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

April 4, 1977

30th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L004 - Mon 4 Apr 1977 / Lun 4 avr 1977

QUEBEC LANGUAGE LEGISLATION

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

OPP SALARY INCREASE

HOUSING PROGRAMME

VOTING QUALIFICATIONS

CANCER AND ASBESTOS

CAPITAL WORKS PROJECTS

TORONTO DOWNTOWN PLAN

OHC RENT ARREARS

DRIVERS’ MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

HOME BUYER GRANTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

AIR POLLUTION

STORMONT, DUNDAS AND GLENGARRY TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

GLENGOWAN DAM

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

HOME WARRANTY PLAN

ALLEGED OHIP FRAUDS

MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT

HIRING OF HANDICAPPED

SPEAKER’S RULING

TAX REFUND DISCOUNTS ACT

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC UTILITIES AMENDMENT ACT

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

QUEBEC LANGUAGE LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the government of Quebec tabled in the legislature of that province a language charter which, as a prelude to promised language legislation in that province, is a document of both import, significance and controversy. Many questions with respect to the direction and tenor of that document have been raised from various sources, including many outside the province of Quebec.

I want to inform the House that I have directed the law officers of the Crown to prepare a detailed opinion for the cabinet as to the legality of some of the proposed areas of language legislation in the context of the constitution and its various restrictions and guarantees.

We do take the view, and I cannot express it strongly enough to members of the Legislature, that all governments must operate within the confines of the constitution. While it is legitimate to seek change in that document, it would not be legitimate to operate outside the constitution for any reason or purpose.

It would be our expectation that any legislation emanating from any province which was ultra vires, would be challenged. In view of the great sensitivity of this legislation, when and if it is brought down, it would be our expectation that the federal government would be prepared to initiate such a challenge, should they have an opinion which deems its provisions to be unconstitutional.

I would like, therefore, to register our province’s concern with respect to the constitutionality of this proposed legislation, without commenting generally at this time on the tenor and direction of the charter.

I would also like to take this opportunity to provide one basic assurance, to this House and to the people of Ontario, with respect to a very deeply held commitment in this province. Whatever legislation or restrictions may be imposed in another province or jurisdiction with respect to minority rights, this province’s commitment to our Franco-Ontarian citizens, to their educational, language and social rights will not be diminished.

As I have tried to explain before, that commitment is not tied to the welfare of any minority group elsewhere; it is tied to our commitment here in Ontario to an open, diverse and pluralistic society, strengthened by the vitality of our two founding peoples, and enriched by the presence of a multicultural milieu. We will continue to seek ways of improving and expanding, where fair and practical and where numbers justify it, French-language government services throughout Ontario. Our commitment to French-language public education and increased second-language French education stands.

I might add, by the way, that French-speaking residents of Quebec who choose to move to Ontario have full and unrestricted access to our French-language public school system -- without limit. I take great exception to any proposed denial of similar rights to Ontarians moving to our sister province of Quebec.

The French-language culture and French Canadian reality are an indelible part of Ontario’s heritage and make-up -- a reality we are all richer and better for embracing and advancing within the context of our society as a whole.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain some of the background and provide further details concerning the initiatives affecting children’s services which were announced Tuesday in the Speech from the Throne.

It has often been said before, but it bears repeating, that children most need to be able to grow up in a normal fashion, nurtured by family and community. Where problems arise, help needs to be available in ways that will reinforce the family unit and rely on community resources.

For many years this government has been committed to helping children and their families and communities. As a result, programmes have arisen and evolved in a variety of ways.

Our efforts to increase the range and variety of services have, inevitably, produced inconsistencies -- as between insured health services for children, social services for children and so forth. Motivated by a primacy of concern for children, many efforts have been made to cope with the interrelated services. Spontaneous voluntary efforts at co-ordination have developed in a number of communities.

At the provincial level, the cabinet committee on social development commissioned the study of residential services, and created as well the interministerial council for troubled children and youth in order to identify possible avenues of reform, and produce improved co-ordinating structures.

The government has now concluded that it is appropriate and necessary to make two fundamental changes. At the provincial level, a new division of the Ministry of Community and Social Services will be established to provide for the total spectrum of services for children with special needs, excepting only special education services which will continue to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Education.

At the community level, children’s services committees will be established under regional and local governments.

The new division in the Ministry of Community and Social Services will have responsibility for: (

a) overall policy development; (

b) the development of unified standards and licensing; (

c) financing; (

d) those services which will continue to be provided directly, and (

e) procedures for monitoring and evaluation.

