.

In committee, it was the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (J. A. Taylor) who introduced the amendment which altered subsection 12 of section 18, and we all breathed considerably easier when we knew that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act is going to apply to the procedures which are established by the Environmental Assessment Board. At least that is my reading of the amendment to subsection 12 of section 18, which was accepted by the committee. Therefore, together with the correlative enforcing clause of subsection 20 of section 18, it appears to me there will be adequate opportunity for hearing.

This lead me to ruminations since the committee rose from its deliberations on this matter. I am inclined to think that I am prepared not to move the deletion of the private clause. I want to make certain that board is vested with the kind of authority and the kind of power which it has and which will enable it to get on with the environmental assessment hearings which are its responsibilities. These, of necessity, will be extremely complex and extremely time consuming in most instances of the kind of major undertakings to which it is going to apply.

I assume that the clause, in fact, effectively does exclude the courts from reviewing these matters, but I assume that because the Statutory Powers Procedure Act will apply the basic protections to ensure the fairness and the adequacy of the hearing will be fulfilled. I am ambivalent about it, because as a lawyer I tend to think that the reserve authority of the court to review the kind of statutory powers without substituting their views for those of a duly constituted administrative tribunal such as this, should be preserved for the protection of the public.

I think, however, in the interests of seeing that these proceedings proceed expeditiously and because of the long drawn out nature of many of them, that I simply want to express my ambivalence, if you will, but also put my concern on the record as to the reasons for the privative clause remaining in the bill. Anyone who reads the balance of the article by Mr. Mundell, to which I referred earlier, in the portions where he refers to the Judicial Review Procedure Act, will see that in a sense it’s all part and parcel of one matter.

I am constrained to say -- and I haven’t had the opportunity, due simply to the pressure of time, to go and sit and listen to the hearings before the Environmental Hearing Board with respect to this vexed question of the lead pollution and Canada Metals and Toronto Refiners; I haven’t had that opportunity; what I have been dependent on is what I have read in the press -- I think that the board, such as the board that we are setting up, has got to not only have the powers, but he sufficiently sensitive to abuses by parties before it of the procedures which it is going to establish. They are going to have to be kind of tough about the matter, because you can’t have the kind of abuse which appears to have taken place before that board continue if we are going to accomplish the purposes. So, with that equivocation on my part, I am going to say that at this particular point in time. I am not going to ask that subsection 19 of section 18 be deleted, and I am not going to ask for it because of the willingness of the ministry to accept the amendment to subsection 12 of section 18, which was proposed by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, the amendment by the member for Sandwich-Riverside was proposed in the standing committee and I thought the minister had accepted this amendment. I know that I also supported the amendment by the Environmental Law Association suggesting that no member who had been in the public service for the previous two years would be permitted to sit on the board.

The committee felt this was being a little discriminatory, and I would be inclined to agree after giving it second thought, but I have been informed that the Liberal caucus here has recommended for years now that no sitting member of the Legislature be appointed to boards, and the Camp commission report stated that no sitting member of the Legislature should sit as a member of an administrative tribunal or board. Again, I thought the minister agreed to this when we discussed this in standing committee. I might be wrong, but I am sure if he didn’t at that time he will at this time, and I certainly support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I can’t support the amendment under section 18(1) because I feel we have some very competent MPPs in this Legislature. I also feel that it’s government policy at this point in time. I can’t accept that amendment. I do appreciate the comments of the member for Riverdale on section 18(19) about the need perhaps to leave it in at this point in time. With the amendments we made to section 18(12), I believe, which cleared up a lot of the problems, we feel that section 18(19) should stay in. But as far as the amendment from the member for Sandwich-Riverside is concerned, I can’t accept that.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman, I take it from the minister’s response t, the amendment put forth by the member for Sandwich-Riverside that he is in fact thinking of appointing backbench Tories to this board. Now, why doesn’t the minister come right out and say that’s who he’s going to stack the board with? Why fiddle and faddle around and tell me about all of the abilities these people have? I can judge that for myself because I’m sitting here watching them every day. That’s not what we’re talking about.

