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

December 16, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L141 - Thu 16 Dec 1976 / Jeu 16 déc 1976

POINTS OF PRIVILEGE

NORTHERN ONTARIO HYDRO SERVICE

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

ARBITRATION PROCEDURES

URBAN TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM ACT

SOLICITOR-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

OHTB BUS LICENCE

PROPOSED RECREATION COMPLEX IN VAUGHAN

RENT REVIEW PROGRAMME

WATER POLLUTION

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

DEVELOPMENT OF JUNIOR MINES

PROVINCIAL LOTTERY

SALE OF APARTMENTS

OHC MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS

CLOSURE OF TEXTILE PLANTS

PURINA PLANT

HAWKESBURY WATER POLLUTION

APPOINTMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD

MERCURY POLLUTION IN FISH

ASSISTANCE FOR HOCKEY TEAMS

REPORTS

PETITION

REPORTS (CONTINUED)

POINTS OF PRIVILEGE

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

FUNERAL SERVICES ACT (CONTINUED)

WINE CONTENT ACT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT

FUNERAL SERVICES ACT (CONCLUDED)

WINE CONTENT ACT

THIRD READING

WINE CONTENT ACT

FUNERAL SERVICES ACT

THIRD READING

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 10

MOTIONS

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

BUDGET DEBATE (CONCLUDED)

SUPPLY ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

PROROGATION SPEECH

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

POINTS OF PRIVILEGE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I rise on a point of personal privilege to express my grave concern and disappointment at the publication this morning of information contained in a report which was tabled yesterday before the public accounts committee of this Legislature in response to your warrant, Mr. Speaker, dated December 9.

As is well known to all members of the Legislature, the Ontario Medical Association brought court proceedings to prohibit the information going to the public accounts committee. The Attorney General was named as a party to the injunction proceedings and was represented by counsel from the ministry. My position as Attorney General is that the public accounts committee should have access to this information, but only for the purposes of making its report on public accounts to this House.

It was my view that if the public accounts committee was prohibited from having this information, the legislative assembly would be denied a fundamental right to information necessary for the purpose of effective government administration. However, I am deeply distressed that the information provided to the public accounts committee has now been published and used for purposes other than the work of the public accounts committee. In my view, this can only serve to undermine the confidence of the public in this legislative assembly.

I wish to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the chairman of the public accounts committee was advised by my ministry that the information should not be used for any purpose other than for the committee’s report to the House. The chairman was advised of the confidentiality provisions of The Health Insurance Act and was told that he should keep such provisions in mind when dealing with the information.

As the Attorney General of this province, I want to make it perfectly clear that I supported the right of a committee of this Legislature to have this information. However, in my view, that information should have been kept strictly confidential to the work of the committee and the names of the doctors should not have been released. To release the information in the form in which it has been published, in my view, has effected a gross unfairness on the individuals involved as it is clearly capable in the form it was published of distorting the actual amount earned by these individuals.

I am seriously concerned that the action of the member or members who released this information to the press may well have constituted a breach of the privileges of this House. It is my understanding that any evidence taken or secured by such a committee which has not been reported to the House ought not to be published by any members of such committee or by any other person. This is, I’m advised, a long-standing principle of parliamentary procedure. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into this matter and report back to us as to whether or not there has in fact been such a breach of privilege.

Mr. Germa: I would also like to express my disappointment in the breach of confidentiality which occurred. I should point out to the House that a motion calling for confidentiality as it relates to this information was passed unanimously by the committee prior to receipt of the information. The Chair accepted the motion with the full intent that the information would be confidential. I would hope that it was not a member of this House who breached the rights and privileges of the public accounts committee.

Mr. Singer: I rise on a point of privilege in relation to certain reports that were in the newspapers concerning the events yesterday at the select committee.

In a front-page story, the Globe and Mail said that the report was tabled by the member for Sudbury and myself. It sounds as though we walked into the committee with the report in our back pocket and suddenly revealed it and now it is public. Unfortunately, that same phrase was picked up by the Star editorial writers and repeated in an editorial that was not uncritical of the chairman and of myself. Let me say, sir, that what happened was that there was a motion moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr.

Foulds), which was passed unanimously by all members of the committee, dealing with the receipt of the report from Mr. Fetherston, the general manager of OHIP, who had all those reports in a box. He handed them over after the motion moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur was unanimously passed; it was voted for by the NDP members, the Liberal members and the Conservative members of the committee. It is of the utmost importance to me that that be cleared up in the public mind. There was no report tabled by me nor was there a report tabled by the chairman nor did we have it.

What was done was there was an action upon a resolution passed unanimously and moved by the hon. member whose name I have just mentioned. It wasn’t even seconded by me.

The other point, and not quite as serious, is the description of what seems to be a mad chase up University Avenue. May I enlighten the House on this? It is the last time I will ever offer the hon. member for Sudbury a ride from the courthouse to the Parliament buildings because the description of the drive bears no relation to it other than the fact that we came together. I offered him a ride and he accepted.

Mr. Grossman: Were you with him in the courthouse? Were you with him there?

Mr. Nixon: Did the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick vote for the resolution or not?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, order. The hon. member for Lanark only.

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I sat on that public accounts committee. We had a special meeting called at 1:30 yesterday and, as everyone has mentioned, it was to study the payments to doctors who had billed OHIP for over $100,000. We passed a motion that we would have Mr. Scott look after the report, the members would get the report and Mr. Scott would review it and come back. The members of that committee would make a decision at that time as to whether it should be confidential or not. The last line of that report mentioned that it would be confidential. I think, Mr.

Speaker, through your good offices, perhaps you could investigate to see who did leak that information. It would be of great help to every member on that committee because I, for one, feel -- I am sure all the rest feel the same way -- that there’s a black mark against our honesty and our integrity until this matter is cleaned up. I am sure that every member who sits on that wants that done and if your office gives you that power, I would ask you to do it.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same point? We don’t want to go around the whole chamber on this matter. It has been brought to the Speaker’s attention.

Mr. Williams: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear the hon. member briefly.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to dissociate myself from the activities of the committee in the two special meetings it has held during the past two weeks, simply because of the manner and fashion in which they were conducted. The one held by the committee last week to request you to issue the special warrant was conducted without my prior knowledge and without my attendance. Therefore, I was not part and parcel of that particular proceeding.

I would point out that no member of the Conservative caucus was advised of the meeting last Thursday when the special warrant was issued.

As to the meeting yesterday --

Mr. Breithaupt: You really should try to attend the meetings.

Mr. Williams: -- again, I received a telephone call at 1:15 to say there was to be a special meeting at 1:30. Under the circumstances, considering the fundamental private privileges involved in the matter before the committee in these urgent meetings, there is no evidence before me to justify the urgency with which these matters were taken in hand by the committee under those circumstances. To have these disclosures made, I want to be dissociated --

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member has made his point clear. We don’t want to get into a debate about what goes on in the committee. Thank you very much. Will the hon. member take his seat.

Mr. Williams: Simply, Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to be associated --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have heard you on that point. Is this on the same matter of privilege, very briefly?

Mr. Foulds: On a similar point.

Mr. Speaker: But not a discussion of all the things that went on in the committee however?

Mr. Foulds: No, Mr. Speaker. As the member substituting for the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) on the committee yesterday who made the motion in the public accounts committee that resulted in the committee receiving the information regarding the names and addresses, et cetera, of those doctors receiving $100,000 or more in payments from OHIP. I am shocked and dismayed that the press obtained that information and that the information has become public knowledge prematurely.

[2:15]

An hon. member: I bet you are.

Mr. Foulds: I thoroughly agree with the Attorney General that it was the right of the committee to receive the information; but it was clearly part of the motion I put, that the information should remain confidential until such time as the committee should decide otherwise, and I cannot express too strongly my dismay that that has been breached.

An hon. member: Call the reporters before the bar of the House.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’d like to speak to that point of privilege, too. I am not a member of the committee; therefore, perhaps I don’t have to stand to exonerate my own actions. But as the minister responsible for delivering this material on the basis of your warrant, I would like to look at its effect -- not on the particular matter, the information that was revealed, but really the kind of effect this has upon the people of this province who look at this Legislature and who I thought had reason to trust it.

I believe that it would be very difficult to assume that it was not a member of that committee who released that information. I believe that each one of us in this House will suffer as a result of that action. I believe the people in this province had every reason to believe that we were elected to represent the rights of people in this House, whether we agree with the principles expressed by our opposition or not. When this kind of action takes place, I believe that we as politicians have dropped one more notch in the eyes of the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Minister of Health has made a very good comment which summarizes the total picture. But just to review the events, if I may take a very brief moment, the warrant was issued; there were certain challenges; the warrant was upheld; and the information then was presented, properly I presume, to the committee. What happened in the committee really is out of the control of the Speaker and the House. It is entirely the responsibility of the committee what happened to that.

As to whether a member of the committee leaked the information or otherwise, I have no way of knowing, but really it is the responsibility of that committee to govern its own affairs as ordered by the House. I will confirm that; I will double-check that to make sure there is no responsibility on my shoulders. But at the present moment I do not see one. If I see otherwise, I will report, hopefully later this afternoon. But at the present time I see no responsibility on the Chair to take any action at this time.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order on that particular point.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not debatable.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. I have dealt with all the points of privilege which are all dealing with the same matter. I have dealt with the matter. If the hon. member will please take his seat, we will get on with the business of the day.

Any statements by the ministry? The Minister of Energy.

Mr. Foulds: We know what it is.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Maybe I should sit down; I’d be further ahead. I don’t know.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HYDRO SERVICE

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In the 1974 Throne Speech the government announced its intention to extend the electrification process to remote northern communities of the province. As a first undertaking, the construction of a transmission line to Moosonee was also announced at that time.

Today, I am pleased to announce a comprehensive electrification programme for those remaining northern communities still without power, where the cost can be justified. Depending on the interest of residents in the communities involved, this new electrification programme could assist nine small communities in northern Ontario and it is estimated to cost the province nearly $3 million over a period of three years.

Under the programme, the province will provide Ontario Hydro with capital funds for local diesel generation or extensions to an existing transmission line. Ontario Hydro will assume full operating responsibility for this programme. To qualify for assistance under the programme a community must have a minimum of 25 year-round customers in total, who are willing to take the service from Ontario Hydro. The nine communities in northern Ontario which appear to meet this criterion are Armstrong, Hillsport, Oba, Collins, Auden, Biscotasing, Sultan, Ramsay and Kormack.