At the community level, the children’s services committees will be responsible and have authority and resources for:

(

a) Determining the special needs of children and taking the responsibility for ensuring appropriate assessment and placement services;

(

b) Ensuring that appropriate services are provided. The committee would not be expected to deliver services directly, but rather would acquire them from suitable agencies. Where services are not available locally, services could be acquired elsewhere;

(

c) Monitoring and evaluation;

(

d) Ensuring or exercising wardship responsibilities for children placed in care under The Child Welfare Act, The Training Schools Act, The Juvenile Delinquents Act, or their successors. The Family Court would adjudicate under these Acts; the local committee would take the responsibility for ensuring the proper care and custody of the child;

(

e) The planning necessary to meet community needs.

It is essential to focus on the individual child and his family rather than on the various systems and institutions. We feel communities are best able to do this. The government wants to ensure that a child is supported in his or her own home whenever possible, and that residential services and placement outside the home should occur only if essential, and that this should be provided in the child’s own community except in the most unusual circumstances.

We look to work with communities to ensure that whatever group homes are required are provided within the home community of the children served. We look to see arrangements made with the family courts that will further safeguard the rights of children. We hope that the federal proposals for new legislations affecting young offenders will harmonize with our own reforms.

It will take time to effect these changes.

Mrs. Campbell: Thirty-four years.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: My colleague, the Minister of Community and Social Services, will provide details in a moment on how the policy will evolve and how we are committed to consult with those who are now engaged in one way or another in the provision of services for children.

I have said in this Legislature before, and I must repeat, that probably we will never have all the answers. There are no magic cures, and despite the public’s expectations we will not achieve success with all of our children, but we are committed and we will try.

This government is determined to put an end to the isolation of children who need care, to put an end to the multiple assessments that many children are subjected to, and to put an end to the sometimes senseless movement of children from one service to another. The integration of children’s services underlines our determination to provide a compassionate, caring and effective flow of services to the many children who need our help.

Copies of the statements have been placed in the mail boxes of all members and I’m now tabling a compendium of background information.

Mr. Cassidy: Is that why it took you three and a half years to prepare it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it is the commitment of this government to unify the separate programmes into an integrated system that is better designed to meet the special needs of children and youth across this province. The first step of implementation of this policy at the provincial level will be the introduction of legislation this session to effect the transfer of the following programmes to this new division:

From the Ministry of Health: children’s mental health services branch of the ministry, facilities and programmes operated under The Children’s Mental Health Centres Act; regional children’s centres; special units for children in psychiatric hospitals, and the family court clinics.

From the Ministry of Correctional Services: the juvenile division of this ministry; its training schools; group homes; foster homes; special rates homes; probation and after-care services.

[2:15]

From the Ministry of the Attorney General: observation and detention centres and contract homes.

From within the Ministry of Community and Social Services: the child welfare branch of the ministry and facilities and programmes operated under The Child Welfare Act, including Children’s Aid Societies, The Children’s Institutions Act, The Children’s Boarding Homes Act, and The Charitable Institutions Act (for Children); the child abuse programme of the ministry; mental retardation services for children; the day nurseries branch of the ministry, and facilities and programmes operated under The Day Nurseries Act.

The new reporting relationships will take effect on July 1, 1977, but over the next few months there will be considerable discussion on the specific implementation of this policy. In some programmes, such as psychiatric, mental retardation and day care, it is anticipated that administrative changes will take a little longer period of time to implement in order that the transfer may be accomplished as smoothly as possible. Other programmes, not yet identified, may also be included in the new children’s services area.

In addition to the organizational transfer, it is my intention to move towards omnibus children’s legislation that will rationalize and reform such matters as licensing requirements, operating standards and funding.

To implement these changes at the provincial level, I take great pleasure announcing the appointment, effective immediately, of Judge George Thomson, judge of the provincial court (family division) in Kingston, to the position of associate deputy minister, reporting directly to me.

Mr. Deans: How about someone from Wentworth?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Throughout Ontario, and in fact Canada, Judge Thomson has initiated training programmes for the bench to help judges in the area of juveniles. Through leadership in numerous local provincial and Canada-wide committees and boards and through extensive written publications, Judge Thomson has established a very high reputation in the area of family law, and in particular with respect to juveniles and children. He has the direct personal experience, empathy and commitment necessary to spearhead the implementation of the overall goals of an integrated children’s services system.

To assist Judge Thomson, I’m pleased to announce that Mr. Peter Barnes, director of organization, policy branch of Management Board, is named as executive director of the new division. Mr. Barnes has several years’ experience both within the Ontario government and as a consultant to many levels of government, both in Canada and in Europe, specializing in organizational matters. The integration of the children’s programme both at the provincial and the local level will require the special skills and the sensitivity that Mr. Barnes brings to bear on this new office.

Similarly, at the local level, we will be moving quickly to implement the policy in which local governments will be responsible for ensuring the provision of services to their own children. In consultation with regional governments, we will start the implementation at this level with the establishment of local regional governments, appropriate methods of cost-sharing for these children’s services. In so doing, we will also take into account the implications of the proposed federal Young Offenders Act and Social Services Act.