Mr. Burr: How can you watch them when they’re not here?

Mr. Germa: I watch them downstairs. That’s where their true wisdom comes forth.

An hon. member: Sometimes.

Mr. Germa: The Camp commission has recommended that elected members, if they do their job properly, just don’t have time to go out moonlighting on this particular kind of an adventure. You know the criticism your government has come under on account of this patronage -- and I call it nothing more than patronage; it’s Tory patronage of the rankest order.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Germa: Camp has recommended you get away from that kind of business. Now why don’t you act decently and accept the amendment, or else come out and say, “I’m going to stack it full of Tories”? It’s certainly not going to be stacked with elected members from this side of the House. There’s no other board, commission or anything else that’s got one opposition member on it. If you’re looking for ability, there’s lots of it over here. But you don’t choose to see it. You see all the ability behind you. I’m familiar with those mossbacks over there. My God, some of the appointments you guys have made are sickening.

You’re going to ruin the whole impact this legislation might have by a simple thing like that. It will lose credibility. It’s strictly another Senate for a bunch of Tories who can’t get into the other Senate.

Mr. Riddell: They won’t have a chance to stack it after the next election.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I really can’t let it go by to say that I’m going to stack the board or that it’s going to be stacked. This board will be carefully thought out, like the present Environmental Hearing Board; we have excellent people on that board at this point in time.

I’ll tell you this: The Environmental Assessment Board will require a lot of technical expertise and a lot of capable people on it, and I can assure you there has been nobody allocated yet. Some of the members of the former Environmental Hearing Board certainly will be considered for it because they’ve been working on it for some time. But it says “not less than five” in the bill, and I would assume that with the number of hearings coming forward, there will be a great deal more.

At this point in time we have one member on the Environmental Hearing Board who is a very respected member of this government, and who does a very fine job on the Environmental Hearing Board. I believe there is only the one member on that board.

I’d just like to make the record clear that there’s going to be no stacking of it. You’re going to have very competent people like we have on the Environmental Hearing Board, who’ve done an excellent job on behalf of the Province of Ontario. Now that we’re moving on the Environmental Assessment Board, I’m sure that we’ll have equally competent people there.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): You’re going backwards.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, would the minister just reflect back a few months and consider what happened to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission as a result of these Tory patronage appointments?

Mr. Samis: Shameful.

Mr. Germa: You almost ruined a viable railway. You almost ruined the system with those kinds of appointments. Why don’t you get off and back away from that kind of stuff? All the wisdom in the world isn’t in those backbenches, not at all.

Mr. C. Nixon (Dovercourt): A lot of it is.

Mr. Germa: I’ll have no faith in this board if you stack it with those kinds of people, after the evidence that is on the record, particularly with regard to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, we don’t stack any boards on this side of the House; and if we did put a member on it, I can tell you there’s a great deal of talent on this side of the House. If you haven’t recognized that by now, you’ll find out when the next election comes.

Mr. Germa: It is not shown.

Mr. Chairman: Does anyone else wish to speak to this amendment? The hon. member for Windsor West.

Mr. Samis: Stormont.

Mr. Chairman: Stormont. I’m sorry; my apologies.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister why he feels it is necessary to have any government appointees on this board in the first place?

Hon. W. Newman: I didn’t say it was necessary, but I wasn’t going to preclude them from it.

Mr. Samis: Why don’t you accept the Camp report recommendations and its philosophy?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to get into any long controversy on this. I said I didn’t necessarily say they would but certainly we have some very competent people who have served on boards and commissions in this province and we are very proud of them. I don’t want to preclude anybody who has ability from serving on this board.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I think this is an appropriate time for me to make a comment separate and distinct both from the amendments and from my other comments on this section. It is of concern and I don t know what the answer to it is.

This is the question of persons who do have standing, who are made parties to the hearings, having the financial resources to carry out the kind of effective presentation before the board and the background work and study which would be necessary in order to present effectively perhaps the contra case before the board in the case of a major undertaking being considered from the viewpoint of its environmental assessment.