On the basis of comparative capital and operating costs, the first six communities would be supplied by diesel generators. In the case of the last three, Sultan, Ramsay and Kormack, the recommended supply is by line extension connected to the Hydro rural distribution system.

Two of the communities, Armstrong and Sultan, already receive service from diesel generators operated by the Ministry of Government Services in Armstrong and by the Ministry of Natural Resources in Sultan. The government-owned facilities in both communities will be transferred to Hydro at an early date. In addition to the diesel supply operated by the Ministry of Government Services in Armstrong, nearly 100 houses receive power from diesel generators owned by the CNR.

Canadian National Railways will be approached by Ontario Hydro in the near future to negotiate a transfer of CNR’s power supply responsibilities in Armstrong as well as in two other communities, Hillsport and Oba. In other communities under this programme, power is currently provided by private logging company generators or by the individual homeowner at his or her own expense. Central diesel systems will be installed by Ontario Hydro to replace these private systems, again where there is sufficient demand to justify these installations.

The cost of supplying power from diesel generators is very high, approximately 20 cents per kilowatt-hour in communities accessible by road or rail and 30 cents per kilowatt-hour in communities accessible by air only, or about 10 times the cost of producing and delivering power in the rest of Ontario. It is clear that rates to fully recover costs in diesel-supplied communities would not be affordable or acceptable to the prospective residential customer. Therefore, a residential flat-rate structure will be implemented with a cost for all consumption of 6.75 cents per kilowatt-hour.

This is the same charge as will be applied in 1977 to rural residential customers for the first 250 kilowatt- hours of consumption. Non-residential diesel customers, such as government agencies and private businesses, will pay rates equivalent to the true cost of providing the service.

Because of the energy conversion efficiency and cost characteristics of local diesel generation, certain high energy uses, such as electric heat, are inappropriate. Therefore, as is now the practice elsewhere, load-limiting service entrance breakers will be necessary to restrict the power available to each customer to three kilowatts at any given moment in time.

As now envisioned, the diesel electrification programme will begin in 1977 with three communities: Armstrong, Hillsport and Oba. Diesel systems are also tentatively planned for Collins, Auden and Biscotasing in 1978 and a line supply is planned for Sultan, Kormack and Ramsay in 1979. The three-year completion

schedule for the nine communities is necessary to permit Ontario Hydro to develop the manpower and resources required for the installation and administration of the diesel systems. The electrification

schedule was also strongly affected by the constraints on increases in government spending.

Ontario Hydro already operates diesel generators in five status Indian communities, Fort Albany, Big Trout Lake, Pikangikum, Attawapiskat and Sandy Lake. These installations were made possible by an agreement between the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Ontario Hydro in 1971. The electrification

schedule for status Indian communities calls for installations in two more communities, Lansdowne House and Weagamow in 1977. The programme I am announcing today is complementary to the Canada-Ontario Hydro electrification programme in that it provides for the phased diesel electrification of communities under provincial jurisdiction which are remote from the transmission grid.

The same rate schedule, 6.75 cents for every kilowatt-hour, will be charged in status Indian communities, as is planned for communities under provincial jurisdiction. This rate

schedule will be a major improvement for Indian diesel customers who are currently charged seven cents for the first 200 kilowatt-hours and 26 cents per kilowatt-hour for the balance of consumption. The province will be making representations to the federal government for that part of the cost not recovered through the new rate

schedule at the time the issue of all provincial services to status Indians is reviewed and clarified.

With the establishment of the provincial diesel electrification programme, all remote Ontario communities, regardless of jurisdiction, will now have access to a stable, long-term power supply.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would like to make a statement regarding an important aspect --

Mr. Stokes: A point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: A point of privilege. Don’t you know the rules, for heaven’s sake?

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Stokes: On a point of privilege. I know it’s somewhat irregular and there’s no place in the standing orders to do this, but because of the importance that all residents of northern communities place on this recent announcement, I’d like to take this opportunity on their behalf to give a sincere thank you to all of the ministries which were responsible for bringing this very important service to residents in the north that have been without it for so very long.

ARBITRATION PROCEDURES

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would like to make a statement regarding an important aspect of labour relations administration. It involves the question of the settlement by arbitration of disputes concerning the

interpretation of collective agreements under both The Labour Relations Act and The Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

As members know, both statutes require unresolved grievances under collective agreements to be submitted to final and binding arbitration. There is a substantial and steadily increasing volume of arbitration under these Acts, especially under The Labour Relations Act. In 1975, 859 awards were filed with the Labour-Management Arbitration Commission. To the end of November of this year, 967 awards have been filed with the commission. In addition to the increase in volume, cases have tended to become more difficult, reflecting the increasing complexity of the substantive provisions of many collective agreements.

In recent months, I have been made acutely aware of mounting criticisms about the capacity of the existing arbitration system to deal with this increased caseload of complex disputes. A major concern that has been expressed has to do with cost. In virtually all collective agreements, provision is made that the cost of arbitration is to be shared equally by the parties. I have received vigorous representations to the effect that it is difficult and sometimes impossible for smaller trade unions and smaller employers to bear the fees now being charged by arbitrators, with the result that in some instances cases believed to be meritorious cannot be pursued.

The assertion has also been made that there is a lack of properly trained qualified arbitrators acceptable to the parties. Consequently, so it is said, a relatively few highly qualified and experienced arbitrators are required to hear the majority of cases. It is argued that this results, inevitably and unavoidably, in delays and backlogs, both in the setting of hearing dates and the issuing of decisions.

A more fundamental issue, perhaps, relates to the structure of the process. In the main, grievance arbitration is conducted on an ad hoc basis by private adjudicators, either sitting alone or as chairmen of boards comprised of union and employer nominees. Under the present scheme, the arbitrator is selected by the parties or their nominees. Failing agreement, provision is made for appointment by the Minister of Labour on the recommendation of the Labour-Management Arbitration Commission.

This process may be contrasted to the scheme embodied in The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act where a permanent board, the Grievance Settlement Board, has been established to hear all unresolved grievances.

A further question which has been raised concerns the fundamental rationale for the consensual selection of and direct payment to private adjudicators. There appears to be a difference of opinion as to the desirability and propriety of permitting litigants to select and pay their judges. This raises the question of whether there is a need for a partially or completely publicly funded, permanent body of adjudicators similar to the Grievance Settlement Board, to which I have already referred, or some other structure.

Those are the main concerns that have been expressed to me, with increased frequency I might add, over the past 13 months. I wish to make it clear that as Minister of Labour I have reached no conclusions on any of these difficult issues nor are the issues, as I have defined them, necessarily exhaustive. I fully realize that, in addition to the critics, there are many knowledgeable supporters of the existing system. However, what is clear to me and to my colleagues, is the need for a critical evaluation of the entire grievance arbitration system by an independent commissioner.

Therefore, I am pleased to announce that the Honourable Arthur Kelly, a former member of the Ontario Court of Appeal, has agreed to undertake the task. He has been appointed under

section 34 of The Labour Relations Act as an industrial inquiry commissioner.

I should like, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to table the appointment which defines the commissioner’s terms of reference and which reads as follows: “I hereby appoint the hon. Arthur Kelly as an industrial inquiry commissioner to inquire into, report upon and make recommendations concerning grievance arbitration under The Labour Relations Act, RSO 1970,

chapter 232, as amended by 1975,

chapter 76, and The Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, RSO 1970,

chapter 208, as amended by 1972,

chapter 152, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:

“(

a) The structure of grievance arbitration with particular reference to the use of (1) ad hoc arbitrators or boards of arbitration selected and paid by the parties, (2) permanent arbitrators or boards of arbitration, established by statute, and publicly funded, (3) any combination of, or variation in, (1) or (2) or any other structure for the resolution of collective agreement disputes by arbitration;

“(

b) The arbitration process, with particular reference to methods and procedures for expediting the hearing and disposition of disputes;

“(

c) The availability and utilization of arbitrators, with particular reference to training, tenure and remuneration; and

“(

d) Any other matter which, in the commissioner’s discretion, is deemed to be relevant to the prompt, equitable, economic and workable resolution of disputes, by arbitration, concerning the

interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of collective agreement under The Labour Relations Act or The Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

“And to review and make recommendations concerning The Ontario Labour-Management Arbitration Commission Act, RSO 1970,

chapter 320.”

[2:30]

URBAN TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME

Hon. Mr. Snow: On Tuesday, November 30, the Treasurer and I met with Transport Canada Minister Otto Lang and Finance Minister Donald Macdonald to discuss the federal government’s proposed urban transportation assistance programme. Today, I’d like to bring the House up to date on the outcome of that meeting but, before I do, I’d like briefly to remind the members of some of the background leading up to it.

As I believe all hon. members are aware, the federal government has expressed its intention for several years to support urban public transportation. Starting back during the 1974 federal election campaign, Prime Minister Trudeau announced full support of urban public transportation and promised a financial assistance programme which would promote progress in this important area. And in 1975 the then Minister of Urban Affairs, Barney Danson, and the then Transport Minister, Jean Marchand, repeated federal expressions of support.

Even since then, Ottawa has consistently proclaimed the needs and benefits of public transportation with announcements promising financial involvement in commuter rail equipment, station developments, public transit vehicles, innovative demonstration projects, to mention a few.

Thus, as far as Ontario goes, the federal government has agreed to provide assistance to certain important programmes and projects in the area of public transportation. The Toronto transportation terminal redevelopment project is an excellent example. From its inception, the federal government co-operated with the provincial government in evaluating the needs of the Toronto transportation terminal.

They also co-operated in the development of a plan which would permit the much-needed expansion of urban transit services, the continued efficient operation of federally controlled rail service and the introduction of the improved intercity passenger service. Federal ministers have agreed on several occasions that a cost-sharing agreement be drawn up, laying out federal and provincial contributions for the design and redevelopment in this area.

Another example is the 80 bi-level rail cars now on order being manufactured by Hawker-Siddeley in Thunder Bay at a cost of approximately $38 million. Here, my predecessor, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, received a verbal assurance from then Minister of Transport, Mr. Marchand, that Ottawa would finance the purchase of this equipment. It is important to note that not only will these cars increase capacity on the lakeshore line but they will also free up existing equipment which, along with the Toronto transportation terminal improvements, will make possible the implementation of the Streetsville-Milton GO rail line.

Naturally these various announcements, promises and programme undertakings were greeted with enthusiasm by the public, by the municipalities and the provinces. And why not? Because, simply stated, there’s no question that public transportation is a necessity in today’s urban communities. As well, the need to pursue means of conserving energy is widely recognized. All levels of government are now fully aware that the proper development of urban communities is vitally linked to transportation, and congestion and pollution must be overcome if our cities are to be attractive.