For those municipalities not under regional government, the province will be initiating pilot projects to begin to phase in, in a unified approach, children’s services. The pilot projects would demonstrate various ways to provide for a consolidated approach best suited to that particular community.

In order to provide ample opportunity for consultation with local governments and agencies, and yet move as swiftly as possible toward the consolidation of these services, I will be announcing, not later than July 1, a full timetable for the implementation at the community level.

The implementation of the consolidation of children’s services will take the co-operation of literally thousands of government staff and many more thousands of staff from agencies, residences and services throughout this province. If we are to reach our goal of an integrated delivery system that truly meets the needs of each child, there will need to be a high priority placed upon consultation. To this end I have already written to the heads of provincial staff, agencies and residences that have been identified to date, to outline the proposed changes and to solicit their assistance.

Over the next few months. I will be holding meetings with these senior staff and with key agencies to inform them of the progress and to seek their comments, concerns and support. I’m confident that these people, as well as the members of this Legislature, share my concern in providing the very best possible special services for children and youth. Over the coming months and years I trust that we will move together towards this goal.

OPP SALARY INCREASE

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am pleased to report that a settlement has been reached in contract negotiations between the government and the Ontario Provincial Police Association.

The new agreement runs from April 1, 1977, to March 31, 1978, and will provide a salary increase of 7.4 per cent for the 3,900 members of the bargaining unit, except for probationary constables, who will receive 6.6 per cent. In addition, there will be improvements in shift premium and vacation entitlement, and the government will pay 100 per cent of the OHIP premium and 85 per cent of the premium for the long-term income protection plan. The previous figures were 90 per cent and 75 per cent respectively. The plain clothes allowance will be increased by $50 per year.

In a similar announcement following last year’s negotiations, I recall making reference to the fact that the parties to these negotiations had established the enviable record of not having required the assistance of a third party to resolve salary differences in all the years that they have been negotiating -- I think it’s some 10 years. I am pleased that the record has been extended another year.

There are those who claim that real bargaining does not take place in a system that has binding arbitration as the final dispute-settling mechanism. The successful completion of all contracts with this association in direct negotiations is clear evidence that our system can and does work where the people at the bargaining table have the will to make it work.

HOUSING PROGRAMME

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) produced a document I had not seen and asked for comment on the disposition of HOME lands now that the HOME programme has evolved into a grant programme. I would like to respond in the form of a statement so as not to take up the time of the question period.

I find the document he was quoting from was material provided to Ontario lenders when the ministry was exploring whether or not it would be prepared to lend under the proposed programme. The figures were preliminary but close to what we have in mind for the disposition of land as it is developed.

As we have been saying since the announcement of the new programme, we will continue to develop our holdings at a rate of between 3,500 to 4,000 housing units a year. These would be marketed to builders at the lower end of the market appraisals with the bulk being used for housing under the new AHOP/HOME plan and the others for a range of housing. That’s exactly what the document says.

When the programme was announced on March 7, I said: “Ottawa has agreed with us that the land we and they have purchased should be sold at market values -- actually at the low end of market, as we will use the lowest of three appraisals -- primarily but not exclusively to builders who will make use of the AHOP/HOME ownership assistance programme.

“This will have two benefits. Our funds generated from the sale will be used for housing-related programmes. This provides additional financing for housing at a time of constraint both in Ottawa and Queen’s Park. Second, it will provide for the development of more balanced communities in the larger government developments. The same range of housing types can be developed there as developed in neighbouring private subdivisions.”

My press release at that date stated we would be developing land “in a way that would create more balanced communities” and that this has been discussed with and agreed to by the federal Minister of State for Urban Affairs, the Hon. Andre Ouellet, as CMHC is the major shareholder in many of the land banks.

The material quoted by the Leader of the Opposition from the memorandum to the lenders is in agreement with the policy as I announced it. The memo contains some preliminary estimates that some of the land units likely to come on to the market in the current fiscal year would be of higher- priced land which would result in housing over the AHOP limits. It will depend upon appraisals as to whether or not the land will fit with the new programme. However, I would point out the programme is universal -- not restricted to housing on government land -- so it is available across Ontario and not just in HOME subdivisions.

The Leader of the Opposition stated that selling land at close to market will provide a profit to the two levels of government. This, of course, is true. That’s what we said when we announced the programme and said the money would be ploughed back into other housing programmes.

He suggested the first buyers should benefit from any increase in land value and not the taxpayers whose agency develops the land. I would point out his party for years argued that under the original HOME plan, individuals should not be allowed to reap the benefits of enhanced value, that it should go to the state.