I was not in the committee at the particular point in time when the discussion about this question of funding came before the committee. I understand from what my colleague, the member for Sandwich-Riverdale, and others have said to me there was a substantial degree of sympathy among the members of the committee, regardless of their particular parties, that this was a problem.

I don’t believe that Mr. Justice Osler’s report on the Legal Aid Act and whether or not groups or bodies with a public interest could establish their right to obtain a legal aid certificate through the Legal Aid Plan in order to defray the costs even of advocacy before the board in the presentation of their case, goes that far. Of course, we haven’t seen any amendments which would extend the legal aid system that far.

Even if that were so I doubt very much if it would meet the basic problem and that is the funding which would be necessary to do the background study, the analyses, the interpretation and the work which would be required to present effectively opposing views to the board. We have had so many cases of this before boards and tribunals that I think I need only refer to one.

It was the result of intervention by the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), some years ago, when the hon. John Robarts was Premier of Ontario, that the government finally got to the point of making interventions with respect to Bell Canada rate increases. It did so with the full knowledge and understanding that any public interest group -- be it the Consumers’ Association of Canada in its Ontario section or the Consumers’ Association of Canada generally -- is unable to make the kind of presentation to counter effectively -- let alone understand -- the complex presentations made by Bell Canada in Ottawa before the federal board which has jurisdiction over the rates which it charges.

It does seem to me that the minister in his statement -- I shouldn’t say his statement; he is reported to have said outside the Legislature that the cost of an environmental assessment for a major industrial or public undertaking might very well be in the neighbourhood of one per cent or even as high as two, three or four per cent of the overall cost of the project. If you are talking about funds of that magnitude it would appear to me that underlines very clearly the extent to which public interest bodies or persons specifically interested or affected by the hearing which is going to take place are going to be at an immense disadvantage if there is not some method by which they can be funded in order to provide for assistance.

I doubt very much if it is of necessity limited only to this particular Act. A major area, of course, is this Environmental Assessment Board and I do not think for a moment that the general revenues of the Province of Ontario, through the Legal Aid Plan, should be used for that purpose. It does appear to me that if the government does establish an Environmental Hearing Board and provides access to that board by members of the public who have a legitimate interest in appearing before it, where the government is dealing with complex technological processes and gigantic undertakings in a province of this immensity and recognizes it, then the government is going to have to face up to providing authority in the board in a proper case to permit the funding of parties to the hearings for the purpose of enabling those parties to carry out their legitimate function to be established under this Act.

I would move an amendment similar to the amendment proposed by the Canadian Environmental Law Association, except I’m not certain that that is the appropriate and proper way in which it should be done. It does seems to me, when a proponent puts forward a plan to conduct an environmental assessment with respect to an undertaking which it is considering carrying out, that it may well be that in due course the minister is simply going to have to say that at the time of doing so -- after an initial assessment of what it is proposing is before the minister -- the minister, or the minister by direction to the board, should direct the board to have a hearing to determine the extent to which the proponent should be required to hear the cost of funding those bodies which will be granted standing at a hearing to determine whether or not that undertaking should or should not go forward because of environmental requirements.

We are talking obviously about substantial sums of money, not only with respect to the undertaking, but with respect to establishing any reasonable fund to enable persons with standing to carry out their proper function. It seems to me it is a legitimate part of the cost of the undertaking. It seems to me the board should have the discretion at some point to require the proponent to deposit with the board for apportionment among those persons who have been granted standing as parties to the hearing, a fund sufficient to meet their reasonable costs. Otherwise, I don’t really believe that any of the bodies, regardless of how legitimate their public interest and how legitimate their concern about the protection of the environment, can fulfil their function in any way unless they’ve got the funds to do it. It’s an expensive problem. I would be anxious to hear what the minister feels in the light of I can’t say complete sympathy -- a sense of general sympathy, as I understand it, among the members of the committee that this was a serious problem.