Thus, we welcomed the idea of federal help, which brings me to the federal proposal announced on August 27, 1976, by Mr. Danson and Mr. Lang, again restating their considered concern over energy conservation and an improved urban environment. But the proposed programme not only fell far short of expectations raised by previous announcements, but it raised many new concerns. It was to discuss those concerns openly and directly with Mr. Lang, while offering the full co-operation of this province in structuring a programme compatible with the needs of the municipalities and the province, that I went to Ottawa on November 30.

I’m going to outline as quickly as I can the various components of the federal proposal, then our specific concerns and, finally, the outcome of the discussions. Essentially, the federal government now proposes to lump these urban transit-related programmes with its railway relocation and crossing programme and let them compete for a limited amount of money, which is an annual allotment to Ontario of approximately $16.5 million. In contrast, Ontario had expected to receive at least the $16.5 million to meet its most urgent priorities in grade separations alone.

For this reason, if no other, we cannot agree it’s logical to insist that the dollar costs of all these other programmes be met from such a small allocation. Don’t forget that in contributing to grade-crossing safety projects, the federal government is only discharging its responsibilities which grow out of its jurisdiction over railways. In plain language, the objectives in the grade-crossing programme are quite different from those of the urban transportation assistance programme.

We expressed our views quite strongly to both Mr. Lang and his colleague, Mr. Macdonald, for only they can decide whether or not they can find the funds necessary to discharge their obligations and join us in our programme aimed to increasing the use of urban transit. I am sure, however, that Mr. Lang now recognizes our viewpoint, that the two programmes are totally unrelated and must remain separate. I say that because he did intimate he would lift the freeze on priority grade-crossing approvals.

I also expressed my concern to Mr. Lang over the fate of the Toronto transportation terminal redevelopment. This complete project is dependent upon the previous federal assurances of financial support. The Ottawa government must recognize that its hesitant attitude places this entire project in jeopardy. I have already mentioned the contract for the 80 double-deck cars for GO Transit, to which we committed ourselves at a cost of $38 million only after the federal assurance of financial assistance. I have asked Mr. Lang to clarify his government’s intentions in this matter as early as possible.

Based on our experience in that area, I am not prepared to make a provincial financial commitment to the Toronto transportation terminal project, based solely on any assumption that federal funding is going to be available. This very important project can proceed only when and if there is a firm federal commitment. I shall have to add that if the Toronto transit terminal project is delayed, then the Streetsville-Milton GO rail services will also be delayed because terminal and track improvements are a prerequisite to this new service.

Basically, then, my main concern with the proposed assistance programme is this: It endeavours to cover too many programmes with too little money. Let me quote some figures to place the federal contribution of $16.5 million in its proper perspective. The federal subsidy of about $16.5 million is to cover public transportation, grade separation and railway relocation studies and implementation. Ontario’s financial requirements to meet its annual needs in the transit component alone are now calculated to be $206 million.

On top of that, the provincial municipalities also annually spend, at the current rate, approximately $90 million -- this for a total provincial-municipal contribution of $300 million.

Mr. Cunningham: Time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In addition to this is a large expenditure for both the province and the municipalities for grade separation. It doesn’t --

Mr. Deans: He should have issued the statement from his office or something.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- take a mathematical genius to understand that the federal government’s contribution is a mere 5.6 per cent of that total. And since one of my predecessors, the former then Minister of Highways, Mr. MacNaughton, first outlined this government’s commitment to transit, beginning with subway contributions in --

Mr. Deans: I thought the Premier was going to leave tonight.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- 1964, the total provincial expenditures in transit have amounted to $428,855,000 in capital and operating cost subsidies to the end of the 1975-76 year. If you include the current year’s estimated expenditures, this total becomes approximately $635 million.

Mr. Cunningham: Time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Over that, the municipalities have spent many additional millions. Unfortunately, I was not able to pull those figures together for this statement.

Meanwhile, the federal government’s total contribution to public transit in Ontario has been one $10 million grant to cover rolling stock for the Richmond Hill GO line. I’m aware, of course, that Mr. Lang, like all of us, faces problems of funding restraints and cutbacks which, to a certain extent tie his hands. But at this time I must emphasize that both the objective of our grade-crossing programme and the objectives of our urban transportation programmes are too important to sacrifice.

Mr. Lang has indicated to me that he expects to review the results of our November 30 meeting with his cabinet colleagues and get back to me before the Christmas recess. To date, however, I have received no reply.

That doesn’t mean, however, that I am not hopeful that Mr. Lang will get back to me in the very near future. However, I felt that I should inform this House of exactly where we stand on this very important matter.

Mr. Reid: He might even fly in.

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, today I will be introducing The Children’s Law Reform Act. When I introduced The Family Law Reform Act and The Marriage Act for first reading earlier this session, I indicated that there was still one extremely important area of law which had not been directly addressed, that being the law relating to children.

I specifically noted that The Family Law Reform Act and The Succession Law Reform Act give all children the same rights to support and inheritance regardless of the marital status of their parents.

The Children’s Law Reform Act carries forward the programme of family law reform I announced at that time by abolishing the status of illegitimacy for all purposes of the law of Ontario and by providing the legal framework necessary to facilitate establishment and recognition of parentage regardless of the marital status of the parents.

This bill is a direct outgrowth of the family law reform legislation which is before this House and which will be reintroduced next session. Therefore, by presenting as complete a picture as possible of our programme of family law reform, we can achieve a fuller discussion of the programme in our continuing consultation with the public.

Just as allowance has been made for adjustments and refinements in our other bills, so too we would expect that alterations or additions may well be necessary in the details of this bill. In particular, it is my hope that this bill can be expanded as soon as possible to deal with the issues of custody, guardianship and other related matters. I would like to turn now to a brief outline of the main features of the bill.

Part I abolishes the status of illegitimacy and declares that for all purposes of the law of Ontario, the legal status of a child is independent of the marital status of his parents. A child’s rights and obligations will no longer depend on the decision of his parents to marry or not to many.

[2:45]

Part II provides legal means to facilitate establishment and recognition of parentage. Although all children will be equally entitled to their rights, in order to exercise those rights in any given case a child will have to establish that he is in fact a child of the person in respect of whom he is making his claim.

Under

part II parentage can be proven or established through three devices, which are differentiated according to the strength of proof they provide.

The most definite method of establishing parentage will be to obtain a judicial declaration of parentage in the Supreme Court or the unified family court, where it exists.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Attorney General has the floor. You may have a point of order in a moment.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Attorney General will yield then, please. Your point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: With great respect, it has been half an hour of statements and is this not the kind of statement which should be made --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: -- which should be made at the introduction of the bill --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have ruled it is not a point of order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Such a declaration will be recognized for all purposes of the law of Ontario unless and until a further declaration is obtained. Limitations are built in to prevent persons from obtaining declarations in respect of deceased persons where there was no strong evidence of parentage in the lifetime of the deceased. It is expected that in most cases it will be unnecessary to obtain a declaration and that parentage will be presumed where defined circumstances exist, just as we have always operated on the presumption that a child born in a marriage is the child of his mother’s husband.

The bill sets out six circumstances in which it is felt desirable to recognize that the man is the father of the child unless the contrary is proven on a balance of probabilities. The first three presumptions, relating to situations where a child is born in a marriage or where his parents marry after his birth, merely reflect the present law. In the fourth presumption the principles of the present law are extended to the situation where a child is born in a union of some permanence but where his parents have not married.

The fifth and sixth presumptions deal with cases in which there is a clear public recognition of paternity of the child -- in the one case where the parents have made a joint, formal acknowledgement of the parentage which is publicly registered, and in the other case where a court has made a finding of parentage in a judicial proceeding where parentage was in issue.

The third method which the bill provides for establishing parentage concerns written acknowledgements of parentage that are against the interest of the declarant. In any proceeding where parentage is in issue, such an acknowledgement will be taken as proof of parentage but only if there is no other evidence to the contrary. Thus, in most cases, this kind of acknowledgement will be conclusive only where parentage is not in dispute.

Paternity is notoriously easy to allege but difficult to disprove. A wrongful allegation can often be disproved by blood testing. The bill facilitates the introduction of blood-test evidence and permits the court to make appropriate use of it. The court will be able to approve the use of blood tests in a proceeding where parentage is in issue, but the consent of the person to be tested will always be required. Thus, the tests are completely voluntary. However, the refusal to consent to a test will allow the court to draw such inferences as appear proper in the circumstances.

Procedures are set out for obtaining the consent of minors and persons who are mentally incapable of consenting to a test.

Finally, the bill provides that statutory declarations of parentage, judicial declarations of parentage, and statements of judicial findings of parentage will be filed in the office of the Registrar General. However, filing will not affect the evidentiary value of the material filed. The intention is merely to provide a central location where persons, such as executors, may conduct a search for persons who have legal rights or obligations arising out of a birth outside marriage.

The provisions specifically limit the right of inspection to persons who have a proper legal interest in such matters.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasize again that while I believe the principles embodied in this bill are fundamental to the progress of family law reform in this province, I recognize that amendment and elaboration may be required. I therefore look forward to a continuation of the informed public comment we have received in relation to our other bills on family law.

SOLICITOR-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Some weeks ago I gave an undertaking to this House and particularly to the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) that before we prorogued I would be making a statement with respect to the problems that have arisen in relation to wiretaps. Therefore, I would like to advise the members of this House that I have today caused to be issued, in the form of a directive to all Crown attorneys and Crown counsel in my ministry, a three-part document which is an attempt to ensure that all possible steps are taken to preserve solicitor-client privilege in cases where the interception of private communications is authorized under

section 178 of The Criminal Code.

It is first of all important to distinguish between those cases where a solicitor is an object of the interception -- that is, where the police have reasonable grounds to believe that the solicitor himself is involved in the commission of a criminal offence -- and, secondly, those cases where there is no allegation or suspicion that the solicitor himself is involved but where the person who is alleged to be involved talks to a solicitor.

As the Algoma District Law Association stated when commenting about a recent case in Sault Ste. Marie which involved a solicitor as an object of the interception: “With respect to breaches of The Criminal Code the solicitors in this province are in no different position than any other citizen.” However, it is important that the clients of a solicitor alleged to be involved in criminal activity, who have no connection with that criminal activity, be ensured that their privileged communications with him are protected and similarly that the clients of other solicitors who might use the same room or telephone as the named solicitor also be protected.

In the second type of case, where there is no allegation that the solicitor himself is involved, we are concerned that the solicitor-client privilege of the person who is the object of the interception be protected.