On June 22, 1973 -- as quoted on page 3814 of Hansard -- the former minister responsible for housing announced a change in the HOME plan where “any increment in the land value, therefore, will accrue to the public instead of a private individual” as land will be sold at market value and not at the price set when the lease began. This was warmly greeted by the then NDP housing critic, the member for Ottawa Centre who stated: “It looks like the minister has been reading NDP policy.”

As for keeping the municipalities informed, I would tell the hon. member we mailed details on the new programme to all municipalities. Also, we have already held two of about a dozen workshops which will be used to discuss details with municipal officials. Some municipalities will want representatives of the ministry to appear and discuss the matter. This has already occurred and we will be pleased to do so.

Under the new approach, we will follow the accepted procedures in dealing with the municipalities. We will still apply to them for subdivision approvals as we have done in the past. Municipalities will have as much say as before, as we will be acting as any normal developer.

Mr. S. Smith: And land speculator.

VOTING QUALIFICATIONS

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, just by way of a perhaps somewhat longer answer to a question which was asked on Friday with respect to the Pan-Am Games in Hamilton, my understanding is that the council of the city now wishes to invite the games to Hamilton. So far as I know, the city of Hamilton is not at present considering what is known as a vote on a money bylaw. The city has under present legislation the ability to approach the Ontario Municipal Board for permission to have a vote between elections of the electors, tenants included, to gain opinion if it wishes.

This broad approach that the hon. member for Hamilton West seems to favour is there now if the city council wishes to pursue it. On the issue of eligibility to vote on money bylaws, if and when it comes to that -- and they are very rare occurrences in Ontario these days, since we rely basically on representative councils and the Ontario Municipal Board to make these decisions -- I would be glad to review the base from which these votes are taken as we review, as we are doing now, The Municipal Elections Act.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

Mr. Deans: In rising, Mr. Speaker, just before I ask a question, I wanted to say to you, sir, that I am sure I speak for more than just my own colleagues when I say to the Premier that we welcome his concerns expressed on behalf of the government of Ontario with regard to the recent position taken by Quebec. I would just like to assume that we will be kept informed as to what answers come from his constitutional questions and that he will make some representations to the Prime Minister of Canada.

CANCER AND ASBESTOS

Mr. Deans: The question that I have is to the Minister of Labour: Can the Minister of Labour produce any epidemiological study, other than that provided by Dr. Selikoff, to justify the action taken by the Workmen’s Compensation Board last week with regard to Aime Bertrand?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the report of an epidemiological analysis of the information provided by Dr. Selikoff to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I do not have a copy in my possession at the moment, but I shall be glad to get a copy and to present it to the hon. member.

Mr. Deans: Can the minister indicate what it is about this relationship among the Ministry of Labour, the Workmen’s Compensation Board and Dr. Selikoff that has the board accept at face value evidence presented only some months ago by Dr. Selikoff with regard to cancer of similar types in other organs, because it happened to suit the board to do it, and now turn around at this time, on similar evidence, properly put together, and turn it down with just simply a reference to Dr. Miller at the University of Toronto?

[2:30]

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the acceptance by the Workmen’s Compensation Board of the classification of cancer of the gastro-intestinal tract in asbestos workers was made not upon examination of Dr. Selikoff’s information at face value at all. It was made upon the examination of all of the published information regarding asbestos and gastro-intestinal cancers which was carried out by Dr. Ritchie and then reviewed in an accurate and very long epidemiological study by Dr. Miller. Indeed, the response in that instance, I think, was entirely responsible.

The paper, which has been provided by Dr. Selikoff, is one piece of paper with some figures on it listing the results which he found in his study of asbestos workers -- with no real conclusions drawn. Therefore, that paper was submitted to the epidemiological study which has been carried out on the previous information, and the epidemiologist reported his finding would be that Dr. Selikoff’s results were, indeed, equivocal rather than being specifically on one side or the other.

At this time there are two other studies of this matter being carried out, and when those are produced and published -- and I do wish that Dr. Selikoff would publish his material so that it could be subjected to the critical analysis of his peer group -- we shall again be reviewing this specific matter.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the Workmen’s Compensation Board indicated previously that they were awaiting Dr. Selikoff’s report before making a final decision on laryngeal cancer, how is it that the Minister of Labour allows Dr. McCracken then to seek out evidence to the contrary rather than extending to the workers of this province the benefit of the doubt? And, further, doesn’t the minister think Dr. McCracken has outlived his usefulness on the Workmen’s Compensation Board of this province?

Mr. Warner: He should resign.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would first say that I think Dr. McCracken is serving both the workers of Ontario and the Workmen’s Compensation Board extremely well. He is functioning as a very concerned, responsible physician in this aspect.

