role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

March 7, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L012 - Tue 7 Mar 1978 / Mar 7 mar 1978

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PANASONIC EXPANSION

COUNCIL FOR TROUBLED CHILDREN AND YOUTH

ORAL QUESTIONS

COUNCIL FOR TROUBLED CHILDREN AND YOUTH

ROBARTS REPORT

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

EQUAL PAY

HOSPITAL PRIVILEGES

PROPERTY TAXATION

GATT NEGOTIATIONS

PAPER MILL CONTROL ORDERS

CABINET COMMITTEE ON CONFEDERATION

OPP ROLE IN STRIKE

OHIP CLAIMS PROCEDURE

NOISE LEVELS

COMMUNITY COLLEGE NEGOTIATIONS

AIR POLLUTION

OVERTIME PERMITS

TRUCKING LEGISLATION

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

SPECIAL EDUCATION

WRITTEN QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INCOME TAX DISCOUNTERS AMENDMENT ACT

FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PANASONIC EXPANSION

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have just a very brief statement. I am pleased to inform the Legislature that Panasonic of Canada is announcing today its decision to proceed with two building projects that will cost several millions of dollars and provide new job opportunities. I am personally pleased that Mr. Lew Shoskes, vice-president of Panasonic of Canada, has stated in his announcement today that our investment and trade mission to Japan last fall was influential in bringing about the expansion program.

It was my pleasure to meet with officials of the parent company when we were in Japan last fall, at which time we emphasized our confidence in the Canadian economy and the many benefits offered by our own province.

Panasonic has purchased a 10-acre site in Mississauga -- I thought it might have been Brampton but it’s Mississauga -- where the company will build a new Canadian headquarters. Completion of the headquarters and adjoining warehouse, estimated to cost about $3 million, is expected late this year or early in 1979. Company officials suggest that further expansion could double the facilities that are being announced today.

In addition to the new headquarters, Panasonic Industries Canada, the Etobicoke manufacturing operation, has just completed an addition to its plant and is now considering an additional 50,000-foot expansion. In addition to the many jobs these undertakings will provide to the construction industry, Panasonic is hopeful that it can expand its own work force in the near future.

I believe Panasonic’s announcement today is a reminder to all of us that Ontario has reason for its confidence in our ability to maintain and attract investment that will stimulate our overall economy and provide employment opportunities. I believe it also shows the type of benefit we have come to expect from our investment in trade and tourism missions.

It is difficult to put a price tag on the value of these missions but we know they have resulted in many millions of dollars in investment and sales which can only help our employment situation. For example, from a mission to Iran last year, an Ontario company dealing in forest products catalogued sales of $2 million with a further estimated order of $3.5 million for 1979. On that same mission, a manufacturing company reported sales of $1.5 million. On a similar type of mission covering Brazil and Argentina, another company reported initial orders of over $1 million.

During our mission last fall, members of the Ontario group met with executives of the Japan Automotive Parts Industry Association and, as a direct result of this, the association sent to Ontario a delegation of 63 members who are currently exploring the possibility of working relationships with Canadian automotive parts manufacturers.

We are already aware of more than $14 million in sales made by companies who sent representatives on the various trade missions during 1977 alone. We have every reason to believe these business relationships will continue, and indeed increase, in the future. That has certainly been the trend since we began these missions some years ago. We are very proud of our successes, as they show very clearly the reason for our optimism and confidence in this province and in the capacity of its people to compete in the world marketplace.

COUNCIL FOR TROUBLED CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, since this really is the answer to a question, but assumes the proportions of a statement, I will give it now with your approval.

Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) asked me a question about a Mr. Peter Wiseman and the Council for Troubled Youth and Children. I would like to reply and tell him that when the children’s services division of the Ministry of Community and Social Services was established last July, this

section assumed many of the functions handled during the previous two years by the Council for Troubled Children and Youth.

This council had served its purpose extremely well. However, once the consolidation of children’s services had been completed, there was no longer a necessity for it to continue in the form in which it had been constituted. The council was disbanded last September, and Mr. Peter Wiseman, who had been seconded to the Social Development secretariat as chairman of the council, returned to the special education branch of the Ministry of Education.

Following the formation of the children’s services branch, we were most anxious to establish a close working relationship between the division and the Ministry of Education, Because of the valuable experience and the wealth of knowledge he had gained in his work with the council, and at the request of the officials in the children’s services branch, Mr. Wiseman was immediately assigned the role of liaison officer between the new division and my ministry. In addition, he is also continuing to co-ordinate our ministry activities with respect to educational agreements between school boards and government-approved care and treatment facilities for troubled children.

During the past few months, some issues have arisen in the area of children’s services which involve more than two ministries. It became apparent that there was still a need for some form of continuing mechanism to ensure interministerial co-operation and liaison. In response to this need, an interministerial committee on children’s services was appointed in December 1977. In view of his previous experience on the council, Mr. Wiseman was asked to chair the committee this year on a part-time basis in addition to the other responsibilities that he has, which I have already mentioned. During 1978, Mr.

Wiseman and the members of the committee will report directly to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch).

In addition to the chairman, the committee includes regular membership at the senior staff level from the Ministry of Education in the person of Dr. Gordon Bergman; from the Ministry of Community and Social Services by Mr. John Anderson and Dr. Clive Chamberlain, and from the Ministry of Health by Mr. Don Treasdale. Other members have been assigned on an ad hoc basis from the ministries of the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, Correctional Services, Colleges and Universities, and the Justice and Social Development secretariats.

The principal terms of reference for the next year include the following: 1. To undertake specific tasks related to children’s services, at the direction of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development and cabinet committees; 2. To promote conjoint planning and to provide a focal point at the provincial level for co-ordination and liaison among all ministries in matters pertaining to policies for children’s services; 3. To provide an inter- ministerial forum for information sharing and discussion of plans and proposals of each ministry as they relate to children’s services; 4.

To consider the interface effects of policy and program proposals designed by individual ministries and to make recommendations regarding a co-ordinated approach to their implementation; 5. To encourage effective coordination and co-operation in the delivery of the total spectrum of children’s services at the community level.

I would like further to assure the Leader of the Opposition that all the information gathered and the records made by the council during the past two years have been made available or given to Judge George Thomson and his staff in the children’s services division.

With regard to the questionnaire referred to yesterday, it was developed two years ago as a means of gathering information requested by the members of the council concerning the variety of programs and services available to emotionally disturbed children. The data were collected and made available as a reference document for the use of the council members only. In a few cases, respondents requested that some of the information remain confidential. The data collected were not destroyed but in fact were made available to the children’s services division.

However, it is information that this division will of necessity need to update regularly. I understand they are involved at the present time in developing a comprehensive update survey for this purpose,

I might also add that some of the data from the original council survey were released in the form of a directory of facilities for troubled children and youth, which I’m sure my friend has seen; it has been a public document. The children’s services division has taken over the responsibility for maintaining an inventory of these facilities and the production of further editions of the directory,

That forms my answer to the questions which the Leader of the Opposition raised and, in checking Hansard, I find that it conforms almost completely to the way I answered him yesterday in regard to this question.

Mr. S. Smith: Absolutely not.

ORAL QUESTIONS

COUNCIL FOR TROUBLED CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Education: In view of the fact that in his answer he says the council was wound up in September 1977, as I indicated, can he explain why the gentleman in question, Mr. Wiseman, is still listed in the 1978 directory as chairman of that precise council? More importantly, can he answer the question I asked yesterday as to why we have not seen a report from that council since July 1976 --

Mr. Lewis: Why is he in the telephone book? Why is he in the telephone book at all?

Mr. Renwick: He should ask the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson).

Mr. S. Smith: -- and with regard to the matter of the information from the questionnaire of all the children’s services, which he says is in the hands of ComSoc, will he admit that apart from the directory with the address and so on, which is a public document, all the other information he claims needs to be confidential is not, in fact, being shown to members of this House and, furthermore, does not at present exist?

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, dealing with the last question, the other information does exist and it is available and in the hands of Judge Thomson and the members in Community and Social Services. My friend should know the answers to all this. I think it should be very clearly stated that one researcher -- I think a Miss Opper -- has talked to Mr. Wiseman and he has informed her of all these things. Why the member persists in twisting these things around in this House, I do not know. But she has talked to Mr. Wiseman personally.

Indeed, yesterday or at some past time, he informed her of all the information that I have indicated today in the House. Why my friend will not believe what Mr. Wiseman tells to his people, I don’t know.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: To make sure we can all believe that those data exist, why will the minister not table them in this House -- the data from the survey of children’s facilities, taken under that council, which we have reason to believe are not, in fact, available and in the hands of certain people in ComSoc? If he has them, why doesn’t he let us see them? What’s so confidential about them?

Hon. Mr. Wells: As I recall yesterday, one of the member’s colleagues was talking about the confidentiality of other government information concerning student loans.

Mr. Reid: That’s income tax.

Mr. S. Smith: Income tax.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This information that was collected impinges, in some cases, upon children and the records of institutions concerned with them --

Mr. S. Smith: That’s really nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and was given to us on the basis that it was confidential. I can assure my friend that the information exists. It was taken and collected on the basis that it would be for the use of the council for troubled children and there is really no useful purpose that can be served by tabling it in the House. I suggest that my friend ask my colleague, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton), if he, in fact, has the in- formation.

Mr. Roy: He’s not here.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The vital part of the in- formation --

Mr. S. Smith: No, that’s not the vital part.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- for this part and for the public is this document which will be updated and continue to be updated. If my friend has any particular part of the information that he would like to know about, if he would specifically ask me about it I would perhaps see if it’s possible to get that information. But the total document was collected on the basis that it would not be made public. Some of the information was given to us from the institutions on the basis that it would remain confidential. I think he, above all, he who’s always talking about protecting the confidentiality of personal information, would understand and respect that.

Mr. Conway: You sound like Tom Cossitt.

[2:15]

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the Premier yesterday made such a plea for our trust in government, would the minister at least trust the rest of the members of the Legislature and perhaps let us see the questionnaire; or is it confidential too?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am sure a copy of the questionnaire that was used two years ago could be provided to the member. I think more pertinent perhaps would be the fact that she would want to talk to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who is now engaged in an updating process with a much more involved questionnaire in the same particular area in the ongoing work of the children’s services branch.

My friends don’t seem to understand that this whole process has led to very significant developments on this side in the provision of services to children.

Mr. Mancini: The minister doesn’t understand.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Rather than harping away and nitpicking at this, they should be concerned about the total process.