Let me then summarize briefly the content of this directive, which is a very lengthy one. First of all, it relates to those cases where a solicitor is an object of the interception; that is, where there is an allegation that the solicitor is himself involved in criminal activity.

This directive contains initially a

section entitled “Direction to Designated Agents of the Attorney General,” wherein I have told all agents to advise the judge to whom the application for an authorization is made that the object of the interception is a solicitor, and that it is proposed to intercept only those communications that relate to the commission of the criminal offence described. The agent will further advise the judge that it is our desire at least to minimize, if not entirely eliminate, interception of privileged communications.

To accomplish that objective physical surveillance will therefore be used where possible and what is described as the “cease” -- or stop -- “monitoring technique” will also be used in every case. We have prepared, in part three of this directive, draft clauses which the designated agent will put before the judge for his consideration. These are clauses which, if inserted by the judge, will in our view accomplish this objective. We have, in part two of this directive, set out guidelines for police officers which we believe will ensure that both the letter and spirit of any restrictive clauses will be carried out.

Dealing secondly with those cases where the solicitor is not the object of the interception, let me also summarize briefly this directive. In part two, we are requesting the police to provide my designated agent with any evidence revealed during the course of their investigation from which it could be reasonably concluded (1) a solicitor-client relationship exists between the suspect and a solicitor and that (2) any one or more of the proposed known locations for interception might reasonably be expected to produce a privileged solicitor-client communication.

In part one of the directive, I have instructed all agents designated by me, pursuant to

section 178 of The Criminal Code, that in all cases where it is proposed to intercept the private communications of a person in a jail, courthouse or other similar place where there is a substantial likelihood that a privileged communication between that person and his solicitor will occur, they should draw to the attention of the judge to whom the application is made the question of whether a clause should be inserted in the authorization requiring the police either to not intercept or to cease intercepting at the point in time where reasonable grounds exist to believe that the communication is with a solicitor and is privileged.

The directive goes on, in part two, to advise police officers in detail as to how and when an interception should be terminated and when any interception can be recommenced.

I think it is important to recognize that while the general tenor of this document is the protection from interception of all communications that are subject to solicitor-client privilege, even greater steps must be taken to preserve that privilege in respect of accused persons who are in custody.

Acting under this directive, my designated agents with the cooperation of the police will make all reasonable efforts to minimize and, where possible, eliminate the interception of any communication subject to solicitor-client privilege. However, we must all realize that the protection of privacy legislation, as has been stated by the Solicitor General, does provide an effective law enforcement tool and that it would be impossible to prohibit the interception of all conversations in which lawyers may be involved.

I should further state it may well be that this directive does in fact go further in its attempt to preserve solicitor-client privilege than what the legislation itself envisages.

Section 178 of The Criminal Code would appear to assume that conversations subject to solicitor-client privilege would be intercepted. However, I am convinced that every reasonable effort must be made to prevent that occurring and that in issuing this directive we have taken every reasonable step to do so.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Sargent: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I talked to Mr. Karl Mallette, the head of Gray Coach Lines, about an hour ago. He informs me that during the appeal period Gray Coach will lose about $1½ million which will result in a cutback of the Gray Coach Lines buses to Owen Sound. In the spirit of Christmas, I say to the Premier I am sending over a 26-ounce bottle of Coke.

An hon. member: Is there glass in it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Is it the real thing?

An hon. member: Is it returnable?

Mr. Speaker: I suggest you check it for glass.

Mr. Breithaupt: You had better strain it first.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member knows that wasn’t really a point of privilege, but it’s in the Christmas spirit. Now we will have the oral question period.

OHTB BUS LICENCE

Mr. Lewis: Maybe I can pick up on the Christmas cheer extended to the Legislature by asking the Minister of Transportation and Communications, now that the Conservative member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. Johnson) has joined the Conservative member for North York (Mr. Hodgson), in conjunction with members of both opposition parties, to criticize fiercely the decision of the Ontario Highway Transport Board and to appeal for its reversal, how about reversing it in advance without going through the procedure of further information?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The obtaining of the further information that I have asked the Ontario Highway Transport Board to get is a very important matter relating to this appeal. Unfortunately, I do not believe the time

schedule that I announced in the House or in reply to a question will be able to be met. I understand the chairman of the Highway Transport Board met this week -- I believe yesterday -- with counsel for the parties involved. I understand, although I have not any direct communication from the chairman, that the counsel for Gray Coach asked that the start of the hearings be delayed from January 3 until January 25. So it is going to be a little longer process than we had thought, but it’s at the request of Gray Coach that the delay is taking place.

Mr. Yakabuski: Supplementary: I am wondering if the minister knows whether Karl Mallette has ever personally visited that rat hole of a bus terminal down on Bay Street?

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s right on the point.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I don’t know.

Mr. Lewis: I want to pursue it briefly by way of supplementary. Since there appears to be developing a unanimity of opinion among members of all three parties in the Legislature that the decision was a mistaken one, why countenance any delays at all? Why not simply insist on early hearings or make the reversal in the light of what his own colleagues are now bringing to his attention?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any such communication from any of my own colleagues on this side of the House.

Mr. Lewis: You haven’t?

Mr. Riddell: What do they do? Talk behind your back?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will say that to my knowledge the appeal has not yet been presented by Gray Coach Lines so unfortunately it cannot be dealt with by the cabinet even if cabinet were to decide to deal with it without waiting for the further information.

PROPOSED RECREATION COMPLEX IN VAUGHAN

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. I take it that the Treasurer is aware that Taft Leisure Parks Limited, of Cincinnati, has an application pending with the Foreign Investment Review Agency?

I’m sorry -- you want me to refer that elsewhere? You want me to redirect it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: To the Ministry of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. Lewis: I’m not quite sure that is so; let me just complete it. Taft Leisure Parks Limited of Cincinnati has applied to the Foreign Investment Review Agency for approval to build in Vaughan township this massive amusement park. I gather that TEIGA has been requested to put Ontario’s position before the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Can the Treasurer indicate publicly what he will say to this extraordinary proposition?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there is an error in the Leader of the Opposition’s question. We have not been so requested. The Ministry of Industry and Tourism is the contact point between FIRA and the government as a whole. We have been asked as a ministry to give our comments to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism; whether we have done so or not I don’t know.

Mr. Lewis: I see. You give it to them and they convey it?

May I redirect to the Minister of Industry and Tourism? Surely he is going to tell FIRA that the proposition of Taft Leisure Parks Limited of Cincinnati coming into Ontario to build a vast amusement park in Vaughan township doesn’t sit well with this government -- in fact the whole idea of an amusement park doesn’t sit well with this government -- and if anything is built it will be built here in Ontario by Canadian companies? Surely that will be his answer when FIRA asks him for his views?

Mr. Speaker: I presume that was placed interrogatively?

Mr. Lewis: That’s a question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I shall express the views of the ministry and the government to FIRA under the conditions that have been set, which are of a confidential nature. That is the way the reports have been dealt with, whether it be with this particular application --

Mr. Lewis: Come on. That’s a copout.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Confidential?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I beg the indulgence of the Leader of the Opposition. With FIRA applications, when this government or this ministry expresses a position from Ontario, it is on a confidential basis. That is the way it has been handled in the past, except when there is unanimous acceptance by the federal and provincial governments that the positions of those governments shall be disclosed.

Mr. S. Smith: Is it possible to ask a supplementary of the Treasurer even though it was redirected from him?

Mr. Speaker: It seems they are both involved with it. We will allow it.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By way of supplementary, has the Treasurer changed his opinion from that which he expressed some time ago in a letter to Vaughan township, in which he strenuously opposed it and indicated that he would not look favourably on that particular Coney Island type of development?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would want to re-examine that letter but I don’t think I strenuously objected. What I pointed out in the letter were some of the problems which we suggested to the township and to the region -- to Vaughan and York -- some of the inherent problems as seen by some of the ministries of the government with that development. Presumably they did so and, as the member is perhaps aware, that particular amendment to the official plan, as I understand it, has been approved by Vaughan and, I think, by the regional council as well.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of policy, to the Minister of Tourism and Industry, leaving aside the specifics --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you going to the Coney Island of Florida?

Mr. Lewis: -- does it strike him as appropriate and useful that this kind of development -- Coney Island was a pretty neat designation of it -- does he think that kind of development is useful here, imported from the United States?

Hon. Mr. Davis: How about Disney World?

Mr. Lewis: If it was Disney World, I might be converted.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: How do you know it is not?

Mr. Hodgson: Why don’t you go and look at it? Why don’t you go down and look at it?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, I have not been asked by FIRA to express an opinion on behalf of the province of Ontario -- that’s number one. Number two, I think if the leaders of the two opposition parties would take the time to review the plans, they’d find out it is not a Coney Island in any way, shape or form. Number three, the NDP and the Liberals can sit back and talk about what this government is going to do to produce employment in the province of Ontario, particularly meaningful employment --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s it, go ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. There are too many interjections here this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: This is one thing we are doing in Fort William and Thunder Bay to provide some meaningful employment for young people during the summer period, the university students and so on.

Mr. Nixon: What did you do about Minaki Lodge?

Mr. Roy: Why don’t you build a lodge on a ski jump?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We believe this project, if it should go ahead either under Canadian partnership with an American organization or singularly American, if it should go ahead, that it will provide some employment. We shall, as a ministry, be expressing an opinion, but the opinions of FIRA will be that of the provincial government.

Mr. S. Smith: It is prime farm land.

Mr. Roy: Tell us about Maple Mountain, Claude.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The Leader of the Opposition?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’d like to get on with the proper question period. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: I know the minister has a talent for building merry-go-rounds, God knows, but I’m not sure that justifies the jobs.

Mr. Roy: That’s not fair, Claude. Use your expertise for ski jumps.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

RENT REVIEW PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, as the year comes to an end, is there any further statement the minister is prepared to make about the extension of rent review or rent control -- better use rent review and not provoke him -- beyond July 1977, since it is clear now that no legislation will be forthcoming before March or April of next year?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Any announcement about future legislation will be announced in the usual way when the government comes to a decision. At the present time, the only statement I can make is that there is no announcement to make.

Mr. Lewis: Fine, thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the uncertainty that the government’s vacillation on this issue has created for the landlords as well as for tenants, and in view of the fact that landlords must in April decide what rent increases to require of their tenants --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a supplementary to this question?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Get to it, please.