Mr. Warner: That board runs by itself.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The report presented by Dr. Selikoff was only one of the pieces of information we had asked for. If, indeed, the epidemiological study of Dr. Selikoff’s figures -- and I must admit when one looks at Dr. Selikoff’s single sheet of paper the first impression is that there is a direct causal relationship which, unfortunately, does not stand up under the epidemiological scrutiny it has been subjected to. There are other experts in this area --

Mr. Warner: By whom? Let’s see the answer.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Dr. Selikoff is not the only one.

Mr. Warner: You’re playing games.

Hon. B. Stephenson: He is an important researcher whose information we value, but it must be subjected to the kind of analysis which any other researcher’s studies would be subjected to. On that basis, at this time, there is no reason for accepting the causal relationship between asbestos and laryngeal cancer.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: If decisions such as this one are being made because of pressures applied to the Compensation Board by the employers of this province, will the minister direct the employers in Ontario that if they find the assessment of compensation against them to be too heavy, they clean up the work place and not extract the pound of flesh from the workers?

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you get some control over that board?

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is a spurious accusation. The decisions made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board are not subjected to any pressure from any employers. They are made independently --

Mr. Warner: It runs by itself.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- by the specialists and the consultants which the Workmen’s Compensation Board asks for advice, and that advice is entirely independent of everyone.

Mr. Warner: Including you?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, including me.

Mr. Mackenzie: I would like to ask the minister at what point, apart from the studies and surveys, Aime Bertrand gets the benefit of the doubt in his tragic case?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have promised Mr. Bertrand that I will review the decision which was made in his case, and I intend to do that.

Mr. Deans: Just for clarification -- it’s not a supplementary. Did I understand you correctly -- in answer to my question -- that you will produce the additional epidemiological studies that were done to justify the decision?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I said that I had seen a copy of the submission which was made by Dr. Miller to Dr. McCracken. I will try to get a copy of that letter for the hon. member.

Mr. Deans: Maybe this is a good time for a freedom-of-information bill.

CAPITAL WORKS PROJECTS

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer produce for the House all the capital-works-projects proposals of all the ministries, and all those produced for the Ontario Municipal Board by municipalities for the years 1974 through 1977, and the state of completion or readiness that they are now at, in order that we can determine which, if any, can be proceeded with now to create employment in the province of Ontario?

Mr. Breithaupt: He can answer that off the top of his head.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, no, not off the top of my head, as I heard somebody say.

Mr. Nixon: Starting to get thinner.

Mr. Cassidy: Shame.

Mr. Laughren: Some Management Board.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would think you would have to ask the various ministries as to what capital projects they might or might not have on the shelf, so to speak, and what position they would be in to accelerate or otherwise if funds became available. I would have no such list, nor do I think would the Chairman of Management Board. We could go through various submissions, I suppose, which are made to Management Board, but often we find that even six or eight months or a year later they are out of date and priorities have changed, and they might not necessarily be on the list.

With respect to those expenditure items, capital works programmes which would be put in front of the Ontario Municipal Board, I think that information in gross amount is contained in the Municipal Board annual report, which is tabled in this Legislature by the Attorney General. I believe that figure would be there. There again, I’m not sure that the Ontario Municipal Board keeps any ongoing record of what has been not approved for one reason or another.

I would also say that, not to my certain knowledge but certainly by comments made by the Municipal Board and others, I think it is fair to say that very little that has been put forward to the board in the last couple of years has not been approved. When the urge to restrain went forward from me to the board in the supplementary actions and in the last budget, the municipalities responded very well and did not, in fact, make application to the board for greater amounts than either the board thought to be prudently handled, or which were not in the nature of something which really needed to be done as opposed to wanted to be done.

So I think the variance between what was proposed to the board and what the board approved is probably very small, and that information, I think, would have to come from the municipalities.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: What then did the Treasurer’s statement on page 9 of the Throne Speech mean when he said “special funding to create jobs in both the private and public sectors will be a feature of the new Ontario budget,” if he doesn’t know what his own government was proposing to do during the years 1974 through 1982 in terms of capital projects and the possibility of the use of those to create employment for people not working?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think we are talking about apples and oranges as opposed --

Mr. Breaugh: No, bread and butter.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- to the very large aspirations of the ministries at any given point in time.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary to the first question asked by the member for Wentworth, regarding what’s in front of the OMB, has the Treasurer spoken with the Attorney General to see if something can be done to speed up the pace about the hearing regarding Toronto’s downtown plan, given the rate of construction unemployment in this particular city? Has he also asked whether or not it’s possible to have the senior citizens’ projects separated out from the present OMB hearings so that they can proceed more rapidly and create the construction jobs accordingly?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this matter with the Attorney General as recently as an hour and a half ago, and the member might like to direct the question to him.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Supplementary, the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mrs. Campbell: Answer the question.