Mrs. Campbell: The minister doesn’t give us any information.

ROBARTS REPORT

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Premier. In view of the fact that changes in legislation affecting polling subdivisions would have to be known in the very near future in order to be applied for as far as a municipal election in Metro Toronto would be concerned later this year, which I guess is scheduled for November 13, can the Premier tell us when his government’s policy on the Robarts report will be made known before this House?

Mr. Nixon: The present mayor will be available to run, I understand.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand the present mayor probably by that time will be sitting in a cabinet position in Ottawa, and I am only presuming that.

Mr. Conway: The Premier said the same about Pierre Benoit.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I said the same thing about a number of people for many years.

Mr. Foulds: The kiss of death.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have said the same thing about people opposite for a number of years, and it has proved to be correct.

Mr. O’Neil: You should hear what we say about you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know what you say about me in public. I also know what you say in private.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Premier address himself to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker. I will address myself to the question immediately.

Mr. Makarchuk: What is it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We will have a statement on this matter at the appropriate time.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since the Premier and his Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) are already on record as rejecting the boundary proposals made by the Robarts royal commission on Metro Toronto, can we assume that certain other major recommendations are still being seriously considered? Can the Premier give us some indication of when we can expect a statement regarding the rest of the Robarts report so that it can, if necessary, be implemented for the coming election with enough lead time for people to prepare their campaigns, their financing and their decisions as to whether they are going to run? What is the point in delaying at least on that aspect of the Robarts report?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that I, along with the Treasurer, have made a decision. In fact, it was a cabinet decision with respect to boundaries, which has been made public. I would gather from the question, it is a decision with which he perhaps disagrees and his caucus really would prefer to have seen some boundaries.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier knows we agree with it. Don’t be funny.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Then why doesn’t the Leader of the Opposition say he agrees with it?

Mr. S. Smith: We have already agreed with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are a number of other important recommendations in that report.

Mr. Nixon: The Premier is the one who has been announcing he is not implementing the recommendations of Mr. Robarts.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Some of them are really quite complex in nature and require a great deal of assessment by the government, and this assessment is taking place. As I said in answer to the first question, we will have some statement of policy on this matter at the appropriate time.

Mr. Conway: After the next election.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary in two parts: First of all, can the Premier explain what it is that takes him so long and the government so long to come forward with the necessary legislation? Secondly, in line with the budget that we are going to see tonight, would it not make good sense to bring forward that recommendation from the report that calls for the 75 per cent level of funding for the public health units in Metro Toronto, so that it would be in keeping with the budget and the people in Metro Toronto public health units would know what kind of funding to expect?

Mr. Havrot: Resign.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the people of Metropolitan Toronto already know what level of funding they are to expect on the one issue.

With respect to the first part of the two questions the hon. member asked, we received the report some time ago. I am sure the hon. member would be the first one to say, if we introduced legislation that didn’t really suit his own state of mind, that we hadn’t spent long enough at it.

Mr. Nixon: He thinks you should resign.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We just want to make sure that when we bring a policy or possible legislation before this House it will be so thoroughly done that the members opposite will vote unanimously in favour of it. They want us to do it the right way, and we are attempting to do that.

Mr. Foulds: Like your own unanimity over the cottage lot sales.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury East.

(Applause).

Mr. Martel: I’m not used to this.

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

Mr. Martel: A question of the Premier: Because the government announced its intention not to act on the first report of the select committee considering the Inco and Falconbridge layoffs within hours of that report being tabled, can the Premier indicate which recommendations his government intends to accept from the second report, all of which recommendations deal with a long-term solution for a one-industry community? Which of those is his government going to accept?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that report is being very carefully assessed now by the appropriate ministries.

I should explain -- without infringing on the rules of the House but so the members of the gallery who are visiting us today would understand that enthusiastic outburst of applause from all members of this House -- that I think this is the first time the hon. member has asked a question as House leader for his party. We not only recognize that, we recognize the three-piece blue suit and the fact that he probably wishes he had been a leadership candidate in view of the performance to date.

Mr. Martel: I might say that the opportunity presented itself to be a candidate and I bypassed it. My ego wasn’t that big.

Mr. Ruston: Oh, I don’t know about that.

Mr. S. Smith: What does that say about the other three?

Interjections.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t know if that was a good thing to say or not

Mr. Martel: It was a good thing to say. It reflects on what --

Mr. Lewis: I think I am going to take over now!

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have a supplementary?

Mr. Martel: There are those who need leadership, Mr. Speaker; it does them good.

Mr. Deans: Why don’t you just ask your question?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, get to it.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary: Is the government prepared by the way of grants, loans or tax incentives to encourage or assist in the establishment of a mining equipment manufacturing industry in Sudbury, because we have a debt in Canada of about $750 million a year, I think, because of imports of that kind, an expanded mining and research development at Laurentian related to a mining equipment manufacturing industry, and an auto parts plant in Sudbury which is being discussed at the federal level at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are a number of recommendations in the report. The hon. member has referred to three ideas that he is presenting. We have looked at the whole question of import replacement for a period of time. It is something of a mystery to me why a province or a country that is so involved in the mining industry does not have a greater share in terms of the production of equipment for those particular operations.

Mr. Lewis: Bad government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But, to answer in a specific way about those suggestions, I am sure the hon. member understands it is not as simplistic as saying ‘yes’. They have to be assessed carefully and we are in the process of doing it.

Mr. Martel: A final supplementary in view of the fact that the government is considering all these things: In the report we made mention of the government’s failure to respond somewhat earlier. Is the Premier aware that a document was prepared for the cabinet which stated, “Unless the markets improve rapidly in the near future, it is difficult to see how cuts in the Sudbury mine output can be avoided”? What action did the government take, when that action was presented to cabinet a year ago, to alleviate the crisis that has now struck the Sudbury area?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t recall any formal document. I’m not saying there wasn’t one. We get a lot of documents.

Mr. Martel: Here it is.

Mr. Wildman: From MNR.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was certainly known, because the hon. member was one of those, along with two or three of his colleagues, who asked questions during that period of time about the possibility of the market situation being such that it might lead to the situation that has developed. So I think it is fair to state that while we had no specific knowledge, we certainly shared the same concern about the possibility.

I don’t think the situation then was any different from now in terms of that particular industry. This government has no control over the international marketplace, and the solution as suggested by the members opposite of the nationalization of that particular industry will not affect that situation.

What we’re looking for, as I’m sure the hon. member is, are other policies or concepts for the Sudbury basin. I spent some time yesterday discussing this matter with some people. The hon. member knows very well about the conference that is being convened in Sudbury in the early part of April. I told them I thought this was one of the more encouraging initiatives that had come forward for that community. It was my hope that my timetable would allow it, and I think it will. This would be on a very nonpartisan basis and that, I understand, is also the ground rule for the member for Sudbury East -- that he also will be a participant at that particular conference.

Mr. Martel: I hope the Premier brings a bagful of money when he comes to Sudbury. We could use it.

Mr. Havrot: We’ve had enough of that.

Mr. S. Smith: Is Kelly going too?

Mr. Roy: Bill Kelly has not finished his champagne yet.

EQUAL PAY

Mr. Martel: To the Minister of Labour: The report on the status of women Crown employees, 1975-76, was tabled on October 29, 1976. Can the minister indicate when we can anticipate a followup report -- the 1976-77 report -- on the status of women Crown employees?

Hon. B. Stephenson: During the discussion of our estimates, the director in charge of that branch informed not only myself but also the committee that this report was in the process of being developed. I had anticipated it would be ready in January, Mr. Speaker. I gather it is not ready as yet, but I will try to find out a reasonably precise date so that I can inform the hon. member.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary: Is the delay in tabling the 1976-77 report due probably to the conclusions in the first one which probably haven’t changed some 18 months later? The first one stated: “The overall profile of men’s and women’s salaries has not changed substantially from 1975 ... When average salaries by sex and ministry are compared, men’s salaries exceed women’s salaries in every case, and the status quo situation on salaries was the same for occupational distribution using the service-wide statistics ... There was no significant change in the overall occupation distribution of these women in 1974-75 and 1975-76.”

Is the delay not occasioned because nothing has changed?

Hon. B. Stephenson: That certainly is not any valid reason for delay and I am sure it is not the reason for the delay. The information I have is that there are certain aspects of this report which show very marked improvement. It is my wish and hope that the hon. members will be somewhat pleased with what has happened in the intervening year.

Mr. McClellan: You have the report, do you?

Mr. Martel: Final supplementary: Can the minister indicate then, whether the gaps between wages for men and women in the ministries of Energy and Industry and Tourism have come somewhat closer together? That’s where the greatest gap was in the salary ranges.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I can’t give that factual information today because I don’t know, but it will be available to the hon. member as soon as the report is available.

Mr. Mancini: You should give back part of your minister’s salary.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Oh, I would be glad to. Give me yours as well.

HOSPITAL PRIVILEGES

Mr. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Health: Is he considering establishing a review of the Public Hospitals Act and the continuing problem of staff privileges for doctors as recommended by the Ombudsman in his letter to the minister in connection with the complaint by Dr. Claude MacDonald?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker, not at this time.

[2:30]

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to comment on the Ombudsman’s letter, in which I understand the phrase “improper discrimination” was used in reference to the possibility of the actions of the appeal board that was established by this House? Is he not aware, also, of the fact that the Law Reform Commission, by letter to the minister, has indicated that it too feels it is a matter of importance and that it was suggesting a referral to it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I haven’t seen the material from the Law Reform Commission, Mr. Speaker. I believe the letter from the Ombudsman just arrived in the last little while, but I will take a look at that in connection with the earlier letter.

Mr. Nixon: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, the minister is no doubt aware that the matter has been written up in the public press, which is where the information was made available to me. Does he recall, in this connection, as a member of the North York council some years ago, signing a report, to the Grange committee I believe, that was looking into this some years ago, calling for a policy with regard to open public hospitals, thus easing what has become a problem of staff appointments?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It depends when it was, but I don’t recall personally signing such a report. If the member is talking about such a report being signed by the clerk of the council of which I was a member, that’s a possibility, but --

Mr. Nixon: No, the minister voted in favour of it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’d be glad to look at that too. That’s a long time ago.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. di Santo: I have a question of the Premier. On November 17 the House passed a resolution calling for the exemption of a portion of property taxes for senior citizens and disabled persons; is the government now prepared to introduce the legislation to implement that resolution?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recall the discussion, and I would just remind the hon. member of the commitment of the government, which is that we plan progressively to relieve our senior citizens of this province from the burden of real property taxation where there is need. I would remind the hon. member that, looking at averages, we have, in fact, through the tax credit system, relieved our senior citizens of a good portion of their real property tax. One can use varying percentages, but it is probably close to 50 per cent of their property tax at the present time. As a government we are committed to extending this beyond that, and we will continue to do so.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, we don’t intend to introduce a bill at this precise moment, but that is the policy to which this government is committed.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The resolution that we passed, and it was approved unanimously by this House, called for the elimination of the property taxes, the portion of the property taxes of education, for senior citizens and disabled people, and that was also a real promise in the Bramalea charter. Is the Premier saying he is dissociating himself from the vote that he made on that resolution?