Mr. Cassidy: What advice or what counsel would the minister give to landlords or tenants who are facing that uncertainty and having to make rent decisions in the new year?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t know what rent decisions have to be made. The present legislation requires 90 days’ notice and before the expiration of the Act. That would give them May 1, 1977 before anybody has to make any kind of a decision based on the present legislation. That’s five and a half months away. I can assure the member there will be an announcement before then.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the minister intend the legislation be passed by May 1, 1977?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I have made no announcement with regard to any legislation to be introduced in the usual way.

WATER POLLUTION

Mr. S. Smith: A question, first of all, for the Minister of the Environment, regarding the level of radiation in Serpent River. Given the statement which the minister made in Elliot Lake on August 17 that he would be carrying out an examination and taking corrective measures, could he tell the House exactly what he’s intending to do to clear up that problem, particularly among the Indian families who drink that water? And what exactly he’s done up until now, since August?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: First of all, since August the Environmental Assessment Board has conducted hearings in Elliot Lake. We expect they will be resumed early in the year. However, the subject that the hon. member is talking about deals with an Indian reserve which, as the hon. member knows, is under the jurisdiction and control of the federal government.

We have been working with the federal government regarding the possibility of contamination of some of the wells on the reserve. There are one or two which show levels above our standards and our criteria that we’re concerned about. However, the wells generally on the reserve are safe; they’re below the three picocuries per litre.

We have been testing the water itself, the raw water from the Serpent River, and we feel that there is some danger from drinking there and therefore, that the wells should be corrected and used as a source of drinking water.

As the

article this morning says, there is some difference of opinion regarding criteria. We feel that ours are more accurate and more realistic, but we’re satisfied that if we continue working with the federal government there will be a source of clean drinking water for those natives on that reserve.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of brief supplementary, would the minister not feel that the time has come to insist that the tailings from the various mines in Elliot Lake be returned to the mineshaft wherever possible? Isn’t it time we actually embarked on a sensible policy of that kind?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, that is one of the terms of reference, shall we say, of the Environmental Assessment Board, that before the two companies that are in Elliot Lake expand their operations or carry out uranium mining, they not only look after existing abandoned tailings areas but they also look after any tailings areas that will result from their expansion and activities there.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Premier, if I might, regarding the difficult situation -- admittedly very difficult situation -- which has arisen over the past years in the area of Windsor regarding a possibility of a French-language secondary school: Is the Premier prepared to intervene in some way, to use his own prestige and authority to help the two sides come together, to offer perhaps whatever funds might be necessary to help resolve the problem without bitterness, so that what seems to be turning into a rather nasty running sore could be healed in time at least for the whole process of national unity, not to be in some way distorted by the difficulties in that area?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Education informs me that Mr. McLeod, who is attempting to mediate some of this, is still in the community. He has not submitted a report, but when that occasion takes place we’ll be delighted to communicate that information to the member for Hamilton West and to other members who represent these constituencies.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I can understand wanting to wait for this report, but could the Premier give us some indication of when this report is expected and could he perhaps take some action to hurry it up if possible, so that the feeling there can be dealt with and the matter healed and Ontario improved generally as a consequence?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can’t give the leader of the Liberal Party any indication as to when this report will arrive. The minister has himself over the past several months, I know, had a number of meetings. Perhaps the leader of the Liberal Party has discussed this with his own member for Essex South, who I understand has some views on this and perhaps has been, as the local member, attempting to reconcile some of these. I am not sure of that, but I would assume that he has, and has communicated this to his leader.

Mr. Sargent: You are the one who is in trouble, not him.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for Grey-Bruce, before he gets into something about which he knows nothing, which is not unusual, he should check with his fellow member before he says too much. It’s one of those occasions when, if he thought a little bit first before he spoke, it would stand him in very good stead. I know it is unusual, it would be uncustomary --

Mr. Sargent: It is not true.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- it has never happened before, but I would suggest with respect he do it.

Mr. Conway: Is that creative tension, Bill?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I might just ask a brief supplementary of the Premier, if I can get his attention.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You have my undivided attention.

Mr. Roy: Recognizing the difficulty, as we all do, and I think as my leader does, and I am sure the Minister of Education does as well, and recognizing the fact that taxation or money is one of the issues, would it not be possible for the Premier, in view of the demand by the people in the community and in view of the difficulty by the taxpayers in that community in paying additional taxes -- God knows, school taxes are high enough -- to give some consideration to the province accepting the full load of taxation for this type of project?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Actually if the member will go back in Hansard a few years, if he wishes to, we have had as I recall it a number of French-language high schools built. They have been built in a number of communities with very little difficulty. There were additional funds provided and there have been certain financial suggestions made, if memory serves me correctly, in Essex, and I think I am right in saying the concern in that part of the province is not totally related to the matter of finance. Some of the member’s colleagues who, I think, are very close to this situation will acquaint him of that fact.

[3:15]

DEVELOPMENT OF JUNIOR MINES

Mr. S. Smith: I have a brief question for the Premier. Regarding the Ontario Securities Commission, can the Premier now report to the House the findings of the advisory board which he set up regarding policy 3-02, the regulations on junior mines? Considering that they have now had over three months to prepare it and that the Premier replied on November 2 that he’d be reporting by the end of this year, is he prepared in fact to make that report?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) is much closer to this matter than myself. I’m going by memory now, but I think the committee expects to have the report by the end of the year. We are anxious to receive it. It may be one of those reports that the member for Hamilton West may read about during the period from 10:30 to when we get together again in this friendly fashion.

PROVINCIAL LOTTERY

Mr. S. Smith: This question was intended for the Minister of Culture and Recreation, but perhaps I could ask the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Regarding the provincial lottery policy, the second draw is coming up in about two weeks’ time. Could the minister tell us whether there is yet an outline outlining the directions planned for how the money is to be utilized, a policy which is to underline the utilization of this money? Can she give us some assurance that the money will not be thrown at medical research in such a way as actually to distort the entire structure of medical research in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Only in psychiatry.

Mr. S. Smith: No, it can distort it if you just throw the money.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: In answer to the member for Hamilton West, I can just assure him that there is a great deal of consultation going on at the moment. I can also assure him that there will not be a great deal of money thrown into medical research without a great deal of thought being considered beforehand.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, could the minister give us some indication of when we can expect an announcement of how the policy is to be implemented? Secondly, could she tell us whether the government is planning to use either the structure of the Medical Research Council or a similar Ontario structure to give guidance with regard to the awarding of various grants under this programme?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: At this time I am in no position to comment on the question posed by the hon. member, but just again I can reassure him that it is being given a great deal of attention by the people in the policy field.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: I’d like to ask if there is any intention to involve the Legislature in this consultation and discussion so that we may have some opportunity to consider how this money should be allocated?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: At this time I’m in no position to answer that question either.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: Could I ask the minister why she would not follow the policy of her leader who told the House on July 15, 1976, that prior to the expenditure of any funds the members opposite certainly should have every opportunity to comment on it? Why won’t she follow that policy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why don’t you comment?

Mr. Roy: That’s right. Give us an opportunity.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You have it. You had the whole budget debate.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I don’t think I denied that members opposite will not be given that opportunity.

Mr. Roy: You had better think about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re getting a lot of supplementaries and we’ve been quite a few minutes now into this.

Mr. Godfrey: Supplementary: Can the minister tell us when funds will first be made available?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I cannot.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Can the minister tell this House what happened to the approximately $10 million that was Ontario’s share of the Olympic lottery? What has the government done with that money?

Mr. Cunningham: The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Henderson) has it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: That is very important, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It’s important yes, but not at this particular moment.

Mr. Peterson: It’s Christmas-time. Please be charitable, Mr. Speaker.

SALE OF APARTMENTS

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and would beg the attention of the Attorney General and the Minister of Housing.

Is the minister aware that Vroom Development (Central) Limited has evidently found a way to circumvent The Condominium Act, The Planning Act and The Landlord and Tenant Act by selling apartments in Waverley Park Towers in Thunder Bay, possibly forcing the tenants there either to buy or to seek other accommodation? Further, is he aware that his ministry has always known of the loophole that exists through common law in this respect and will he take action to plug that loophole?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t know how many times we have to announce this: There is no loophole. You cannot sell an apartment except through The Condominium Act.

Mr. S. Smith: You can sell shares in the building.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The person buying shares in an apartment house is not entitled to occupancy. You cannot buy a single unit except through The Condominium Act. I repeat it again: There is no loophole such as described by the hon. member. We know of people who think there is, but we have repeated several times that you cannot do it legally, and as far as we know there is no way of doing it.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: If that is the case, will the minister advise Vroom Development (Central) Limited, after examining the letter and the contract that they have sent out to the tenants, that the action they are taking is, in his opinion, illegal?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: For one thing, I don’t know what they are proposing. We know of the scheme whereby certain apartment owners, in order to get their equity out, are saying to tenants in those apartments: “If you buy your unit, we will be glad to sell it to you.” They can’t do that. They can sell them shares in an apartment building or an interest in an apartment building, but owning shares in an apartment building does not give any purchaser the right to occupancy under The Landlord and Tenant Act. This has been cleared with the Attorney General.

If the hon. member would like to send me the literature, we will tell them what the Act requires. We can’t say it’s illegal because we don’t know what they’re asking people to do.

Mr. Kerrio: You need a free-enterpriser over there, Jim.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

OHC MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Housing: In view of the concerns which have been expressed, both publicly and privately, by tenants in Ontario Housing Corporation projects with reference to the management contracts -- those which are contracts with the large developers -- has the minister investigated these contracts? Is he aware of the contents and the responsibilities under them and will he table those in this House so that we may also know what the contents are?

Mr. Philip: In other words, answer the question that I asked in the previous session.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing will answer the first question, please.

Mr. Mancini: If he asked a question --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr. Eakins: He wants the credit, John.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He can use as much credit as he can get.

Mr. Ruston: Yes, he hasn’t got much.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am not familiar with all of the individual contracts. I have looked into that matter. I understand that there are some variations in the various contracts. If my memory serves me correctly, I was advised that there were going to be some changes made in the various contracts as they came up for renewal. As far as tabling them in the Legislature, I would like to take the time to see if that can be done without any legal complications involved with the companies that are managing the buildings.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: In view of the answer of the minister, and in view of the fact that he has given an undertaking earlier this year to table some of these Ontario Housing documents, could I ask how much longer we have to wait for him to review the situation and see that the House has the information?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the hon. member, along with others, is aware that I had indicated I could see no problem, from my point of view, of tabling the minutes of the Ontario Housing Corporation provided we did not interfere with the rights of third-party individuals who might be involved, and that we would not jeopardize the position of the members of the board as far as law is concerned.