Mr. Cassidy: To the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer say --

Mr. S. Smith: It is hard to redirect a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe the hon. Treasurer provided the opportunity to transfer the question -- to the Attorney General, was it? Is there an answer, Mr. Attorney General?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I met with the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board last week to discuss this problem, and we discussed it in some detail, he having reviewed it with his own people before. He indicated that in his view there was no practical way that any of these matters could be separated out.

An hon. member: Why not?

Mr. Speaker: All right, the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the Treasurer has said that he has not canvassed the government departments to find out what jobs could be created this year by the acceleration of provincial projects, can he say how many jobs have been lost over the last few months by the reduction of $77 million in lending by the Ontario Mortgage Corporation and the Development Corporation?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think that opens up a new area.

An hon. member: No, it’s the same thing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is a supplementary. Final supplementary, the member for York North.

Mr. MacDonald: In view of the universal concern about unemployment, would the provincial Treasurer canvass the ministries within his own government and in his budget indicate what share for public works, capital works projects, there is? Surely it is easier for him to do that than for us to ask each ministry -- and it’s a very relevant piece of information for his budget.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, one can ask ministries what they would like to do if money was no problem, yes. Certainly that is done from time to time, and we would have --

Mr. Foulds: Just before an election usually.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- a rather large list -- a very large list -- of public works projects.

Mr. MacDonald: Would the Treasurer exercise his judgement?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s exactly what we do. In the course of preparing a budget that’s exactly what Management Board does. We exercise our judgement.

Mr. Foulds: Usually bad.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have been spending for the last four or five years, I would guess, in the neighbourhood of a billion and a half to two billion dollars on capital projects of one kind or another, which is very large indeed. No jobs have been lost because of the reduction in spending by either the Ontario Mortgage Corporation or the Ontario Development Corporation.

The Ontario Mortgage Corporation rates are such that they are now no longer, I think this is fair to say, an inducement. Private-sector mortgage money is available and those are the reasons why that money was not taken up, rather than a curbing on the spending of it by the Minister of Housing.

With respect to the Ontario Development Corporation, the demand for loans simply has not been there.

TORONTO DOWNTOWN PLAN

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker: Knowing that the Attorney General shares with me the view that the present construction unemployment in Toronto and in Ontario generally is really an emergency, could the Attorney General explain why he will accept the view of the OMB chairman that (

a) the senior citizens’ projects could not be separated out and (

b) that the hearings have to go on at the present somewhat leisurely pace? Surely in an emergency the Attorney General could instruct the OMB to meet overtime on a regular basis to get this matter on the road and get these people at work as soon as possible.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Firstly, Mr. Speaker, the counsel for the city of Toronto has considerable discretion in the manner in which he chooses to present his case; and the members of the Municipal Board -- the three members who are hearing this matter -- don’t feel that they have any right to indicate to counsel the manner in which the case is produced or how quickly the city’s case is completed.

Just following this matter in the press, I think the leader of the Liberal Party will have noted, as I have, some concern, expressed publicly by various members of the board hearing it from time to time, as to speeding up the process. I think the members who are hearing the matter are urging counsel to proceed as expeditiously as possible but there are obvious limitations in that respect.

With respect to the technical problems involved in relation to separating out any specific projects -- namely the senior citizens’ projects -- I have a number of details and information in my office in relation to this, and rather than just trust on my recollection today I’d prefer to attempt to respond in greater detail tomorrow with respect to the technical problems that confront any effort to separate projects and expedite them or the bylaws that would affect them.

[2:45]

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary; I appreciate the answer but could the Attorney General tell the House whether he has personally communicated to the mayor of Toronto his concern, and his government’s concern, that counsel for the city proceed more expeditiously and more rapidly. And can he assure that if counsel will proceed more expeditiously that the OMB officers would be willing to work overtime to get some of these projects underway while the need is still great?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I haven’t communicated directly with respect to the mayor of the city of Toronto. As a practising lawyer for some years, I always regarded it as inappropriate to communicate with a client with advice as to how their counsel should conduct a matter before the courts or tribunal. I don’t think this would be proper for me, with all due respect.

With respect to the longer sittings, I think the board members have been prepared to sit regularly and for reasonable hours. There is a very large volume of highly technical evidence that is being introduced -- some say overly technical, or this view has been expressed by individual members of the board -- and to expect them to sit any longer hours than what they are sitting, I don’t think it is in the public interest, because I think individuals in any type of hearing such as this are capable of only absorbing facts for so many hours a day. I think the leader of the Liberal Party with his own professional training would appreciate that problem.

Mr. Speaker: The member for London Centre.