Mr. Chairman: Before the hon. minister responds to the hon. member for Riverdale, it was my thought that perhaps you were going to speak to the member for Riverdale’s amendment. Perhaps I could put the amendment to the committee at this time and then the minister can respond to your comments.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): What is the amendment? Could you read it?

Mr. Chairman: I shall read the amendment again. Mr. Burr moves that section 18, subsection 1, be amended by adding at the end of the section “and shall not be members of the Legislature.”

Mr. Singer: On a point of order, you are not carrying the whole section?

Mr. Chairman: No, we’re just carrying subsection 1.

Mr. Singer: You’ll carry the other amendment a little further on?

Mr. Chairman: That’s right. Subsection 1 is all we’re carrying at this point.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack this amendment?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to respond to the comments of the hon. member for Riverdale?

Hon. W. Newman: He was talking about funding for the interveners. We discussed this at sonic length in the standing committee downstairs. At this point in time, we’re not prepared to fund the interveners. We will be watching with a great deal of interest the Porter commission which will be studying Hydro’s long-range plan, where there will be some funding available for the Porter commission. At this point in time we will not be funding the interveners under this section of the Act.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for Downsview wish to comment on section 18?

Mr. Singer: I want to talk about subsection 19 of section 18, the privative clause.

Mr. Burr: The minister stated that he would be prepared to take a look at this in about a year’s time, right?

Hon. W. Newman: In a year.

Mr. Singer: He’s not going to be here in a year’s time.

Mr. Burr: Well, assuming he is.

Mr. Riddell: He will be hero, but he won’t have a say.

Hon. W. Newman: Assuming you will be. I just feel sorry for you. That’s all I’ve got to say about you. The member has a riding that is kind of cut up a bit.

Mr. Stokes: He was pointing at the member for Downsview.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we can get back to subsection 19.

Hon. Mr. Newman: May I just comment: Let’s have a look and see how the act works before we talk about any sort of funding.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Downsview wishes to speak on --

Mr. Singer: On subsection 19, yes.

Mr. Chairman: We assume that the sections have carried up to subsection 19.

Mr. Singer: What were you saying about my cut-up riding?

Hon. W. Newman: I didn’t say a thing about that. I was just saying that section 19 --

Mr. Stokes: You said you felt sorry for him.

Mr. Singer: I thought you wanted to come and run as a Tory candidate in Wilson Heights, because we’d welcome you. The Tory organization there hasn’t produced even a name yet. They are looking hard and they’d accept you, I’m sure.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: Just be a little careful. When he or she comes along, you better watch it.

Mr. Singer: I’m certainly ready.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please, does the member want to speak on subsection 19?

Mr. Singer: Yes I do, Mr. Chairman. Is that all right? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think subsection 19 should be there. It’s a privative clause. I happened to be present at the committee when Mr. Landis was giving certain opinions. The minister sort of dropped out of the corner of his month the thought that he was very kind because he wasn’t plugging up a loophole which would take the thing entirely out of the courts.

I was very fascinated really by the references of Mr. Landis to two cases -- Fraser and Pringle, which is a Supreme Court of Canada case; and Anisminic and the Foreign Compensation Commission, which is a House of Lords case in England. I was sufficiently intrigued by the theories of law put forward at that time to have a look at both of those cases.

Before I deal with those cases particularly, Mr. Chairman, I thought I would say this. I don’t think it sits well with the government of Ontario to write a privative clause into anyone of its statutes. I think that’s the sort of thing we were worried about when James Chalmers McRuer embarked on his civil rights investigation.

The legislation that flowed from his report more or less indicated that there be remedies. We have a Statutory Powers Procedures Act and we have a Judicial Review Act, and we have all those other statutes. There was a bit of a discussion about a clause in this statute eliminating the provision of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act. Interestingly enough, the phrasing of that clause was changed on an amendment moved by a Conservative member. The minister supported his own member in that suggestion. I think that was good and I think the minister should take a step further and eliminate subsection 19, and not tell us that he was generous in not plugging the loophole, because I don’t think there was any such loophole to be plugged.