Hon. Mr. Davis: All I am saying, very simply, is that it takes a period of time to accomplish these things. We set an objective --

Mr. Makarchuk: It started with George Drew.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I would say, with respect to the educational portion, if one were to assume that roughly 50 per cent of the tax bill on residential property is for education, if one were to apply, as I think one could fairly --

Mr. Warner: Slowly, slowly; turtles climb trees faster.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the amount now being paid to the tax credit system, that a good portion of the educational part of the senior citizens’ tax load is now being absorbed through the tax credit system.

Mr. Warner: We pass a resolution and then we back off.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, to the Premier: Does he not realize that because the property tax credits have not been increased now for three years that in fact the increase in property taxation to senior citizens, those in the relatively low income group, has in fact increased more, percentage-wise, than to any other group in our society? Does he not think, because of this, that there should be some special concessions given to the senior citizens on the property tax?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Long before the hon. member became a member of this House the government recognized that with the introduction of the tax credit systems. It introduced property tax credits for our senior citizens, and my rough guess is that 68 per cent of our senior citizens are in fact receiving, by way of the property tax credit --

Mr. McClellan: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- an amount in excess of what they pay for the educational portion. Mr. Speaker, this government is committed and will move further than that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, the hon. member had better check his figures very carefully.

Mr. Swart: I have. The Premier should check his.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are moving ahead with it and will continue to move ahead with it.

GATT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Given that the textile industry in Ontario now employs 60,000 people and 38,000 of these work in the primary textile industry which is crucial to eastern Ontario’s economy, and given that this industry is already suffering from serious problems in declining investments, low profit margins and the fact that Canada imported 60 per cent of its textiles and clothing in 1976 --

Mr. Hall: Question?

Mr. Sterling: -- and given that any cut in the tariff protection would further harm the industry and aggravate the unemployment situation in eastern Ontario --

Ms. Gigantes: What are you going to do?

Mr. Sterling: -- would the minister please indicate whether he will urge the federal government to press for exemption of the textile industry, both in the primary and secondary areas, from the current round of GATT negotiations?

Mr. Cunningham: I predict the answer is yes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the ministry has been in continuing negotiations and discussions with the federal government as it relates to the negotiations involving the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and certainly one of the areas of concern has been the effect any changes would have on the textile industry. I might tell the hon. member and members of the House that tomorrow I will be in Ottawa to meet with four federal ministers, all of whom will be having some involvement in the GATT discussions, and that is one of the subjects we will be discussing with them, as to what sort of position they will be taking when the discussions get going again in Geneva.

Mr. Deans: Ottawa is having enough trouble, John, without you going down.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the Premier just announced today that Sanyo, or whoever it is, is putting up a warehousing operation in Bramalea or Mississauga which will provide employment for university graduates to load trucks, what is the minister going to do about ensuring that there are jobs in Canada in the electronics industry?

Mr. Speaker: That’s not a supplementary.

Mr. Martel: It’s a good question though.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I used to drive a truck.

Mr. Martel: What Saturday was that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: All summer.

PAPER MILL CONTROL ORDERS

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, in response to the questions of the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) regarding the status of the ministry’s orders on the pulp and paper mills of Domtar Packaging Limited of Red Lake and Great Lakes Paper Company of Thunder Bay, I wish to advise that Great Lakes Paper Company has submitted a letter to the ministry prior to the March 1, 1978, deadline, in which it states that the closed cycle system on the new kraft mill has, in its opinion, been sufficiently successful to warrant proceeding with plans to install this system in the old kraft mill.

At present, the closed cycle system has not been totally closed because of technical problems still to be overcome. However, the information provided by the company suggests that, even at the present stage of incomplete closure, the effluent which might be expected from the two mills with this system installed would be at least equivalent to that which could be achieved in similar conventional mills with conventional secondary effluent treatment.

This information is being reviewed to ensure that the company’s achievement, in fact, demonstrates essential compliance with the terms of the requirement and direction. If ministry staff determines the company is not in compliance, then the order indicates the company would have to provide biological treatment for both A and B mills.

With regard to the order on Domtar Limited to install a mill sanitary sewage collection system and connect it to the municipal systems by March 1, 1978, this system has been installed and the connection to the municipal system was made on February 28, 1978. However, because of delays in constructing the municipal system, it has not been possible to make final internal connections which will cause the sewage to flow through the mill system into the municipal system.

The municipality has advised the company that as soon as its consultant has the municipal treatment plant operating to its satisfaction, anticipated to be about March 15, it may start to complete the required internal mill connections.

Under the circumstances, the company is being required to complete all but two minor lateral connections within three weeks of advice from the municipality to proceed. The two minor lateral connections represent less than five per cent of the total wastes. These connections require outside excavations and permission has been given to delay them until ground conditions are more suitable, but not later than January 15, 1978. Domtar Packaging is in compliance with the requirement and direction.

Mr. Gaunt: I have a supplementary with respect to Great Lakes Paper in Thunder Bay. They were asked to submit a written report demonstrating that the Rapson-Reeves closed cycle water system would substantially free their discharge of any contaminants that would harm or would be likely to harm the quality of the receiving water. I presume from what the minister has said that they haven’t done that. All they’ve said is that the effluent is no worse than it would be with conventional systems.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Gaunt: What further steps beyond what the minister has said is the ministry going to take to make sure that this system does comply with the order?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, there is one paragraph here which says: “If the ministry staff determine that Great Lakes Paper Company Limited are not in compliance, then the order indicates that the company would have to provide biological treatment for both A and B mills.”

Mr. Foulds: With regard to the answer to the question raised about the Great Lakes mill, could the minister indicate exactly what technical difficulties the company has in meeting the requirements? Can he give us an assurance that we will not have our annual pollutant fish-kill on the Kaministikwia River this summer?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I can’t guarantee the second part of the question at this point. As far as the first part of the question is concerned I’ll get the technical data for the member at a later date.

Mr. Gaunt: I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, does this mean that the Rapson-Reeves system is not as effective in controlling pollution as was once thought?

An hon. member: He’ll check into it.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the staff are investigating this matter and will be checking on the compliance.

CABINET COMMITTEE ON CONFEDERATION

Mr. Roy: I have a question of the member for Cochrane North who is, as I read it here, the minister in charge of bilingualism in Ontario and in charge of chairing the cabinet committee on Confederation.

I would like to ask the minister, first of all, whether he is prepared to accept the suggestion made by my leader on this side of the House regarding establishing a select committee in this area? I think he heard his speech on this.

Mr. Hodgson: Not another one.

Mr. Roy: I’m sorry. I apologize if I woke up somebody over there. I didn’t want to do that.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s all right, Albert. We enjoy having you once a week.

Mr. Roy: Secondly, might the minister take us into his confidence and tell us what his cabinet committee on Confederation does, or what it has done so far?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: In answer to the first question, I think the hon. member will agree that presently we have several select committees and there’s quite a problem in select committees meeting when the House is sitting.

Mr. Conway: Land drainage is more important.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I think the exchange of members going to Quebec is a very good one and I’m sure this should be encouraged. I don’t think much could be served by a select committee at this time.

Mr. Roy: You don’t?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: With reference to the second part of the member’s question, the cabinet committee met this morning with the Pepin-Robarts commission. That committee is very active. There has been, for instance, the Destiny Canada conference last June, that the hon. member is familiar with. That’s an example. There have been many initiatives taken by the cabinet committee in conjunction with the advisory committee.

Mr. Roy: May I ask the minister a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? How does he rate it in order of priority that he does not see fit to have a select committee of this nature at this time? How does he rate his priorities over there? Secondly, regarding the cabinet committee on Confederation, is he going to make statements occasionally to the House about what it’s doing, so that we on this side of the House can have some input in its discussions with other provinces so that we can be of assistance to the committee on this?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: In due course of time there will be a report on the cabinet committee.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: has the cabinet committee on Confederation considered the remarks ascribed to the former Premier in yesterday’s Toronto Star, in which Mr. Robarts indicated that, like it or not, Ontario and presumably the Ontario government, under new arrangements within Confederation, will have to accept a markedly reduced role within the brokerage of Confederation politics? Has the minister seen those reports and has his committee considered them perhaps as late as this morning in conversations with the Pepin-Robarts group?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I haven’t seen those reports.

OPP ROLE IN STRIKE

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Minister of Labour: Does she think it appropriate that the Ontario Provincial Police should be used by a private company to undermine and destroy the collective bargaining system?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would think that is what most of my legal friends would call a very leading question. I would really like to know the circumstances of the case which the hon. member is describing.

Mr. Lewis: Answer the question.

Mr. Deans: Can I assume the answer to that was yes?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, the member can’t.

Mr. Deans: Now I will go on with a supplementary. Then does the minister think it appropriate that a private company, whether the name is Fleck or otherwise, should be allowed to use plain-clothes Provincial Police to come in to lecture the workers, who are attempting to get a first contract prior to their going on strike, about the possible consequences of their actions on the picket lines? What, if anything, will constitute illegality in the minds of the police?

Secondly, does she think that that company was acting in good faith when at 7 o’clock on the first morning of the strike it brought a busload of scabs across the picket line? Does she think it appropriate that the police should arrest the union representative who was attempting to speak to the bus driver and does she think it appropriate that the justice of the peace should refuse to give that union rep bail unless he signed an agreement to stay out of the township?

Hon. B. Stephenson: These are very interesting and intriguing allegations which I have not heard before. I shall be very pleased to investigate the matter and shall report to the House.

Mr. Lewis: She is just the Minister of Labour. Why should she have heard?

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Why final?

Mr. Deans: Final supplementary: Can I ask the minister whether she believes --

Hon. B. Stephenson: I do not know whether what the member is saying is factual.

Mr. Deans: The minister wants to find out if it’s factual? Let me tell her it’s factual. At Fleck Manufacturing in the London area in Stephen township yesterday, plain-clothes Provincial Police arrested a staff rep who was speaking to a bus driver. How does the minister pretend to represent organized labour? She is a disgrace.