My legal advice at the present time is that it would not be proper to table the entire contents of the OHC minutes as was requested by motion on the books from the hon. member for Wilson Heights; this would create legal problems and implications for the members of the board and possibly for the ministry itself as it involves --

Mr. Sargent: And the government would fall too.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker; I didn’t hear the comment that was made.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. minister ignore the interjections?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I will listen to the interjection and ignore the source.

If I can clear the problem as it relates to the legal implications for third parties involved, I will have no problem at all with tabling that material in the Legislature. It won’t bring the government down -- if I have to go down anywhere, I’ll find the member for Grey-Bruce there.

Mr. S. Smith: Did you have a cocktail with lunch today?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I don’t drink.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister for Education has the answer to a question asked previously which he may give now.

In responding to that question I pointed out that although local education authorities have a high degree of local autonomy in this area of decision-making, I would be pleased to look into the matter. Discussions with the principal, Mr. Edgar, indicated that although only one teacher was assigned to the ESL programme in September, two teachers have been involved on a full-time basis since October.

CLOSURE OF TEXTILE PLANTS

Mr. Davidson: A question to the Minister of Labour: Given the fact that the following textile companies have closed down since November, 1975 -- Malibu Fabrics of Smith’s Falls; Burford Textiles of Burford; Campbellford Cloth of Campbellford; Riverside Yarns of Cambridge; Armstrong Cork of Peterborough; and Versatile Knitting of Cornwall --

Mr. Riddell: Textral of Goderich.

Mr. Davidson: -- can the minister inform the members of this House what, if any, retraining and upgrading programmes have been implemented to assist these people in seeking other types of employment in these areas?

Mr. Samis: Good question.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Although I am aware of the development of Manpower adjustment committees in several of those locations, I am not sure if they have been established in all of them. This service is offered by the Ministry of Labour whenever such a shutdown occurs and has been reasonably successful in many areas.

The reason for the shutdown of many of these plants, of course, has been the competition which imported fabrics have supplied for Canadian-made products. Perhaps it may not be unrealistic to hope that some of them may reopen as a result of the action taken by the federal government in the past two weeks.

The actual retraining programmes, of course, as the hon. member is aware, are under the jurisdiction primarily of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities with which we have excellent and continuous communication.

Mr. Davidson: Taking into account the sector analysis put forward by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism which indicates that mobility is low and many of these workers would find it difficult to obtain alternative employment opportunities, and considering that many of these plants were located in small areas where the employment opportunity is limited at any rate, does the minister not think that rather than wait for someone to come and approach her to implement a programme, the programme should be implemented by her ministry immediately?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The service is offered by the Ministry of Labour as soon as we hear of an impending close-down of any plant. We do not wait for the individuals responsible to contact us. We make the contact.

PURINA PLANT

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

With regard to a new Purina plant for the town of Trenton, can the minister please tell me if he is aware that in the late spring of this year the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor) announced a new agricultural industry to be built in the Trenton area? By the way, I should mention that it was a little hard to understand why the Premier didn’t call me personally to let me announce this but I suppose --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did; you were out. I tried three times. I may have had the wrong number.

[3:30]

Mr. O’Neil: You may have.

However, since this release originally came from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and concerned the building of a $3 million plant by Purina, can the minister tell me whether Purina is proceeding with plans for construction?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, that question should be directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. O’Neil: I wonder if I could redirect it to the minister, please?

Mr. Speaker: Redirect it, yes.

Hon. W. Newman: I believe I caught part of it. The member is talking about the Purina plant. They had considerable time under the ARDA programme getting federal approval for their part of the funding. We did get their portion of the funding approved. Our portion was approved. It was a corporate decision, I believe, at this point in time not to proceed at this point in time. It doesn’t mean the project is dead, but this is a corporate decision of Purina themselves.

Mr. O’Neil: As a supplementary then, since both Purina and the officials of the town of Trenton had asked that the details of this announcement be kept confidential until all plans were finalized, can the minister tell me whether the premature announcement by someone other than the company or its elected member resulted or may have resulted in this cancellation?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, you know that is just a -- well, no, I’ll answer the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: We are expending public funds under the ARDA programme. We are putting provincial dollars in and federal dollars in, and once that has been approved, and it was asked for by the company, then it is public information. We don’t hide our funds anywhere. We want people to know about them. This has nothing to do at all with this corporate decision.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: In the announcement of the new industry it was said by the Minister of Industry and Tourism that any announcements were kept confidential until such time as the company wanted these announcements made, and I think there should be some clarification on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question? Order, please. No comments are necessary.

Hon. W. Newman: When there is public money involved, when an application is made to ARDA for funding, once that has been approved that is public information and every company knows that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the side conversations are interfering with the progress of the question period.

HAWKESBURY WATER POLLUTION

Mr. Samis: To the Minister of the Environment: Notwithstanding the amazing ability of the Ottawa River to absorb almost anything, can he explain to the House why charges have not been laid against the CIP mill in Hawkesbury in view of its deplorable record of discharging dissolved waste which is worse than any other pulp and paper mill in Ontario and four times that of Reed?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The mill in Hawkesbury does pose a problem. It is not the worst in the province really. There are others.

An hon. member: Tell us who is the worst.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister is answering the question.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Again, as the hon. member says, the assimilative capacity of a receiving stream is taken into some consideration, particularly the Ottawa River, which as the hon. member knows, is an interprovincial river --

Mr. Breithaupt: But the polluters will pay.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- soon to be international, who knows?

Mr. Conway: Do you know whether it is wet or not?

Mr. S. Smith: It’s all right if it goes to Quebec.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Can we get on with the answer now?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That plant is one of the plants that are under a control order, or a control order is being negotiated. The city of Hawkesbury, of course, itself is the problem, and hopefully both of those matters will be looked after during the next fiscal year.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the record of this plant in terms of dissolved waste has worsened, not improved, since 1970, and in view of the fact that two other mills within 50 miles have improved their record very, very noticeably -- namely the Eddy plant in Ottawa-Hull and the Domtar plant in Cornwall -- what assurance can the minister give the people in this area that his government will do something to stop the deterioration of the water conditions because of this mill?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I might say that Hawkesbury generally, period, is the last remaining problem area for our government on the Ottawa River. The city will undertake sewage treatment works this coming year -- there are funds in the budget for that -- and our concern about the CIP mill will also be looked after this coming year.

Mr. Conway: The minister mentioned that a control order was being negotiated; am I and the hon. members to assume that it is a normal practice to negotiate control orders?

Mr. McClellan: That’s exactly what he said.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: What we do is discuss with the company the requirements of our ministry and then set down, under an order, certain requirements to be done over a period of time, usually a five-year period. During that five-year period certain deadlines are established in the control order. We attempt to get the approval of the company --

Mr. R. S. Smith: That order has been there since 1965.

Mr. Riddell: Remember the words of the Hon. George Kerr when he said the polluters will pay.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Can I answer the question? I attempt to get approvals during that five-year period -- the consent of the company. If the company doesn’t agree with our directions and our timetable and scheduling then the order is issued in any event.

Mr. Peterson: A supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: No, that was a final supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: There was only one supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: It was the final supplementary.

APPOINTMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD

Mr. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Would the minister confirm whether or not he has appointed Mr. David Coons of Burlington to the Environmental Appeal Board?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That is public knowledge. That’s gazetted in this Legislature and the answer is yes.

Mr. Cunningham: By way of supplementary, if I may, was Mr. Coons your campaign manager in the last two elections?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, right.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That qualifies him to have good judgement.

Mr. S. Smith: He has no experience, absolutely none.

MERCURY POLLUTION IN FISH

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment if he has recovered from the last one. In view of the fact that the ministry has announced that the mercury level in pickerel in Batchawana Bay is two to three times the levels acceptable anywhere in the world, can he inform this House what he is doing to determine: First, the levels among other species of fish in the bay, that is, lake trout and others, and in other areas of eastern Lake Superior; second, the source of the mercury pollution; third, the effect on area people who MNR is encouraging to do sports fishing in Batchawana Bay? Can he tell us what he is doing to find out the source and what he is doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: My information is that the hon. member’s analysis of test results is some months old and this is somewhat the same condition that exists in a number of lakes in that area.

The walleye, I believe, is the one source that is of concern to us, mainly because of the size of some of the walleye which have been tested. The other fish have also been tested. I’m surprised the hon. member has not had results from certain other species as well. My information is that the results are available for those species.

We are having problems in locating some of the source. We are convinced there is a natural source of mercury in that area. There doesn’t seem to be any plant which is directly flowing into that lake. There doesn’t seem to be any mine which may be a source of mercury. It’s possible that emissions from plants within a 100 mile radius may be responsible but there must be a natural source which is prevalent in other parts of the province which is now contaminating fish.

Mr. Wildman: A supplementary: Is the minister not aware that an official of his ministry stated this morning in Sault Ste. Marie the test results on pickerel and went on to make an explanation on the radio, publicly? Is he also aware that the Ministry of Natural Resources is in the process of trying to get an agreement from local cottage owners for a boat launching site there to make it possible for there to be more sport fishing at Batchawana Bay?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I haven’t heard the radio programme the hon. member refers to but I’m sure that what that particular official said would indicate the reason there are high readings in walleye. I’m not aware of the Ministry of Natural Resources building a boat ramp there. I’m not aware of that. I am certain if there are high levels of mercury readings in that lake that warnings have been posted.

ASSISTANCE FOR HOCKEY TEAMS

Mr. McKessock: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation. In view of the fact that some municipalities this winter are without arenas and have to go to neighbouring towns to play their hockey games, and in view of the fact that crowds away from home aren’t as good and their gate receipts are down and they are having trouble carrying on, would the minister make available funds through Wintario to help pay for their ice time and referees away from home?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I know something about the problems that are being experienced in some of these municipalities, but if one were to look at the guidelines or the criteria for Wintario it’s not for operating expenses. If, however, there are some competitions or some type of an activity to which they have been invited -- various teams have been invited to invitational matches -- it may be that Wintario criteria could be made to apply.

However, so that there is no misunderstanding with respect to my answer, the rental of ice time and the normal expenses incidental with respect to league operations are not eligible for Wintario assistance.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary: I was well aware that this didn’t fall under the present regulations but under the special circumstances of this year with these arenas not available in their home towns, could consideration not be given to make an adjustment?

Mr. Speaker: That’s a repeat of the first question, I believe. Is there any further elaboration?

Mr. Reid: Will the minister reconsider his policy of not allowing municipalities to raise the 25 per cent of the extra cost for arenas through the selling of debentures or through municipal taxes rather than their having to raise them voluntarily in the community?