Let me get a little technical about the legal interpretation. Fraser and Pringle dealt with the Immigration Appeal Board. If that case is read carefully, the judgement of Chief Justice Laskin clearly talks about the federal government creating a court of record. This is the first question I put to the minister. Is there any power in the Province of Ontario to create a court of record? I suggest there isn’t. So that at that point the applicability of the Fraser and Pringle case to the situation in hand seems to disappear.

The second point that I put to the minister is this: Chief Justice Laskin talks about the possible impropriety of having a review of jurisdiction made by a senior or a superior provincial court, when the jurisdiction, in fact, can be reviewed in last instance by the Supreme Court of Canada, and the possibility that both those courts may do that review and come out with different decisions, which again is a very different thing. If the minister will look carefully at the statute that establishes the new Immigration Appeal Board, he will see that an appeal lies from that, in the final instance, to the Supreme Court of Canada and in the first instance, to the Federal Court. We are comparing apples to oranges -- or at least the minister’s legal advisers are attempting to compare apples to oranges.

So, we go back again -- and it was no great move of generosity that there was no legal loophole being plugged, because to do what the minister thought he might be able to do, or what was indicated to him he might be able to do, to plug the legal loophole and prevent anybody going to the courts, he would have had to do two things; first, he would have had to have the power to create a court of record, and second, he would have had to have the power to take an appeal from this board all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Neither of those things is done or purported to be done, and I suggest probably there isn’t the power to do them in this statute.

All right. I don’t think we should be given any gratuitous gifts, Mr. Chairman, and I don t think that in today’s approach to these matters the writing in of a privative clause such as subsection 19 of section 18 really has any meaning.

Let me deal very briefly with the House of Lords case, and I suggest that was another red herring dragged across the frail in an effort to bolster an otherwise unsupportable case. Let me tell you, with respect to that decision, that it related to whether or not a particular error was an error of jurisdiction. In separate judgements in that case, the law lords extensively reviewed authorities and established a very wide scope for potential jurisdictional errors.

This, of course, was not the matter to which the Supreme Court directed itself in the Pringle case. It would have been inappropriate for Mr. Justice Laskin or any of his brothers on the bench to have commented on the House of Lords case in Fraser and Pringle. So that, again, there was an attempt to compare incomparables. I may particularly point out to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that on page 827 of the Laskin decision in the Pringle case there is this comment -- and I think it puts the thing in absolute clear perspective. The Chief Justice says:

“The effect of legislation in the present case cannot be tested by principles derived from cases interpreting privative clauses, nor even by viewing particular legislation as providing a yardstick of preference where the whole tribunals had concurrent jurisdiction. And I do not find it necessary to review other cases.”

That makes it quite clear, and it is also quite clear if you read Mr. Justice Laskin’s decision -- and it’s not a long decision; it’s not a complicated one -- that he was talking about something entirely different. He was talking about something entirely different. So for all those reasons I don’t think we should accept any gifts from the minister about plugging loopholes or not plugging loopholes. I think it would only make good sense if we removed the privative clause.

Let the minister not worry about people attempting to assert their rights before the appropriate judicial tribunals of this province. I think their rights will be well looked after if there is no effort to attempt to remove the usual remedies, the prerogative remedies. Remove that clause, Mr. Chairman. Let’s not invite all of the people who want to assert their rights to enter into long and complicated and expensive litigation, which a clause like this does.

Granted, it perhaps relieves the ministry of some of the challenges that might otherwise be brought, but I don’t think it is a good service to the people of the province when the attempt is made. I don’t think the legal attempt is sufficient to take this out of the courts and I would rather not see that clause in. So I am not going to move an amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I don’t think subsection 19 should be included as a section of this statute.