Mr. Makarchuk: It’s the deep South.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The hon. member is certainly entitled to his opinion about almost anything, including his opinion of me. I have not been informed of the so-called or alleged facts of this case. I should like to be so informed. Then I shall be very pleased to comment upon the situation.

An hon. member: The minister has no communication with her staff.

Mr. Pope: The member didn’t care to inform her.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s right

An hon. member: It is not up to us.

Mr. Lewis: Would you allow a supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister has already indicated --

Mr. Deans: I want to find out what’s going on in this matter. Using plain-clothes policemen --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. minister has indicated she knows nothing about the allegation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: She has taken the question as notice and perhaps when she replies that would be the appropriate time for supplementaries.

Mr. Lewis: I have a question which relates to this.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: I would like to ask the minister, can she explain to the Legislature, when an important international representative of a well-respected union in this province is arrested on a picket line at a plant in the province of Ontario and denied bail by a justice of the peace, and when the Ontario Provincial Police are involved in a series of incidents which are at best questionable, how it is humanly possible within her ministry that she as Minister of Labour wouldn’t know about it? What does it say about her ministry and its staff?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think one of the major features of the Ministry of Labour is the good, wholesome and complete communication between the staff and the minister.

An hon. member: You’re too busy trying to run down Bill 70.

Hon. B. Stephenson: This is one of the areas in which I think the Ministry of Labour has exceeded what perhaps has been expected of governments in other jurisdictions.

I have to confess that I have not been personally informed of this. When I have, I shall be very pleased to respond.

Mr. Lewis: That’s unbelievable -- incredible. What’s more, he is a lovely staff rep, but it makes no sense at all. Al Seymour is one of the nicest union reps around.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

OHIP CLAIMS PROCEDURE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health in reference to the minister’s much appreciated statement in the House last week about the problems of a Dr. Takahashi, with OHIP and some of his patients.

With respect to the last part of that statement, the minister assured hon. members that as soon as the doctor in question submits his claims cards the patients will be reimbursed accordingly. Since it is very clear that there is little or no likelihood that there will be receipts, records or any material to allow for the proper processing of those cards and, therefore, according to this statement, there is no normal way to help those patients, several of whom are out of pocket now to the extent of several hundreds of dollars, is the minister contemplating any means by which those people -- assuming that does turn out to be the case -- might be reimbursed for their out-of-pocket loss?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Under the law, Mr. Speaker, we cannot make a payment from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan without substantiating material to support such a claim.

I am not as pessimistic as my friend would appear to be about the outcome of this. The matter goes before the college on March 13. A number of the patients have been in touch with my office and have indicated that in their view they don’t think the doctor in question is being malicious in any way but that perhaps it is just a case -- I don’t know how his office is organized or how he organizes himself, but the prognosis is a positive one.

At this point, I will wait for the results of the College of Physicians and Surgeons’ hearing in the anticipation that at some point in the not-too-distant future we will have substantiating material with which to justify processing the claims and to waive the normal six-month period.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: In recognition of the serious time difficulties that have faced patients out of money -- out-of-pocket money in this case -- and going by the minister’s statement that in April 1977 this matter first came to the ministry’s attention, can the minister explain, to the best of his knowledge, what “the procedural problem” was that rendered the February 6 hearing essentially null and void. Does he know what that procedural problem was?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: To the best of my recollection, it had to do with the giving of notice; the proper time required for the giving of notice was not given and as a result it had to be put forward.

NOISE LEVELS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Labour: Is the minister aware of a situation at the A. G. Simpson plant in Scarborough, a heavy-metal stamping plant, where the ministry people conducted tests? They found the noise levels too high and ordered earphones for the workers as well as moving in mobile hearing testing equipment, but a good number of the employees, who happened to be provided by the overload company, have been refused the earphones for use in the plant. Why would the ministry people not insist -- inasmuch as they are working there, even though on a contract basis -- that they be covered under the same situation?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, any individual who is working in an area where the noise level is above that which is permitted, is supposed to be provided with the protective equipment, whether he or she is a contract person or full-time person.

Mr. Mackenzie: Would the minister then look into this particular situation and find out why they are being denied this kind of coverage? It is bad enough that people are used to circumvent full-time employment under this method, but they should certainly have the coverage in that situation.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Sweeney: A question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities having to do with the current negotiations with the community college teaching staff. Would the minister not agree that the 6,000 community college teachers who have not had a contract since August 1977 have a reasonable cause to be concerned by the action of the council of regents to introduce changes in the ground rules respecting workload and sick leave plans?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would have to remind the member that the negotiations are strictly between the council of regents and the faculty association bargaining union, and I think the Act very clearly spells out that if anyone should comment -- particularly if he happens to be the Minister of Colleges and Universities -- on how those negotiations are going that, indeed, he would be in violation of the intent of the Act, if not the exact wording of the Act.

I recall once in Sudbury when I made what I thought a rather brief and not too heavy comment about those negotiations that I was severely criticized for doing so. With that background and that history, I think it would be wrong for me to indicate in a public forum how I feel or do not feel about how the negotiations are proceeding and whether or not the two sides are acting in the way the member suggests. I think, to put it very briefly, I guess, there is really no comment that’s appropriate for me to make at this time on those negotiations.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Would the minister at least be prepared to support the call for an independent arbitrator on these two issues, hopefully to avoid a province-wide strike?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The only thing I’d be prepared to support at this time is that the negotiations proceed precisely as the Act calls for them to proceed.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: If my information is correct, of the five people on the council of regents negotiating committee two of them are from the ministry. Would the minister ensure that through those two officials at least and his influence with the other three members on that negotiating committee, a conclusion is reached in the negotiations as soon as possible, so that one is not ever contemplating in this province a strike of our community college teachers?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, I cannot assure the hon. member of a positive answer to his question.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That was the final supplementary.

Mr. Warner: I thought it was the first final supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, it was the final supplementary. The hon. member for Windsor-Sandwich with a new question.

AIR POLLUTION

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of the Environment: I might say at this time that I appreciate the minister’s communication that he sent to me indicating that Governor Milliken of Michigan will not relax the sulphur in fuel requirements or make any change on the transboundary pollution without involving the authorities of the Ministry of the Environment here in Ontario in public hearings.

But is the minister aware of the International Joint Commission report released last week for the Windsor area, showing that there were increases in the maximum levels of certain air pollutants in Windsor as well as increases in the number of incidents of pollution in 1976, and that if the trend continues they can’t possibly meet the requirements and objectives set for the end of this year? Will the minister make sure that all requirements on standards are stringently enforced and that there will be in no way any relaxation of surveillance in the Windsor area?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martel: That’s short. You don’t take much time, George.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: In view of the IJC report that stated the quality of air in the Windsor area had decreased, could the minister explain why he said, in a letter that he sent to me dated March 1, 1978: “With respect to the area of Windsor opposite Zug Island, I believe it is important to recognize the very significant reductions in emissions realized in recent years by US industrial sources located on or near Zug Island. This reduction in emissions has been reflected in the air quality of west Windsor area, as monitored by my ministry’s monitoring network.”

In other words, he is saying that the quality of air has improved according to his government’s monitoring.

[3:00]

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Cooke: I am asking why the IJC is saying one thing and his ministry is saying another thing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: IJC can be wrong.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why IJC is saying what they are saying. I believe that our report is correct.

Mr. Martel: They have been known to be wrong before.

OVERTIME PERMITS

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. I wonder if the Minister of Labour can inform the House, if the employment standards branch is going to continue to give out overtime permits in this time of high unemployment?

Secondly, has the employment standards branch done any surveys which could be given to the House and which would tell members how many more new jobs could be created if the overtime permits were curtailed somewhat?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, we have looked very carefully at overtime permits, and I would have to report that the granting of overtime permits relates specifically to those operations in which there is a seasonal or periodical demand for the products. Rather than hiring new staff to accommodate that seasonal change or the periodic change the employees in those establishments are given the option to work overtime.

It is not done, as the hon. member knows, without the agreement of the employees; they must agree to work overtime. No employee can be made to work overtime if he does not wish to.

We have looked at the possibility of reducing overtime in certain operations; I don’t know whether I can give the member factual information about those specific operations, but if we have I will be very glad to provide it.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary question: Doesn’t the minister feel that at this time we need this type of factual information? Is the minister prepared to have the employment standards branch do a study so that we as legislators will know how many thousand new jobs could be created by curtailment of overtime? Doesn’t the minister think that is necessary now?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I think there is probably sufficient information on hand to give a fairly reasonable estimate of the number of jobs which might be created under certain circumstances.

Mr. Mackenzie: This is a supplementary. Would the minister tell this House whether or not her answer applies to the situation at the Ford Motor Company plant in Oakville -- which we raised with her in the last session, and on which I am still awaiting a response to a couple of questions?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had responded to the hon. member’s questions. If I have not, I apologize. That information I shall provide for him.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary of the minister: Would the minister consider suggesting to the employer that he use, wherever possible, laid-off employees rather than giving the overtime to employees who are presently working the full week?

An hon. member: Why don’t you just do what they did at Inco?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to suggest this strongly to employers, yes. I do not know whether they would accept my suggestion or not.

Mr. MacDonald: Don’t give them the overtime permit.

TRUCKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Philip: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Is the minister now prepared to admit what he refused to admit in response to my questions on December 5, that there has been a conflict between the policies of deregulation advocated by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), and those of regulation advocated by the minister himself and by the select committee on the highway transportation of goods? Would the minister now admit that Bill 21 is a clear indication that the policies of deregulation have won out in his cabinet; and would the minister take the honourable course of action, now that his policies have been repudiated by his cabinet and resign?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Philip: By way of supplementary, can the minister tell us how he can set up a select committee, with all of the expense that goes into that, and then go deliberately against the major thrust of that select committee’s recommendations, as he has done in Bill 21?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you all going to resign because your party said you shouldn’t raise the drinking age?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think we have gone at all against the major thrust of that report. The major recommendation of the select committee report confirms the necessity for a regulated trucking industry in the province of Ontario --

An hon. member: Except in the north.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- and I accept that recommendation and endorse it heartily. I do think, however, that there is some room for improvement in the regulating system that would allow some greater degree of flexibility in the industry, a greater opportunity for backhauls and the saving of empty movements and the saving of energy.