Mr. Peterson: As a Metro member particularly and one who is sensitive about these kind of problems -- and I think it is the kind of thing that requires assistance from everyone, particularly from the minister as a Metro member -- would he be prepared personally to attempt to come to some kind of accommodation with Metro and with the OMB to accelerate this? Would he get involved from now on?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I don’t really understand the question. I don’t know in what manner the hon. member is suggesting the Attorney General become involved. I think in matters such as this there are a number of interested parties with conflicting views. I think it would be most inappropriate for the Attorney General to intervene in the manner suggested.

OHC RENT ARREARS

Mr. S. Smith: A question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Housing: In view of the rather severe hardships, including some evictions in Toronto and in Ottawa, caused by the attempts of OHC and local housing authorities to collect so-called arrears which resulted from the retroactive exclusion of public housing from rent review, would the minister not agree to forgive the additional amounts charged for that period, December 1975 to the third week in May 1976? Would he at least agree to meet with representatives of the various tenants’ groups to discuss this particular unfortunate situation? There have now been evictions, as he knows, in Toronto and in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, I am sure, is aware that a great many of the persons who were residing in the particular units he is referring to have in fact paid the rents they would have been required to pay under the normal rent-geared-to-income scale. It would be improper, I believe, to now forgive those who did not. Despite some of the comments that have been made, Ontario Housing Corporation officials have attempted in many ways to accommodate the payment of those funds. There has been no pressure brought to bear.

Mr. Good: Doesn’t the minister call eviction pressure?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As I understand it the evictions have only come about as a result of people who have flatly refused to pay the rents they were required to pay under a rent-geared-to-income scale.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary; is the minister aware of the case in Ottawa February 14 where a young couple with two small children were made homeless under rent review? The husband 23, an illiterate; the wife 19, naive. They paid their rent; they were then asked for arrears of $500, the amount by which their rent went up. They were asked to sign a paper agreeing to pay the arrears and they thought they had no alternative but to sign so they signed. Then they were evicted because they failed to pay these arrears. Has the minister looked into that particular case? Doesn’t he think this type of hardship was unforeseen by the House?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am not familiar with that particular case. I would be pleased to hear the details, although some of them are a little bit strange as portrayed by the hon. member.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s not particularly funny.

Mr. Good: Supplementary: Did the minister authorize this or was he aware of the fact that during the term that rent review procedures were legal for people in OHC housing that OHC was sending letters to those people asking for the additional rents that would apply if they were not under rent review? Was he aware that that happened, or can he confirm that that did happen? Would he not consider that an illegal action at that time?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of that. I do not consider it an illegal action. What was done was that a letter was sent advising those tenants that there was a possibility that their units might not be subject to rent control.

Mr. Good: But they were at that time.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is correct. They were then. The letters were sent to them saying that they had the choice. They could pay the rent as it was controlled by the rent review process or they could pay the full rents and the differences would be held for them. You see, Mr. Speaker, some of us were of the opinion -- and I believe some of the tenants became aware -- that there might be a turnaround of the Liberal Party position in that particular matter.

An hon. member: You’ve had it.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the minister would consider treating that in the same way as the government has treated the first-time home owner’s grant and pursuing it with the same diligence?

Mr. Good: Talk about breaking faith.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Oshawa is asking a question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I apologize to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I was listening to interjections from the hon. member from Waterloo at the time.

Mr. Breithaupt: They were of some value too.

Mr. Breaugh: I’ll repeat the question. I certainly don’t want to interfere with any interjection over there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We can’t hear the member for Oshawa, the only one who has the floor. Thank you.

Mr. Breaugh: Thank you. I’m impressed. Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider putting this in the same box as the first-time home owner’s programme and treating it with the same diligence?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes us to proceed and to collect the arrears, as this House has generally directed should be done under the first-time home buyers grant, yes.

An hon. member: The same way.

DRIVERS’ MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

Mr. Philip: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications concerning the new licensing system for transport drivers: Is the minister aware that at a meeting last Thursday between officials of his department and the Ontario Joint Council of Teamsters the officials indicated that the only real guarantee of confidentiality of medical records was their word of honour, with the possible exception of certain sections under The Transport Act that would give them some protection?

If so, would the minister indicate what sections of the Act offer protection of confidentiality of their medical records and what amendments the minister might be considering to strengthen these sections to guarantee that these records will not be made available to other people who might like to use them?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I was aware that my senior officials were at that particular meeting last week. I have not had a report from them on the outcome, so I will have to look into the matter and get the information the hon. member wants.

Mr. Philip: By way of supplementary then, would the minister at least answer the second part of my question; namely what protection do they have, under what sections of the Act, of confidentiality? And why would the minister not accept a simple statement by the medical profession that drivers are fit to live up to the kinds of requirement that the ministry is setting for drivers?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what sections of the Act were referred to at that particular meeting, because as I told the hon. member I have not received a report on that meeting yet; I will get the information.

Mr. Moffatt: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has promised to come back with an answer. Have we got something that is supplementary to that?