Hon. W. Newman: The only comment I would make, Mr. Chairman, is that we have talked this out quite clearly. We are talking about -- certainly you’re partly right; it prevents review on certain grounds but not on jurisdictional grounds. There is recourse to the courts, as you know, on jurisdictional grounds under this section; that’s why we would like to leave it in.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, with great respect, the minister’s briefing wasn’t long enough. He should go back and get briefed again. We did not talk it out at all. Some of us here -- certainly the member for Downsview -- are not able to keep up to date from moment to moment with all the latest decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and the House of Lords.

However, I think I have enough sense to go to these decisions once they are mentioned and to determine whether or not, in my opinion, they are applicable to the context in which they are used. I have told you I’ve gone to those cases; I’ve quoted you portions of those cases.

This opportunity was not available to me at the time this came before the committee. For the minister to suggest that the matter was fully talked out before. I think, is quite incorrect. I suggest my interpretation deserves at least as much consideration as the opinion which the minister was given. I suggest it is not an idle interpretation; it is an interpretation based on some knowledge of the law by myself and by others. I would be quite prepared to stack it against the minister’s advisers at any time.

What I am urging the minister to do is to avoid the temptation his advisers have put in front of bins of inviting the public to stay away from the courts or, if they do want to go to court, to go to court at their own peril and at their very substantial expense. I say it does not befit the government of Ontario to attempt to erect this roadblock, as phoney as it might be, because I say it is a phoney roadblock. The courts will not support it for the reasons I outlined earlier.

I would again urge the minister, therefore, to eliminate subsection 19 from this section.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment further. This really should not become a legal argument. We want to have a workable procedure which will not grind matters to a halt through legal wrangling, something I said in the committee --

Mr. Singer: You are inviting.

Hon. W. Newman: -- which more than likely would be the result of opposing lawyer’s advice. This has been accepted by some of my friends on the other side of the House over there even as late as today so I can’t see removing subsection 19 at this time.

Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection 19 carry?

Mr. Singer: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of subsection 19 carrying, please say “aye”.

All those opposed, please say “nay.” In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Singer: Stack it.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): What do you mean, “stack it”?

Mr. Chairman: You didn’t make any motion.

Mr. Singer: I don’t have to.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Who stood up?

Mr. Chairman: Subsection 19 is carried.

Mr. Singer: No. Surely, Mr. Chairman, when you call for the ayes and nays if, in your opinion, the “ayes” have it and if five of us stand, you have to have a vote on it.

Mr. Chairman: Five of you didn’t stand.

Mr. Singer: Surely? All right, we’ve got five here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They all did it half-heartedly.

Mr. Chairman: I would have to say to the member for Downsview, I think the chairman did it legally and fairly. I asked if subsection would carry and I heard the member for Downsview say “No.”

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: I asked for the “ayes” and nays.

Mr. Singer: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: In my opinion, the “ayes” had it.

Mr. Singer: All right and five members having stood, there should be a vote.

Mr. Chairman: No five members stood and the section was carried.

Mr. Singer: Certainly there were five members who stood. There are five members standing now.

Mr. Chairman: They are now but they weren’t at that time. At the time the section was carried, there wasn’t a member standing in the House.

Mr. Singer: That is improper. I appeal your ruling, Mr. Chairman. Now we call in all the members, eh? I appeal your ruling.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You are not really very helpful.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): You have made your point. It is recorded forever.

Mr. Singer: The simple thing is to stack it with the others and we will vote on it when the other amendments are up.

Mr. Chairman: This chairman has nothing before him to stack.

Mr. Singer: This is whether or not the section or the subsection carries.

An hon. member: Stack it.

Mr. Chairman: I did.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): You are slow to challenge --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Downsview has challenged my ruling. All those in favour of the chairman’s ruling, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Singer: We stand up again then.

Mr. Chairman: Call in the members.

Mr. Singer: We can stack that vote.

Mr. Renwick: You can’t stack appeals.

Mr. Chairman: You can’t stack the chairman’s ruling.

Mr. Singer: But your ruling was wrong.

Mr. Chairman: In your opinion, it was wrong.