Mr. Philip: One last supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Philip: Can the minister therefore assure the House that the deregulation advocated in Bill 21 is the last of the deregulations that his ministry will be advocating?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly all the deregulation that I have in mind at this time -- or in the foreseeable future.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: They are your regulations; we didn’t bring them in.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We’ve taken them out.

Mr. Martel: You’ve regulated everything to death.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I cannot, of course, give the hon. member a commitment that sometime in the distant future some other minister who may follow me won’t decide there should be more deregulation.

I would like to say also, Mr. Speaker that within the next few days I expect to be introducing further amendments to the Public Commercial Vehicles Act. I stated when I introduced Bill 21 that there would be a further package of amendments coming forward dealing with the enforcement recommendations of the report. I think when that is introduced it will reinforce the government’s intention to maintain regulation and to have a much more effective enforcement of the regulations.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Ruston: I have a brief question of the Premier. Since the leader of the Premier’s party in Ottawa has said if he is elected Prime Minister of Canada he would allow the opposition the right to review at least one or two departments of government each year and would allow the opposition to either increase or decrease that spending, would the Premier consider giving the opposition here the same privilege?

Hon. Mr. Davis: In technical terms the members opposite always have the option to reduce the expenditure of any ministry in government if they see fit --

Mr. S. Smith: Is that all Joe Clark meant?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and if they are prepared to suffer the consequences that would emerge from such a decision.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: However, Mr. Speaker, I think it’s fair to state, when you assess the procedures of the federal House and the procedures here, that in fact our ministries probably come in for a more intensive review -- far more open, with far more opportunities for questions and meaningful answers.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Four hundred and twenty hours.

Mr. S. Smith: And secret surveys of children’s services.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recognize the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) doesn’t agree with that. I know of her great experience with the federal House and how the system works there, but my perception is that we have a much more open system here and a much greater opportunity for asking questions and really in assisting the ministers in the discharge of their responsibilities.

Mr. S. Smith: When you take over from Clark will he come here and take over from you?

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary to the Premier: I take it then he does not in fact believe in many of the things his leader in Ottawa says.

Interjections.

An hon. member: He didn’t say that.

Mr. S. Smith: He doesn’t think there is a leader in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I listen to some of the members opposite, I think that I am in greater support of our federal leader than those people want to be of theirs, depending on what the polls show from day to day.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: Clark said the federal-provincial caucus was a bust, the Premier said it was great.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Ms. Gigantes: A question of the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister table in the Legislature the analysis that led him to claim that 12 per cent of Ontario kids are involved in special education programs? In other words, will he tell us how many children are receiving --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) would please be quiet and extend the same courtesy to other members that they extend to him when he is asking a question.

(Applause).

Ms. Gigantes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In other words, I’d like the minister to tell us how many children are receiving how many minutes per week of special education programs, what kind of special education programs, and under the jurisdiction of which boards in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can tell the hon. member that about 248,000 students in this province are receiving some kind of program apart from what would be termed the normal school program. As for the other parts of her question I’ll be happy to get the answer. If she’d like it in a formal manner, it probably should be put on the order paper, but it will take a while to assemble that information.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: Is the minister suggesting to us that everything that is not included in what is called “the normal school program” constitutes special education?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’ll be happy to give the hon. member a breakdown on that.

Mr. Reid: I think she has had one already. I don’t think she needs any help.

Hon. Mr. Davis: She’s not alone.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Stuart will help her to recover from it anyway.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think most of the programs that vary from what would be termed “the normal school program” would be classified as special education. Certainly that includes exceptionalities of all descriptions, including programs for the gifted.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

WRITTEN QUESTION

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order before the orders of the day. On November 15, 1977, I tabled a question concerning the numbers of public relations and information officers in the Ontario government and Ontario Hydro, and the budget of each department engaged in information activities. On November 29, I was informed through an interim answer that the requested information would be available within 28 calendar days of that date.

The information concerning the government was only made available after I made several phone calls to the Chairman of Management Board’s office. I have not yet received the information concerning Ontario Hydro and neither answer has been tabled in this House. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if you could give direction that the government follow the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker: There’s nothing on the notice paper.

Mr. Reid: It was in the previous session.

Mr. Speaker: It wasn’t carried over into this session. Perhaps the member should avail himself of the opportunity of putting it on again.

Mr. Reid: I appreciate that advice, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand then that questions that were on the order paper and were partially answered die automatically at the end of the session and all the government has to do is wait us out?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think that’s an unfair comment. Certainly the answer to the first part of the question is, naturally, yes, but --

Mr. Reid: Why didn’t you just answer?

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- the rules with respect to the questions and the period of time during which there must be either interim or full answers still apply. The hon. member can only be actually making a comment about questions that must have been put on the order paper very late in that particular session, or else they would have been covered by the rule which provides for a specified period of time during which the answers must be tabled.

Mr. Reid: Why didn’t you just answer?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. House leader might confer with the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld) and see whether he’s prepared to give the rest of that answer?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

Ms. Gigantes: I have a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. As a member of the majority group in Ontario, I’d like to take this opportunity, seeing as how we won’t be sitting tomorrow in this Legislature, of wishing the members and guests in our galleries a happy International Women’s Day.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 and the interim answers to questions 1 and 6 standing on the notice paper.

Mr. Lewis: Not enough.

Mr. Breithaupt: Moving right along.

[3:15]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INCOME TAX DISCOUNTERS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved second reading of Bill 10,

An Act to amend the Discounting of Income Tax Refunds Act, 1977.

Mr. Breithaupt: I am pleased to rise in support of the second reading of this particular piece of legislation. The members had the benefit of the statement given by the hon. minister on February 28, at which time he outlined certain problems that have led to the necessity of this continuing legislation. In Bill 99, which we had before us in November 1977, I recall that some eight members of both opposition parties spoke in favour of the bill. The sentiments of the House, I think, were clear at that time that the particular problem which has existed and does at present exist was something that we as legislators felt was not in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

We are informed that the average discounting that has occurred is in the nature of some 40 per cent. In the statement the minister has made he has set out certain problems that I hope he will address himself to when he responds to the comments which members have made on second reading.

The first circumstance dealt with the matter of the Ottawa-Hull situation and I would appreciate hearing from the minister whether he believes he is going to be able to resolve that problem and just what recommendations had been made to the responsible federal ministers. He also has commented upon the Borrowers and Depositors Protection Act as a piece of proposed federal legislation.

I would hope he would take the opportunity of advising not only his opposite number in Ottawa in the ministry but also the opposition leaders that we in Ontario would look forward to their co-operation to ensure that that legislation is passed, in the same manner we are working together in this Legislature to protect the people of the province.

Surely we have an opportunity to deal with the responsible officials there on both sides of the House of Commons so that their inability to proceed, or their inactivity for one reason or another, is clearly shown as something which we in this Legislature have no sympathy with.

The minister has said that the federal government should move to deal with this matter and we on this side of the House certainly agree with him.

You will be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that even in the city of Kitchener this problem has arisen. It’s not only current in Metropolitan Toronto and in the downtown part of this city where we see the various signs up in shop windows and in areas that have been rented only for a few months. We have had the problem as well in the community, part of which I represent.

There was a lengthy interview and newspaper

article in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record on March 2, dealing with a particular concern which had arisen. In this circumstance, a reporter went to one of these operations and was informed that he would be given about 50 per cent of the amount which would be coming back to him based upon a pro forma suggestion as to what he as an individual would be receiving as an income tax rebate.

When contacted the manager of that operation apparently denied that that was a practice. Of course, we could say that there might just have been some confusion in the circumstance and perhaps the person at the desk or in the shop was not fully aware of what the law was. However, I think all of us in the House would find that kind of explanation somewhat far-fetched.

It’s clear that there have been practices which have allowed persons to flourish in tax discount business. There have been clearly abuses of the intention of the legislation. It is certainly with all the support that we can muster that we are pleased to support the minister as he prepares to close these particular loopholes.

We understand, of course, that there are some persons who may require certain funds earlier than the tax machinery can provide them, as they have rebates which are forthcoming. However, to have a group of persons living off those requirements and discounting up to a 50 per cent figure is most distasteful. Indeed, I am pleased to see it is unacceptable not only to the minister and his colleagues but to, I hope, all members of the Legislature.

We are prepared to support this bill. I hope that it can be dealt with in all stages this afternoon, and as a result the procedures which have taken place can be stopped immediately. I hope that the bill when proclaimed can deal with this problem and avoid any further difficulties which many citizens are having as the current tax rebate time draws to a close.

We certainly will support the bill and we appreciate the opportunity that the minister has given to bring this legislation in quickly and to have it proceeded with promptly.

Mr. Davison: We in the New Democratic Party will be supporting this Bill 10,

An Act to amend the Discounting of Income Tax Refunds Act. The minister will recall that for some long time, for some 14 months before the introduction of this legislation, our party asked the government, over and over, time and time again, to introduce such legislation. When November 8 brought about the minister’s introduction of the original Bill 99, we thanked the minister at that time and supported his efforts to bring this situation under some kind of control.

At many times during the last 14 months, my colleagues in the NDP have put forward reason after reason, case after case, and example after example, of why this kind of legislation is needed in Ontario and why these kind of practices had to be put under some kind of control. Anybody who is terribly interested can take the time and look back in Hansard and they will find it all on the record of this House on many, many occasions. The minister will be happy to know that I won’t put them all back on the record again this afternoon. I just want to speak briefly on the bill.

Mr. Foulds: Don’t encourage us.

Mr. Davison: Bill 10 simply, and I hope effectively, closes the major loophole that few of us -- certainly not I and the minister -- perceived at the time of the introduction and passing of Bill 99. That was the fact that many of these companies continue along their course of ripping off the consumers, this time by using the route of the promissory note, and they have done so quite effectively.

There are two cases in my riding which have come to my attention. In one, the individual’s tax return was calculated to be $350 but the company offered only $72 in what we call instant cash. The remainder of the money was taken up either by a promissory note or by the charges for filling up the income tax form. Another example I have is for a return of $300 where the person was offered $200 in instant cash.

This amendment will close that hole and for that we should be thankful. It may be that in the next months or next year, the companies will find new ways of circumventing the principle of the legislation that this House has put forward. If that’s so then we will simply have to adjust the Bill once more to meet that new reality. Hopefully it won’t happen; hopefully we will have closed the loopholes today when this bill is given third reading. But if it does, we will have to adjust the bill to meet that new reality or perhaps to consider at some point in time finding the way to outlaw this practice as we now know it.