Mr. Speaker: That really had nothing to do with the intent of the original question.

The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

REPORTS

Hon. Mr. Bennett tabled the annual report of the Ontario Research Foundation for the year ended December 1, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Essex South have a point of order?

Mr. Mancini: I have a petition to present.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. We will revert to petitions then. I didn’t notice the hon. member standing up.

PETITION

Mr. Mancini: I beg leave to introduce a petition from the great riding of Essex South. The petition numbers 3,047 names and is also signed by myself. It reads: “We, the citizens of Harrow, Colchester South and Colchester North oppose the 30 per cent cutback to the Gerald Smith ambulance service by the Ministry of Health.”

Mr. Speaker: May I just elaborate? I didn’t see the hon. member standing up because the lights were in my eyes. I want to make that clear.

REPORTS (CONTINUED)

Hon. Mrs. Birch presented the annual report of the Ontario Status of Women Council.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The report covers the council’s activities and recommendations from October, 1974, to April, 1976. The effective leadership and commitment of Laura Sabia, past chairman of the council, and the dedicated efforts on behalf of women in our province by all of the council members are reflected in this very fine report.

I am sure also all members of the Legislature would want to join me in wishing the newly appointed chairman, Lynne Gordon, and the present council much success in their future endeavours and in welcoming Mr. Andrew Paton of the council, who is with us here this afternoon.

[3:45]

Hon. W. Newman presented the 10th annual report of the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario and the annual report of the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario.

Hon. Mrs. Birch presented the 1975 report of the Interministerial Committee on Residential Care.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The committee was established to co-ordinate the relevant data concerning all forms of residential care for the elderly. As the work progressed it became obvious that there was a need to look into the financing and operating policies of a range of facilities that went well beyond the care of the aged. The report, the result of an expanded mandate, has served as a working document for a number of ministries and for the Council on Troubled Children and Youth. Copies will be available on request from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Germa from the standing public accounts committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows:

Your committee recommends: That on the prorogation of the House the standing public accounts committee be continued with authority to sit during the interval between sessions to consider those items of business outstanding in the committee, namely:

1. Ronto Development Corporation tax remission;

2. Minaki Lodge expenditures;

3. Examination of OHIP payments to licensed practitioners;

4. Any other matters the committee deems urgent.

And to compel the attendance before the said standing committee of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations for which the Honourable the Speaker may issue his warrant or warrants.

Furthermore, that the committee may request such coverage of its proceedings by Hansard and the printing of such papers as the committee deems appropriate.

The committee will meet at the call of the Chair or on a majority of committee members.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as we speak to this particular report, I think we should draw attention to the fact that this procedure has not been followed too frequently. In fact, I suppose if there is a precedent for it, there may be only one or two.

Appreciating the fact that this committee has some unfinished work, which is set out in points one, two and three of the motion, it has been agreed in consultation with the official opposition that we would delete point four in order to make it quite clear that the committee as a standing committee is being authorized to meet after prorogation to deal with those three items; In other words, Ronto Development, Minaki and the examination of OHIP. Therefore, I would move, seconded by Mr. Deans, that point four be deleted.

I would also draw attention to the fact that later on today we will be talking in terms of the Hansard reporting of committees. It may be, in fact, that we should make sure that the second last paragraph dealing with Hansard is specific in that if Hansard coverage is required, it would be for recording purposes only; there would be no transcription of the results of the recording, but the recording would be available. I would like to suggest that amendment.

With those two changes, the deletion of number four with respect to what the committees will do and the understanding with respect to Hansard, we are prepared to support that.

Mr. Speaker: May I have your amendment in writing, please? In the meantime, I think you have all heard the amendment to the motion; that is, that point 4, I believe is meant to be deleted. Was there to be another part to the amendment? That was the only part of the amendment? All right. I think we understand that. Do we have any further comments?

Mr. Deans: Since there seems to be a momentary delay, I just want to say that it seemed to us in reviewing the request of the public accounts committee that it would not be a good precedent to give carte blanche to any committee to conduct hearings in whatever area it so desired. The general rule which we believe should be applicable in all circumstances is that committees should do work as delegated to them by the Legislature or work for which approval has been given by the Legislature to be undertaken.

The public accounts committee is doing such fine work at the moment that it seemed that it should be given the opportunity to continue with that work and to reach a point where we might get the answers to many unanswered questions.

Mr. Breithaupt: With respect to this motion before the House, we have reviewed, with the members who have served on this committee, the proposal made by the government House leader and we are prepared to accept those terms of reference.

I agree with the House leader for the official opposition that it is perhaps best to have specific items referred to a committee, if the committee is to continue, just as specific items are referred to select committees as those committees are developing their work pursuant to the responsibilities given to them by the House. I think that if the committee is able to deal satisfactorily with these three items over the period before a new session begins it will, indeed, be accomplishing a substantial amount of work.

We will support the deletion of item four and we agree with the approach taken with respect to the matter of Hansard for the committee.

Mr. Williams: In speaking to this matter, I do have concerns and I would ask the House leader to consider that in giving notice of these meetings a reasonable period of time be provided. There’s no provision in the motion, as I understand it.

I spoke on a matter of privilege earlier this afternoon, pointing out that there’s been two special meetings of this committee called to which no members of the Conservative Party were invited. I spoke of the other special meeting called yesterday for which 15 minutes’ notice was given. As a result of that I was not able to attend either of those meetings and I think other members were in the same situation.

I think if there are going to be ongoing meetings of a special nature of the committee, in all fairness to all members of the committee, there should be appropriate lead time given as notice of these meetings, whether they are called by the chairman or a majority of the members of the committee.

I cannot accept that the committee would function well if we’re not given sufficient time to make arrangements to attend these meetings when they might be called. I’m wondering therefore, if consideration could be given to this situation.

Mr. Deans: You should be here doing your job.

Mr. Williams: I can’t be there when I’m not called to a meeting, when I have no notice of a meeting.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re speaking to this amendment.

Mr. Williams: Frankly, what angers me is that no notice was even given to members, in some instances, of these special meetings. I think some arrangement has to be made to correct that deficiency which exists in the present procedures and I think it’s a reasonable request to have considered.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member is discussing something in the past. On this particular motion, I’m sure the hon. member will agree that he’ll be getting notice of whatever meeting there is called.

We have the motion written here; perhaps I should place it so we’ll know what it’s about:

Hon. Mr. Welch moves that the motion, as presented by Mr. Germa, be amended by deleting item four of those items of business outstanding in the committee, and further that any Hansard coverage be by way of recording only, without transcribing.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

POINTS OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of privilege, if I may beg the Chair’s indulgence. I think the Chair will understand because it’s a trifle difficult.

Before the orders of the day today, a number of members of the Legislature, cabinet ministers and members of opposition parties, rose to speak to the question of the publication in the Toronto Globe and Mail and other subsequent journals and on the electronic media, of information which was given to the public accounts committee by the OHIP staff. I shared the disappointment and regret expressed by the Attorney General and other members of the House that it could have happened. I could barely believe it or credit it at the time.

I thought that, as always, the Minister of Health put it with simplicity and candour, that these things do actual and potential damage to the system and for that I am very sorry.

Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I learned within the last hour or 1½ hours that it was a member, a colleague in my caucus, who was responsible for making the material accessible to the media, my colleague from High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba). I have told my colleague of my deep disappointment at the act, at the way it can compromise colleagues, at the way it can jeopardize the public accounts committee, and at the way in which it can reinforce a cynical view of politics.

I have asked him, and he has of course agreed, to resign from the public accounts committee. I think that he genuinely understands the error in judgement which was made and is profoundly unhappy about it. For the moment, I have no more to say than that. I hope the House isn’t in as punitive a mood as some of the interjections may suggest. I think my colleague wants to say something to the House and I would ask you to allow him to do it, sir.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear the hon. member.

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, as my leader has said, the material released to the press was made accessible by me. At the time I did it wholly without malice. I was not at the committee meeting yesterday and simply did not realize how serious was the motion and promise of confidentiality. Sometimes, I concede, I handle politics badly. I have a great respect for the process and the last thing in the world I wish to do is bring disrepute upon politicians or political parties.

I offer my regrets and my profound apologies to the Legislature, and beyond. I guess this is the second time I have apologized to this House, Mr. Speaker. I am bound and determined that it will never happen again.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I think no further comment is necessary.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. Hodgson be substituted for Mr. Smith, Simcoe East, on the select committee on company law, but that upon the receipt of a written application by Mr. Smith, Simcoe East, to the Clerk of the House, Mr. Smith be substituted for Mr. Hodgson.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. Drea be substituted for Mr. Hodgson on the standing public accounts committee.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

[4:00]

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 191,

An Act to Reform the Law respecting the Status of Children.

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Stong moved first reading of Bill 192,

An Act to amend The Education Act 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Stong: This bill defines compulsory school age and special education and guarantees every child of compulsory school age a right to an education as opposed to a right to attend school. It requires every school board in the province of Ontario to establish special education programmes particularly for those children suffering from learning disabilities.

Mr. Speaker: Any further bills? The hon. member for Ottawa-Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Incidentally that is the second bill on that subject.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cassidy moved first reading of Bill 193,

An Act to amend The Residential Premises Rent Review Act 1975, Second Session.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: The purpose of this bill is to extend rent review in Ontario beyond the expiry date of July 31, 1977, now set out in the Legislation. The process by which rent review has worked since the beginning of 1976 is unchanged in these amendments. We are introducing it at this time because of our total frustration at the continued indecision and procrastination of the cabinet over this rent review issue.

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I’m sure all the members are aware that this is expected to be the last day of sitting and as is customary --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: -- we read into the record the names of the young ladies and gentlemen, our legislative pages, who have been serving us well and safely for the last seven weeks. I shall do that now.

Paul Atkins, Weston; Michael Bednarz, Willowdale; Douglas Cameron, Oakville; Michael Darby, Thornhill; Henry deRuiter, Brampton; Cathy Farrow, Toronto; Sue Fleming, Toronto; Melanie Forster, Mississauga; Graham Freeman, Toronto; Marti Gregory, Mississauga; Lars Hansen, Maple; Michael McCallen, Rexdale; Missy Newman, Ashburn; Valerie O’Neil, Thunder Bay; Joanna Pace, North Bay; Janine Roth, Whitby; Wendi Scholfield, Cobourg; Ben von Schwerin, Scarborough; Alastair Westgarth, Bowmanville; Donna-Lee Zmenak, Grimsby.