Mr. Singer: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: In the opinion of the House, it wasn’t wrong. Let’s find out.

The committee divided on the chairman’s ruling which was upheld by the following vote:

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The chairman’s ruling has been challenged on section 19 of the bill.

The committee divided on the chairman’s ruling, which was upheld on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 53, the “nays” are 20.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the chairman’s ruling upheld and section 19 carried. We have some stacked votes. Are the members prepared to deal with them at this time?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: We will now vote on Mr. Renwick’s amendment to section 2.

The committee divided on Mr. Renwick’s amendment which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 12, the “nays” are 61.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost and section 2 carried.

Section 2 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We will now vote on Mr. Renwick’s amendment to section 3.

The committee divided on Mr. Renwick’s amendment which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 32, the “nays” are 41.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

Section 3 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Burr’s amendment to subsection 1 of section 18, which was negatived on a stacked vote, the same count as the first vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

Section 18 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member wish to speak on any other section of the bill?

Mr. Riddell: Section 29, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 19 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 29:

Mr. Riddell: Section 29 was discussed in some detail in standing committee. One could have mixed feelings on this particular section, but it is my feeling that any person should be entitled to apply for an injunction if he sees that a developer is proceeding with an undertaking that is in any way in contravention of the Act.

As the Act is presently written, it is only the minister who may apply to the divisional court if, indeed, an undertaking is proceeding in contravention of the Act. I feel in many cases that there would be concerned people who might be following the undertaking fairly closely and would find, somewhere along the line, that such an undertaking was in contravention of the Act. To my way of thinking, that person should be able to apply for an injunction to have the undertaking stopped until such time as it was proven that what the developer was doing was not in any way in contravention of the Act.

Mr. Riddell moves that section 29 be amended to read as follows:

“The minister or any person, in addition to any other remedy and to any penalty imposed by law, may apply to the divisional court for an order.”

Mr. Riddell: Again, I do not feel that it should be left entirely to the discretion of the minister as to whether an undertaking contravenes the Act. I can probably quote examples where interested parties have indeed made a study of the undertaking themselves and feel that the undertaking is proceeding and in some way contravening the Act, and yet this same person has no recourse. He can’t apply to the divisional court; he can’t apply for an injunction to stop the undertaking until such time as it is either proven to be in contravention of the Act or otherwise.

I know the minister is going to get up and he is going to say that this particular party, or a competitor to the company that is undertaking the development, could stall this thing for a number of months. My question is: Is there no penalty for applying to the courts vexatiously or frivolously? It is certainly going to be a costly procedure, in my estimation, to apply for an injunction and go through the courts to stop something if, indeed, you have no justifiable reason for so doing.

I just feel that the minister has a little too much power, a little too much discretion here, and the public really has no recourse.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker. I’m glad to see that the member used part of the answer I just gave him, but I would like to clarify the matter a little more. An individual can lay a charge for a violation of the Act if the violation infringes any of the individual’s common-law rights. Pollution frequently does have this effect. The individual has all his common-law rights in terms of getting an injunction. An interim injunction is not too difficult to get, as a rule. By the time you get to a full injunction, we could run into a situation where we would lose considerable valuable time. As I explained to the member opposite, it could be a competitor or an individual, although they have some responsibility in some cases, but these things can be done and could cause a great deal of delay. If every individual could apply for an injunction only to enforce the Act, it could cause a delay, as I’ve said before, of at least five or more months.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it. I declare the amendment lost.

Section 29 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments, questions or amendments to any other section of the bill? If so, to which section?

Sections 30 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 14 reported.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 15, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Mr. Chairman: Are there are any comments, questions or amendments to any section of the bill? If so, to which section?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have no comments on any sections of this bill.

Bill 15 reported.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 16, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section of Bill 16? If so, to which section?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have no comments on any section of this bill.

Bill 16 reported.

Hon. Mr. Newman moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report three bills without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I think I feel a general consensus that we would be satisfied to call it 6 o’clock and to resume at 8 o’clock.

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