In any event, while I find that it took some long time to convince the government of the need to bring about this kind of legislation, once we had done so the government moved quickly and effectively through the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and with very good consultation with the opposition members in the House to bring about this legislation. I would like to offer my personal thanks to both the government and to the minister for their actions in that regard.

Mr. B. Newman: I rise to support Bill 10,

An Act to amend the Discounting of Income Tax Refunds Act. The minister, in his visit to the city of Windsor on February 17, did make mention to the assembled gathering that he had contemplated introducing this legislation. We were very pleased when, shortly after his promise, legislation was actually introduced.

One of the things that does worry me is that this may not stop the practice. Living as we do in a border community, I just wonder if some of the unscrupulous income tax individuals would not simply transfer their operations to the city of Detroit and be able to carry on that same type of operation from the city of Detroit. There would be no problem for them in bringing the mail over to Windsor and then sending it through to Ottawa for the income tax refund and then having the refund sent to some postal box in the city of Windsor. I’m just wondering if there is some way of preventing an operation like that from ever taking hold.

Mr. Renwick: I want to speak very briefly on the bill. I was not in the assembly at the time Bill 99 was debated and passed, but I do feel, on the initiative made by my colleague, that the government did move to close up this particular fraudulent operation that’s been carried on.

I do want to say to the minister that if he watches the kind of bill that is before us now, he’s going to see, over a period of time, a constant battle between the administration and those who are misusing this method of carrying on a financial business; and there will always be loopholes. There is no way in which he can close this kind of operation because it operates at a level at which it is not possible for the ministry ever to cope with the administrative problems of enforcement.

This kind of so-called white-collar fraudulent operation which is legitimized by Bill 99 is a trap into which the government has walked because it believed there was a social need for this kind of discounting operation.

I want to say to the minister that I think he should be engaged in drafting legislation to outlaw, in the province of Ontario, this particular kind of operation.

I want to make a suggestion; I did make it in a short note to the minister a few days ago: There is a kind of a fundamental principle of constitutional law that all institutions in Ontario, regardless of their origin -- federal, provincial or extraterritorial -- must comply with laws of general application.

I think, therefore, it would be possible to outlaw -- except through recognized financial institutions -- such a practice by any citizen who has a liquidated claim in money against the government or who has money or a debt owing by the government, which, in fact, is a liquidated claim; that all those transactions cannot be discounted by anybody in the province except through a recognized financial institution.

When you select 95 per cent, Mr. Speaker, you can be certain that the void in the law which permitted this operation to take place was not gauged upon making that kind of minimal financial reward out of the system which has evolved. But I do think it is quite possible, through the good offices of the government, to persuade the chartered banks that they can, in fact engage in this kind of discounting operation if for no other reason than to provide an additional banking service to people who require this kind of assistance.

We also know that it may well be that we would see an operation through the banks which would be of some value. I don’t know whether or not the loan and trust corporations would be able to engage in it, nor do I know whether or not the finance companies would be able to engage in it as a legitimate operation; but it is not beyond the wit of this government to devise legislation to outlaw this kind of operation and to provide for it being carried on only through recognized financial institutions.

I want to speak to one other point only. I listened to the minister’s statement when he introduced Bill 10. I was particularly interested in the comment he made with respect to the border problem. He used, as an example, the border between the province of Ontario and Quebec. The member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) has referred to the border between Ontario and the state of Michigan.

[3:30]

It does seem to me, certainly, so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, that it would be possible for the minister to deal directly with his counterpart in the government of Quebec -- perhaps with the co-operation of the federal government if that’s necessary, but in any event on a mutual basis with his counterpart in Quebec -- to work out a reciprocal enforcement operation that would be effective in preventing the kind of across-the-river operation that I understand the minister referred to in his statement to the House.

Perhaps the same kind of reciprocal arrangements could be made with the state of Michigan, which is an alert state, and certainly with some other states, such as the state of New York bordering on the province of Ontario, because I am quite certain that the same social problem exists in all of those jurisdictions.

I do not think it is beyond the wit of the ministry both to devise a bill to outlaw this form of transaction and, by co-operation with the adjoining states and with the adjoining provinces, to make the enforcement effective.

If the minister is going to pursue this route, the route set out in Bill 99, I cannot criticize the bill, and the amendment to close this particular gap is one method of doing it. But I would say to the minister that if there continue to be gaps appearing, and ways to circumvent, and difficulties in enforcement of the intention of this bill, he should be prepared, without any undue delay, to move to outlaw them. If they want to hire constitutional lawyers to argue the case, that’s fine. The minister can always find his own lawyers to counter it or he can refer its constitutionality under the Constitutional Questions Act and find out whether or not, in fact, he can outlaw it.

Mr. Breithaupt: In his reply could the minister also perhaps enlighten the House as to what publicity he intends to give so that the people of the province will know that this legislation is clearly going to be in place and that the 95 per cent figure is a common expectation throughout the province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the member for Kitchener has raised some direct questions which I would like to deal with directly in view of the fact that I will be visiting his fair city this Thursday.

Mr. Haggerty: Don’t spoil it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not going to check on the tax discounters there -- and I now have their address in front of me, I might add -- but to do other good works in that fair city. I would like to address immediately the efforts on the BDPA. Already I have used the occasion of a dinner meeting I arranged with Mr. Allmand to impress upon him our desire that the BDPA either go forward or die so that the various provinces will know whether we have to move into some of those voids or that the voids will be filled immediately.

I would be happy to express, certainly to the leaders of the two opposition parties in Ottawa, our desire to see that that bill comes forward quickly, although I suspect Mr. Allmand and others have other plans in the meantime which may prohibit the BDPA from coming on stream certainly for this tax season.

I think it’s fair to anticipate that the new government next fall will proceed with the BDPA with our encouragement. It may be a better Act, in fact.

In any case, we have impressed that urgency on them. In fact, next week I will have the privilege of attending my first federal-provincial meeting of consumer ministers. At that time the matter of both the standing of the BDPA -- is it going forward, is it dying and what changes are being made? -- will be discussed, I might add, at our initiative.

Secondly, we will have some informal talks with Mr. Allmand once again about some other ways in which we may grapple with the Ottawa-Hull situation in the meantime. As well, I will avail myself of that opportunity to discuss with my counterpart from Quebec the very matters that the member for Riverdale raised with regard to seeing if some joint co-operation can’t be worked out with Quebec. All that will be done literally nine days from today when we all assemble in the great city of Victoria to chat about consumer matters for a couple of days.

Mr. Haggerty: The Victoria charter.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Hamilton Centre has quite properly noted the haste with which we moved last fall, for which we don’t apologize. I suppose I am not a clever enough lawyer to have anticipated all the devious moves that the tax discounters have thought of to circumvent the legislation that was passed with the co-operation of all parties last fall. Perhaps if the member for Riverdale had been with us at that time, he would have been clever enough to have spotted them.

I might add that obviously the member for Riverdale did miss a couple of matters when he went over Hansard last fall --

Mr. Foulds: Not many.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- or else he would have realized that the initiative came from this government, not from his colleague from Hamilton Centre. However, in the interests of time we won’t cover that territory.

Mr. Foulds: That’s uncalled for.

Mr. Warner: It was pressure here, and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We’ll discuss it when I’m back with the next series of amendments.

Mr. Bounsall: You sounded like your father.

Mr. Warner: He may not be complimented.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. In any case, actually, I don’t terribly disagree with the remarks made by the member for Riverdale. I do have some very real concern that I am either going to have to come back here and find a way to constitutionally outlaw the tax discounters, or I’m going to be back here regularly closing some more loopholes that they have found. I am quite aware of that problem.

I would hope that federal legislation would solve the problem in such a fashion that that might not be necessary. Unless they go the route of outlawing them, then I might be back here at a later time with such legislation. I have some hope, however. The tax discounters are in business in other provinces. In fact, the head office of the major operator is in Alberta. If we can just make it difficult enough for them to operate in Ontario, perhaps they will pack up and go somewhere else without our having to outlaw them. They have hired a very fancy, excellent constitutional lawyer. They have put us on notice --

Mr. Renwick: He used to be with the government.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is correct.

Mr. Kerrio: Who’s the fancy lawyer?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It shows how excellent his credentials are, and we will no doubt be hearing from him in the next period of time. I think we should be fair to the House, however. As the lawyers here will attest, passing this today does not mean they are going to close up tomorrow. As soon as we go out and start laying the charges, the people are going to presume themselves innocent, as they ought to and as they are entitled to do under our laws, and continue to operate through this tax season until the trials and appeals that are certainly going to occur are finished. They are going to be in business through this tax season, unfortunately.

What we are going to do -- and this addresses some of the remarks made latterly by the member for Kitchener -- is immediately upon passage of this bill to get out in the field and make sure we cover each and every tax discounter that is in the field. Where we catch the slightest violation of our legislation, we are going to lay charges immediately.

I would hope the laying of those charges will go a long way towards alerting the public of this province to the existence of the legislation. I also would have hoped some of the sections of Bill 99, which we passed last fall, would at least have been followed by the tax discounters who were staying in business and which required some notices to be posted -- I believe it is in

section 8 of that legislation -- in the offices of the tax discounters. They didn’t obey that.

In any case, prior to spending any great amount of government funds on advertisements in newspapers and so on, we are going to go the route of laying charges immediately, pressing them rather severely and hoping the ultimate publicity does it.

Mr. Nixon: You are not going to go into all the weeklies?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A few, on special request. Where we have closed an LCBO outlet, we will advertise in that local weekly.

Mr. Nixon: Good. You have got to keep up that flow of money.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In any case, I want to express my appreciation to the members of the assembly for their support of this initiative. I can in turn assure the members of the assembly we are going to prosecute immediately and quickly. If there are new loopholes developed, we are going to be back here. I hope it doesn’t happen, but we are going to chase them and chase them until effectively they are going to stick to the 95 per cent requirement or they are go- to get out of this province.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT

House in committee of the whole on Bill 59,

An Act to reform the Law respecting Property Rights and Support Obligations between Married Persons and in other Family Relationships.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If it would be in order, perhaps the committee could record some agreement with respect to how we would handle the consideration and final determination of proposed amendments under the bill. It was hoped that, indeed, following the detailed discussion in committee we could stack all the necessary votes with respect to amendments and have a vote on these amendments at the end of the consideration of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that following the detailed discussion in committee all the necessary votes with respect to amendments be stacked and a vote be taken on these amendments at the end of the consideration of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any comments or amendments on this bill?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, before proceeding to amendments, let me just congratulate the chairman of the justice committee and the members -- all parties -- who worked so hard in committee on this legislation, and record my appreciation for their efforts and the extent to which we in the Ministry of the Attorney General benefited from their efforts.

section 1:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Ms. Gigantes moves that

section 1, clause f, be amended by adding thereto the following subclause: “(iv) is a widower or a widow.”