As is customary, we shall send them a copy of the Hansard so they will know their names are down in the history of this province. Thank you.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 67, 96, 179 and 194 standing on the notice paper. In addition, questions 143, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 172, 174, 175, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189 and 198 standing on the notice paper.

Mr. Angus: You forgot Merry Christmas.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before calling the first order, we had a somewhat flexible programme planned for this afternoon so that if by chance we didn’t finish everything except the windup by 6 o’clock we might invade the supper hour to the extent we needed that extra time. If we have general agreement with respect to that, people can plan their evening meal around that, rotating possibly.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have this agreement?

Agreed.

Orders of the day.

FUNERAL SERVICES ACT (CONTINUED)

House in committee on Bill 171, Funeral Services Act.

section 5:

Mr. Wiseman: When we left off last night, we were at

section 5(4). I wonder if we could just back up a little, in keeping with the amendment we accepted from the member for Durham East to delete the words in

section 5(1) “or directing the providing of.” So that the bill will have continuity, I would move an amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wiseman moved that

section 5(3) of the bill be amended by deleting the words “or directing the providing of” in the second and the fifth lines.

Mr. Wiseman: This will go along with the amendment that we accepted earlier.

Mr. Moffatt: I’d like to urge that that take place. The parliamentary assistant did indeed give me copies of those amendments and asked that I move them the last day, but during the heat of debate and discussion around this bill they were omitted. I think we should proceed as he asks.

Mr. Chairman: Do we have unanimous consent to revert to those sections in the interests of uniformity?

Agreed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moffatt: Before the Chair now is an amendment to

section 5(4). After consultation with the member for Waterloo North and with the parliamentary assistant at the close of the House last evening, we decided that that amendment might be better withdrawn because it would appear that if it were passed, it might work some undue hardship in some remote rural areas. With the Chair’s permission, I would like to withdraw that amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Do we have the concurrence of the committee to do that?

Agreed.

Sections 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

section 10:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bounsall moves that a new subsection 5 be added to

section 10 of the bill as follows:

“

(5) Every person at the time of the purchase of services shall be informed in writing of the existence of the complaints committee and the procedure to file a complaint.”

Mr. Bounsall: I’ll speak very briefly to it as it’s self-explanatory. Of the four committees which are formed under the Act, the executive, licensing, complaints and discipline committees, this is the one that affects the public. If we have a complaints committee, hopefully it will not need to be in operation that much. But it strikes me as being reasonable that the public of Ontario should easily find out about its existence, so they could use it when in their minds the necessity arises and that the simple procedure of how to file a complaint be made known at the same time.

I have in mind simply a small card available when the purchaser has completed -- it’s probably best upon completion -- the arrangements for the funeral service. They can simply be handed a card by the funeral establishment director which contains the information that there is a complaints committee should they feel the wish or the need to file a complaint. It can be operated by simply writing to the following person at the following address.

That’s what I had in mind with this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comment on the amendment?

Mr. Good: I feel badly that this type of amendment is being brought to this bill. It appears that the whole emphasis of the party to the right is that you can’t trust anyone in the province of Ontario and you’ve got to develop a spirit of confrontation between customer and service, no matter where it is. I don’t think this is necessary.

The present Act requires, and I’m sure the new Act will require, that the licence of the person is hung in a prominent place in every establishment. The licence of the establishment will be there. I’m sure under this Act the board can establish a code of ethics. The code of ethics will be displayed in a prominent place.

This idea of walking into any establishment and the first thing that happens is the proprietor has to give you a card which would say, “You can complain against me by doing this and that” -- to me, that is not the spirit of any group in the province of Ontario doing business with the public.

I’ve given many reasons previously on why I feel the present Act will work very well as it is written. I would have to say that I couldn’t support this type of amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments?

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, I’d only say that we can’t support this bill for a lot of the reasons the --

Hon. B. Stephenson: The amendment.

Mr. Wiseman: -- the amendment, I’m sorry -- for a lot of the reasons the member for Waterloo North has mentioned. I wanted to say that we don’t ask a doctor, a lawyer, or anyone like that, when we go to them, to present a little card saying that if they give us false information we can sue. They don’t give us the bar association or the Ontario Medical Association card. I don’t think we should start this.

Mr. Ruston: How about the plumber and the electrician?

Mr. Wiseman: It’s an honour system and the people should know where they can make their complaints if they have any.

Mr. Foulds: Very briefly, I hate to refer to personal experience, but I had a close friend pass away over the weekend. I must say to the member for Waterloo North that you do not notice all these certificates, signs, et cetera, in the funeral home on such an occasion. A discreetly done notice, as outlined by my colleague from Windsor, I think, would be appreciated although very seldom used.

Mr. Chairman: Ready for the question?

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Vote stacked.

Sections 11 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

section 15:

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I have one each on

section 15(2) and 15(3). I have two short amendments to each of these sections. I’ll place them separately.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bounsall moves that

section 15(2) be amended by adding after “seven members” in line two the following: “the majority of whom shall be nominated by the Consumers’ Association of Canada”.

Mr. Drea: It’s the same one.

Mr. Bounsall: It’s not the same one. No, it isn’t.

Mr. Chairman: I would have to rule that the question has been previously decided and you can’t introduce it under this section.

[4:15]

Mr. Bounsall: The amendment placed previously referring to consumer representation was to do with the board of Funeral Services and this is dealing with a completely different board or body connected with this Act, which is the review board. It’s completely different from the board.

Mr. Chairman: All right; it’s the Chair’s error.

Mr. Bounsall: Very briefly, the amendment is self-explanatory. It is the review board we are discussing at this point. It’s a board empowered to hear and review other decisions carried out in this Act. The members can review the complaints and the disposition of those complaints and arrive at decisions.

This review board is composed of persons who are not licensed under this Act. The entire composition is of persons from outside the profession, outside anyone associated with the profession or designated under this Act, and the numbers of that review board can vary between three and seven.

If we are going to ensure that there is valid consumer representation -- that is, consumer representation in the sense of a formalized group of consumers brought together for the purpose of being a watchdog on consumer affairs -- this is one point where a majority of those persons appointed could and should be from that particular segment of our society, which keeps a watch upon and has great interest in the protection of the consumer in our society.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Mr. Ruston: I don’t think this amendment is necessary. This review board is made up of people appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and they are not to be licensed undertakers or funeral directors. These are people, it seems to me, who are representing the public.

I suppose, with the appointment of people through the Lieutenant Governor in Council, some of us in the opposition seem to think that maybe the government does appoint more of its friends to these boards. On the other hand, the Tories are the governing party and I suppose if we were in the same position we would feel that we should have the power to do that. I think these people are public representatives and I don’t think this amendment should be accepted as far as I am concerned.

Mr. B. Newman: There is no need to include members of the Consumers’ Association specifically because, as you can see, none of the members appointed to the board by the Lieutenant Governor in Council is going to be a licensed funeral director. Subsection 3 of the bill clarifies that quite simply for us so I see no need for the suggestion of the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr. Wiseman: One comment, Mr. Chairman. I want to say we can’t accept this amendment. I feel that all groups should have a chance to recommend people they might want to see on that board and if this group wants to recommend people I would suggest it sends the names along. I feel, as do some of the other members who have spoken, that it should be representative of everyone. Any group which wants to recommend them, as I said, is perfectly free to do so.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the motion is lost.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member indicated he had an amendment under subsection 3 of the same section.

Mr. Bounsall moves that

section 15, subsection 3, be deleted and the following substituted therefor; “No person who has been licensed under this Act shall be a member of the review board.”

Mr. Bounsall: I commend this amendment quite highly to the parliamentary assistant and I think he may well agree with this one or be sympathetic.

The present Act in 15(3) contains the words in the amendment which I have presented. It contains, as you read through it, “No person who has been licensed under this Act, shall be a member of the review board.”

In addition, it disqualifies many and various other persons from being members of this review board for which there is no rationale in my mind. It arises simply because in the drafting of this particular Act -- as has happened in many cases in this Act -- they have simply followed the wording in The Health Disciplines Act.

That Act was set up to give self-governing bodies to doctors, dentists, pharmacists and so on in our society and because they are all so medically involved with each other, or can be, it was indicated that a pharmacist or a dentist should not be able to sit on a committee dealing with doctors; or doctors on committees dealing with nurses. To me, that was relatively reasonable.

With a group of people so completely different from doctors, nurses and pharmacists, there seems to me no reason why a person licensed under The Health Disciplines Act -- if I read this bill and understand it correctly -- that is, a doctor, a nurse, a dentist or a pharmacist, should not be appointed to serve on this review committee, particularly as the parliamentary assistant has indicated that he would be pleased to receive nominations from consumer groups and memorial societies in this province.

Some of the very active members of memorial societies, for example, are doctors and nurses. I would commend to him that he accept this amendment which mainly allows someone governed by one of those other health disciplines -- i.e. dentists and doctors, as I explained before -- would be able to sit or be nominated by these consumer groups for a position on this review board.

I’ve taken out the first part as well. If the parliamentary assistant can explain to me why a public servant or a Crown employee should not be able to sit as a member of the consuming public or be nominated by one of the consumer groups from which he is pleased to accept nominations to this review board, I am willing to be convinced.

On the surface of things, again, it appears quite reasonable to me that one of our 50,000 public servants or Crown employees in the province should be allowed to sit on this review board should that be the choice. I would not like to see their rights further circumscribed by this particular Act.

If you become an employee of the province of Ontario, one of the things you can’t do, no matter what it is you’re doing or what community you’re doing it in, would be to be appointed to this particular review board. It might be of particular interest and appropriate for that particular Crown employee or public servant to be so appointed because of his or her background, their interest or expertise.

Mr. Good: This amendment would make the

section less restrictive than it now is and would open the representation on the funeral services review committee to persons who are now excluded. I think there is good reason that members of the public service and members in some of the other health disciplines should be excluded from this board.

This is an appeal board to which the public can appeal any decision of the complaints committee or to which a funeral director, against whom a complaint has been laid, can appeal if he is not satisfied with the findings of the complaint committee. In my view this body should be completely impartial and in no way be connected with any profession or level of government that could jeopardize or prejudice the position of the complainant or the funeral director.

Let me tell you what would happen if members of the public service were allowed to sit on this particular committee. The funeral directors are very much tied up with The Vital Statistics Act as to how they register deaths, how they keep information which is confidential. There are large penalties for giving out information -- even imprisonment up to six months can apply to a funeral director who gives out information to unauthorized persons under The Vital Statistics Act. To me it would not be right if a civil servant could sit on that a