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, this Legislature in the fall dealt with two other bills in the family law reform package which the government has introduced. The amendment I am making is an amendment that changes Bill 59 so as to permit a widow or a widower to receive the same treatment under the legislation now before us as would a separated person or a divorced person. As Bill 59 now stands, this is not true. In effect, there is an element of discrimination within the bill because of that.

It is my feeling that Bill 60, which was the bill which we considered and passed earlier in this session, does not adequately cover the situation of a widow or a widower, either in the intestate or the testate situation. I will attempt to explain that, Mr. Chairman. In Bill 60,

section 46, there were provisions that a widow or widower, where a will was for an amount less than $75,000, would be eligible for the total amount of the will; a property of $75,000. Where a property was more than $75,000, the widow or widower would be eligible to receive $75,000 plus a fraction -- depending on the number of children -- of the value of the rest of the property.

[3:45]

Our feeling is that in Bill 59 the person who is a widow or a widower is being discriminated against if the value of the property involved in the will is more, for example, in the assets section, than $150,000, If, for example, 20 years ago a couple purchased a home which has increased in value until the year 1978 when the home is now worth more than $150,000, under this bill the surviving spouse would not be automatically eligible to the matrimonial home, if this bill is taken in conjunction with Bill 60. We feel this must be changed and this is one reason for the amendment.

This is the case without a will, the first case I mentioned. In the second case, where there is a will, the surviving spouse can apply for support under the terms of Bill 59, but there is no right under Bill 59 for a sharing of assets in the case of a widow or a widower. This discrimination leaves us in the kind of insane situation where Bill 59 would provide more protection to a spouse who has separated or divorced than it would provide to a widow or a widower.

We will be dealing later with a second amendment to

section 4 which follows very much from the same kind of principle as is being introduced in this amendment. We feel strongly that this clause added to

section 1 is necessary if we wish to remove discrimination against married people whose marriage is terminated due to death.

Mrs. Campbell: I would like to join in the debate with reference to this proposed amendment. I have to say that from the start it has given me one of my greatest problems with this legislation. There is no doubt that the bill which is referred to as the succession law reform bill carries out a completely different approach to the marriage and to the property rights from the theme of the bill which is before us now.

The problem that I have, of course, is if we add this particular clause to this bill, what is the effect then on the scheme of the other legislation which is also already in law? I have a very real concern that in the succession law reform bill we have faltered along, and I, as much as anyone, am responsible because I was in this House when it passed. We did falter along with the old principle basically of the Dependants’ Relief Act. We haven’t really changed the principle.

It is true that under this particular legislation, on an application, a judge may award a division of property -- he may do, or she may do, many things -- but nevertheless it would have to be by way of an application for support, as I say, in the philosophy of the Dependants’ Relief Act. I would have hoped that someone in the ministry could have seen the difficulties with these two bills, and the different approach. It seems to me that the economic partnership to which we address ourselves in the bill before us is a matter which arises ab initio and not at the end of a marriage broken by death.

I personally would ask the Attorney General if he would look at this particularly strange combination. I would, I must confess, rather see him make a commitment to this House to bring forward an amendment to the Succession Law Reform Act which would bring it into the economic partnership philosophy of this bill, because I really don’t know what effect this amendment would have, particularly in the face of an intestacy.

I want to accept the amendment, I really do. But I am at a loss as to how that can achieve anything other than confusion and chaos as it relates to the Succession Law Reform Act. I suppose at this point, and having in mind that we will be voting later, I would like to hear from the Attorney General. I am sure he would acknowledge that there are two basic things which have a certain dichotomy as they relate to the economic partnership ideology of this bill. Therefore, at this point I am simply going to ask him to comment and then I can make my decisions at a later time.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment because I think it is very important that we do establish this principle that a survivor of a marriage should be on the same basis as a person who is involved in a marriage breakup. The legislation as it is before us clearly discriminates against spouses whose marriage is dissolved by death and it puts them in a worse position in some cases than under the existing law, since dower is abolished --

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, don’t mention dower.

Ms. Bryden: -- and also puts them in a worse position than people who suffer a marriage breakup.

There seems to be a feeling abroad that this failure to have the present law apply in the case of death was possibly an oversight on the part of the government. But it is really quite clear, if you look at the original pamphlet which the government brought out at the time it brought out its position paper on the legislation, that it never at any time intended to cover the case of death.

The pamphlet states, “The family asset system would apply only as long as both husband and wife are living and only when their marriage breaks down.” Also, the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, in a letter to the Ottawa Citizen replying to some other letters written on the legislation, stated quite clearly -- the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) -- that, “It was never intended that the Family Law Reform Act deal with the disposal of assets on death.”

I don’t know what the motivation of the government was in not including dissolution on death in order to avoid the discriminatory situation that has arisen. It must be that they thought that Bill 60, which is now law, the Succession Law Reform Act, covered the situation adequately, but we have discovered that it does not in any sense of the word cover the situation adequately or provide equality between people who suffer marriage breakup and people whose marriage ends on death.

Therefore, I think we must amend one or the other Act and I really think that the suggestion of the member for St. George that we amend the Succession Law Reform Act is incorrect in that it is really replacing the old Dependants’ Relief Act and providing for the situation where there is intestacy and things of that sort. What it provides is not equivalent to what is provided under Bill 59, and therefore it seems to me that Bill is the bill that must be amended to produce this equality.

It is true that spouses who feel they have not got their equal share of the assets can go to court, but I submit that they should not have to go to court to establish that, because under Bill 59 it is provided that in cases of marriage breakup the equal sharing of assets is automatic unless it is set aside by a court or by a marriage contract. We all know the expense of going to court, the long delays and the fact that in most cases it is the women who will be affected by this lack of provision in the law and that they will be expected then to use up some of their slim resources when they are the survivors of marriages in trying to establish what should be their right.

The

preamble to Bill 59 says that this legislation recognizes that marriage is a partnership and recognizes the equality of the spouses. It seems to me that a marriage which ends in death must have that recognition attached to it if this government is going to indicate to the women of this province that it really believes in those principles in the

preamble. It seems to me the failure to put in this clause that we are recommending will mean it does not really believe that marriage is a partnership and does not really believe the spouses should be treated as equals.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to concur with the Attorney General in his earlier comments about the work that’s been put into this legislation, for a period of two years now we’ve been discussing the bill and we’ve had submissions from a variety of groups. I think basically my comments are directed to the ministry and to all my colleagues on all sides of the House who have deliberately attempted to try to make the bill as workable and as balanced as possible. I think we’ve approached this basically on a non-partisan basis and hopefully this debate here in the House can continue in that fashion.

The proposed amendment arises because of the technicalities of the legislation that was part of the family law package. We passed legislation here in that package dealing with marriage. We passed legislation dealing with children. We passed legislation dealing with Bill 60,

An Act to reform the Law respecting Succession to the Estates of Deceased Persons. As in each of these areas, this legislation was intended to deal with specific problems within a specific field.

[4:00]

I think my colleague from St. George has expressed our concern and our sympathy for the amendment but it is difficult to see how, if we are going to have a workable piece of legislation, we can possibly accept this amendment to this legislation. We must clear up what Bill 59 is about. I would say to the member for Carleton East, as I read it -- and somebody may correct me here -- even the question of spouse did not deal with people who are divorced.

In fact, spouse is intended to deal with people who are separated. That is the definition of spouse. This bill was intended to deal with a situation where there is a breakup and the parties are not divorced. It was not intended to deal with disposition on death as well. So that aspect of it certainly has to be cleared up.

As my colleague from St. George said, there is no objection surely to doing away with dowries. Britain, where dower originated, did away with dower back in 1925. Dower was a word that was used to give women in this province some expectation of having something, but when one got down to brass tacks and dollars and cents, in many cases dower didn’t mean very much. What is one-third of a life interest worth when one gets down to calculate it?

Mrs. Campbell: There is a mortgage.

Mr. Roy: Yes, and all the complications of that. But there can’t be any objection to that. I understand the purpose of the amendment but I look at Bill 60 and I ask the Attorney General whether it is not possible in

section 69, of that bill, where the court is asked to look at various things, that one of the things the court could look at is the provision of the rights and obligations under Bill 59. An amendment might be included in the estates legislation. That’s where the amendment should go.

I put that to the Attorney General and maybe we could discuss that. I have sympathy with the fact that we have decided to proceed on a basis of the partnership of marriage and that one of the spouses could do by will indirectly what he or she could not do directly during the period of marriage. I was wondering whether that would be too offensive to the principles, and I understand one of the principles of devolution and of wills is that there must be freedom given through a will.

My concern basically is in the area where there is a will, by the way, not where there is an intestacy because the estates bill sufficiently deals with that. I wonder whether it is not possible to put in the estates Act some provision where the court looks at a variety of things. I am looking at

section 69 which deals with all sorts of criteria that the court can look at. One of the things the court could look at could be the provisions of Bill 59 and the intentions that we have in that bill.

Even with as much sympathy as we have for the amendment, I would say to the previous speaker, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, that my colleague from St. George is right on when she says it would be difficult for us to deal with that particular amendment in this legislation. We have to look elsewhere.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I say at the outset that I am quite in sympathy with the motive behind the proposed amendment but, repeating what my friend, the member for Ottawa East has said, I agree with the member for St. George that this would not be the appropriate legislation in which to introduce such an amendment. In fact, if that were to be the case, it would require fundamental rewriting of the Succession Law Reform Act.

At the same time, I should hasten to add that the matter is much more complicated than what has been suggested. As members know, the freedom of testation is a very basic right and a basic principle in this province. We have to bear in mind that we are not only considering the surviving spouse; we’re considering the children and other beneficiaries.

For example, if I might present an example to indicate that the matter is somewhat more complicated than has been suggested: Last night I was speaking in Mississauga and there was some interest in relation to our deliberations today. A woman, a widow, approached me; she was very concerned about our legislation because when her husband died she inherited the home -- quite a valuable home in this particular case -- and she is very concerned with what risk she is undertaking in remarrying. What’s going to happen to that home if the marriage doesn’t work out? To what extent are her rights in relation to that home going to be affected?

As she quite properly pointed out, there are probably many more widows in the province living in similar circumstances, living in the matrimonial home, and who are concerned about the extent to which their property rights will be affected by this bill as well as the rights of the children and perhaps the children of the first marriage.

I only mention this illustration to indicate that one should not lightly support a principle that leads to a substantial interference with the testator’s rights, because there are going to be perhaps many other people adversely concerned.

Furthermore, I wonder to what extent there is a problem in this particular case. Obviously the issue is different when it arises as a result of a marriage breakdown as opposed to a death. For example, certain studies have been done in the judicial district of York in relation to matters related to the Dependants’ Relief Act. I can state the happy fact is that where spouses lived together until death has parted them, it’s in something less than one per cent of the cases that any issue has arisen in relation to Dependants’ Relief Act applications. Those happen to be the hard statistics that are available, at least in the largest county in the province.

I suggest that in this particular matter we are dealing with somewhat of a non-problem. The extent to which children, for example, could be adversely affected by this, and the concerns of the widow who spoke to me last night, I think must be given considerable weight in such a matter.

I would like to correct the member for Beaches-Woodbine and point out that the Dependants’ Relief Act does not necessarily require an application to court. In a case where a widow is deprived of any right in the house by reason of the will, and if an application went to court, the likelihood in those very small percentages of cases where this is a factor is that that the court would order that she at least have possession of the premises during her lifetime. But it need not go to court. As a matter of fact, the executors could settle the matter and it’s quite likely that that would be the result.

Although I am in great sympathy with the spirit behind the proposed amendment, I reiterate what has been stated: This is not the appropriate legislation.

While I am quite prepared to consider any useful amendments to the Succession Law Reform Act in order to enshrine in that legislation the basic principle, that is supported on all sides of the House, namely the economic partnership of the marriage, I will do so, but at the same time I say to my friends across the aisle that we have worked very usefully together in the interests of the public and one has to be cautious about the extent to which we interfere with the testator’s right.

In any event, that may be the subject for further discussion, but for the reasons I stated, it would be most unwise and not in the public interest to accept such an amendment.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have some clarification. Does the Attorney General realize that in the Succession Law Reform Act there is a provision, which to me seems very sinister or capable of being sinister, and that is the right of a court to take into consideration not just the will, but any statement of the testator -- and I’m using that as the masculine term -- that may be made by way of a reason or explanation? Does the Attorney General really feel that that gives balance to this?

The court has a unilateral statement which is not the subject of any cross-examination and this could have a very adverse effect on the right of the widow to bring forward any proposition of an economic partnership. Could the Attorney General comment on that provision?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m not sure that this is a place to comment on Bill 60.

Mrs. Campbell: Indeed it is.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the

section that deals with including any statement in writing signed by the deceased --

Mrs. Campbell: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes. Obviously the deceased is not in a position to --

Mrs. Campbell: To be cross-examined.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, he’s not in the position to give evidence

whereas the applicant is, so the court is faced with a written statement of the deceased, and the court can give that statement whatever weight it might choose to, which may be very little weight, and the rights of the deceased are really very limited just by reason of his or her absence,

whereas the applicant is there and obviously that evidence is going to be given greater weight simply by reason of all the circumstances. But as I read all of the many subsections in relation to

section 69, I think the court is invited to take in all possible circumstances that will assist the court in arriving at a just result.

Again, I did not come here today prepared to debate that particular

section of the Succession Law Reform Act but I’d be quite prepared to discuss it with the hon. member opposite as we consider whether or not any amendments should be made to this legislation. That’s the best explanation that I can give at this point.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more thing? Does the Attorney General not appreciate that the woman in this case may be placed in the position of trying to prove how many people didn’t get killed because we had crosswalks? Just analyse what you’re asking of her.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’d like to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that I don’t know that it’s always necessarily going to be the woman who is the applicant.

Mrs. Campbell: I quite agree, but the concern at the moment is that.

[4:15]

Mr. Bounsall: I agree with the Attorney General in his remarks about how many people worked so long and so hard on this bill, and it’s obvious some of the work is still just starting, to get family law reform properly in this province.

Your sympathy is not quite a replacement for some action in this area or some commitment to fix up -- if you can do it in other Acts: the Succession Law Reform Act and Estates Act and what have you -- the sections which should be cleared up that this amendment speaks to. If the Attorney General does not want to have this loose end unravelling forever -- and I will agree it perhaps affects only one per cent of the marriages in this province, according to your statistics, in which a spouse becomes deceased -- what is he prepared to do about it?

Are you prepared to let that unravel forever? Or are you, in this Act, going to do the very simple thing as far as property and asset portions of estates go, and ensure that the surviving spouse gets no lesser rights than a person involved in a divorce, or is separated with no contemplation of divorce, or involved in a nullified marriage, would get under this Act, where that person has been willed less?

That is what this amendment is all about and the Attorney General has not made any other sound apart from being sympathetic. That’s all very well but how long do we wait for the sympathetic response from the Attorney General to become some sort of concrete legislation? We have the route here to do it, which does not in any material way affect Bill 60 or Bill 59 at all. You have not covered it properly in Bill 60 or 59 for those persons who would receive in a will, with the death of a spouse, less than what they would receive if they commenced a divorce action the day before the death of that spouse.

Would you as the Attorney General or in your capacity as a practising lawyer, to which you may hopefully soon return, or as an MPP, advise a female constituent, to be really safe, knowing that her husband has a will but not knowing exactly what’s in the will, the day before her sick husband’s death to institute a divorce action? That’s the only way you could really be assured of the same sort of equity that occurs -- where it does occur -- in this bill.

Certainly in looking through what we would normally call the support sections of Bill 60, it is very clearly and carefully tied down, in that a spouse can receive support from the estate. That’s done very nicely in Bill 60. What you didn’t tie down was the situation, as this amendment speaks to, where they are left in a disadvantaged position by a will as it relates to property and assets.

Certainly if there is no will and if the estate does not exceed $150,000, then again the woman finds herself in no particular disadvantaged situation. But in estates of more than $150,000, where it’s a single widow only and no will, again an amendment of the type in this bill would be very useful.

I don’t need to remind the Attorney General of the provisions of Bill 60 when there is no will. I am sure he has them firmly engraved upon his mind. But if there is no will and the estate is $75,000 or less, then she gets what is there. if it is over $75,000, she gets $75,000. The only way under that Act that she would be in the comparable situation of a divorced person under this Act would be if the estate then exceeded $150,000. But if it does exceed $150,000, then a single person -- the spouse having died -- would be in a disadvantaged position in that bill, relative to this one, if he or she had entered an action for divorce the day before.

That is very definitely a loose end, which I think the Attorney General should make a commitment to fix up, and not leave it to be unravelled throughout the rest of time in this province. As I have said, sympathy is no substitute for action.

Mr. Lawlor: Surely, the point has been well made. It can’t be denied that, despite the somewhat prolonged gestation of this legislation, that nub issue was not, with respect, given sufficient surveillance. The only bodies that directed their remarks to it, as I recall, were law societies and law groups; and there weren’t many of them. The major brief came from the Law Society itself, and we didn’t spend all that much time on it.

It is probably correct that Bill 59 is not quite the proper place; but I would like to extract from the Attorney General some kind of commitment to review Bill 60, in that very narrow dimension. We have some myth abroad that this kind of legislation, generally, has some kind of Egyptian rigidity; that when it comes into being it will remain for time memorial -- if not immemorial. And it is not. Here it is; we have hardly got it passed, and we can see a defect in it.

One area of defect lies on the testacy side. On the intestacy, we can argue ad nauseam among ourselves as to the numbers game, as to whether the preferred share of $75,000, is adequate or inadequate; should it be $125,000, should it be $250,000; and do we bring it into line with the succession duty of the inter-spousal relationship? Who knows? As the Attorney General points out, there has to be some space left for other heirs, etc. In one instance, the wife would share the remaining half of the estate, or in some instances, the third. That basic setup wasn’t profoundly argued, nor would I be prepared at this time to profoundly argue it.

But on the side of wills, on the side of exclusions, a weakness has appeared. Unless what can be derived through what was the Dependants’ Relief Act, commensurate with the benefits that are derivable in other circumstances, then that balance must be rectified and made plain. I would ask you to give good consideration, coming into the fall, to introducing legislation precisely to do that.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to comment on a few of the remarks that have been made around the House as we have discussed this amendment. It seems to me that we are clear now, that what we are talking about is the principle involved. Let me read to you a

section of the introduction to the bill. This bill begins, “Whereas it is desirable to encourage and strengthen the role of the family in society, and

whereas for that purpose it is necessary to recognize the equal position of spouses as individuals within marriage and to recognize marriage as a form of partnership -- ” how can we support those principles in a bill that says in principle that a widow or a widower doesn’t have the same right to a share of assets that a divorced or a separated spouse has?

I’m not terribly impressed. I’m sure it would have been nice for us to see ahead when we were dealing with Bill 60 and to bring in whatever motion would have been necessary to amend Bill 60 so that it would have fallen in line with the operations of Bill 59, as it’s now before us, and the methodology that Bill 59 uses to ensure that these principles I’ve just spoken about, just read from the first part of the bill, are brought into effect in marriages in Ontario, but that did not happen.

That did not happen, and it is not a difficult thing right now to make sure within the terms of this bill -- totally appropriate within the terms of this bill -- to say quite simply that all the rights that are given concerning the sharing of property in Bill 59 to separated or divorced spouses shall also be given to widows and widowers.

The Attorney General talks about the testator’s right. How can we talk about a testator’s right that is in defiance of the basic principle enunciated in this bill and spelled out as carefully as we can over two years of work that there shall be a sharing of the assets of the marriage? How can we talk about the right of a testator that goes beyond that? Surely this is the very principle that all these reforms relate to? We want to say that above all else what we’re looking for in this package of reforms, and particularly in this bill, is an equality of sharing of those assets built up over the lifetime of the marriage.

I think this is our opportunity quite simply to make sure that that principle applies to a spouse whose marriage breaks up because of the death of the other spouse. It’s that simple. There’s nothing complicated about it. I think we should move on it now.

Mr. Sterling: I see no problem with the concept involved here. I fully support the idea that a widow would have the same rights as she would have on a separation, but I think we’re dealing with two different types of situations.

Mr. Warner: Here comes the “but.”

Mr. Sterling: When we’re talking about settlement on a separation we’re talking about a situation where there are two people --

Mr. Lupusella: We have been trying to believe you.

Mr. Sterling: -- and children to take into account. When we’re talking about succession law reform we’re talking about a situation where one spouse is no longer there to take care of.

Ms. Gigantes: It is just a minimum guarantee.

Mr. Sterling: The other problem that is not taken into acco