Mr. Moffatt: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Since the minister is going to provide further information, maybe he can provide this as well. Why is it that the provisions under the regulations governing this new driver’s licence system provide that no person who takes insulin in any form can drive any kind of commercial vehicle?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would have to get advice on that from my medical advisory committee. I don’t pretend to be able to answer that question.

Mr. Speaker: I indicated that was the final supplementary. We can come back to it at a later time.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. May I first commend her on the fact that she has now been motivated as a result of the activities of this party in the group home field.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You can’t say that with a straight face.

Mrs. Campbell: On page 3 of her statement she refers to the activities of the family court, the local committee taking responsibility for ensuring the proper care and custody of the child. Does this mean we are going to see a continuation of full responsibility in these cases being placed upon the municipalities, in place of the province, where they used to lie under

section 8?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I would just like to reiterate this government didn’t take action because of the pressure of the Liberal Party.

Mrs. Campbell: After 34 years?

Mr. Reid: Like the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breithaupt: It just happened.

Mr. Ruston: The same as the Minister of Education and his education policy.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I would like to say publicly that the indication that the hon. member has tried to say the Liberal Party was responsible for the report on residential services is very misleading. I would say I’m very disappointed she would try to give this impression.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: But not unexpected.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: This government has been very involved and very interested --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We can’t hear the answer.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: From last July. The minister had that report for two years.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Interjections.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The hon. leader of the Liberal Party should appreciate more than anyone else in this House the difficulties in trying to get the kind of treatment for the children of this province who need help.

Mr. S. Smith: You had the report for 20 months.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: And he above all, I would think, would appreciate the government’s major reform in this area and would be so appreciative of what we are trying to do on behalf of the children of this province. These kinds of misleading comments are far beyond anything I can accept.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We can’t hear. We’re wasting time.

Mrs. Campbell: I wonder, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Is this supplementary?

Mrs. Campbell: No, it is not supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I’m asking the minister to address herself to the question I put as to whether or not the local communities, via the local committees, would continue to assume the full per diem responsibility as they did when this government evaded its financial responsibilities on the repeal of

section 8.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Again I take unction with some of the comments she’s made.

An hon. member: It’s a fact.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I would just like to say to her --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- that it has been pointed out very clearly that there will be continuing consultation with the people who live in those communities --

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: You are too unctuous by now.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- to see that the children really deserve the kind of attention they should have.

Mr. Reid: Who pays?

Mr. S. Smith: Who pays?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We can’t hear the answer. I’m not even sure whether there is an answer or a question on the first part.

Mr. Breithaupt: Remind the minister.

[3:00]

Mr. Speaker: May I just remind the hon. members that when you ask a question, keep the editorial comment to a minimum -- really zero -- and the same thing with answering questions, of course. The question was a good question, I think, and I’m not sure even whether the answer was given because of the interruptions. I think there was an answer given to the last part. We’ll allow another supplementary from the member for St. George on the answer.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I guess, to make it as simple as I can: Who pays under this programme? Who has the right to assess the efficacy of the programme?

Mr. S. Smith: It is your friend who says “unction” when she means “umbrage.”

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I would again like to reiterate what we’ve said in both of our statements. There will be consultation as to the cost-sharing between local municipalities and the provincial government.

Mr. McClellan: May I ask the minister how quickly she’ll be introducing legislation establishing the children’s services committees?

Interjections.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I would refer that question to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: May I redirect? Mr. Speaker, may I redirect?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you may redirect.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the first stage of the consolidation of the youth services will be the introduction of legislation during this session to consolidate at the provincial level. During that time, as I indicated in my statement, we will be consulting initially with the regional municipalities since we see that government structure as the most likely one for early implementation.

Mrs. Campbell: They are paying now.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would anticipate that before the end of this year we would introduce the legislation with respect to the local committees. It would probably not be possible for them to be in place prior to some time early in 1978, but we will move as quickly as possible in order to have them established. I trust that the member -- I’m sure he realizes --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- that the consolidation alone at the provincial level is in fact a major administrative undertaking -- that it’s going to take some time. We have set the target date at July 1 for the transfer of accountability from the units and the existing programmes in other ministries -- transferring that to the new children and youth division -- because of the fact that it’s going to take that period of time, two or three months, in order to make sure that the mechanism is in place for a smooth transfer of responsibility so that we don’t launch into something irresponsibly and end up with a mess.

I think surely the member understands that that kind of a lead-in period is necessary. To reiterate my answer specifically to the member’s question, I would hope that before the end of this year, we would have legislation before the House to set in place the local committees.

Mr. McClellan: That is a long way off.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Don’t be so ridiculous. You know very well that is not a long way off.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. We are wasting time with the interjections.

HOME BUYER GRANTS

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a question on home buyer grants asked last Thursday by the member for Hamilton West. However, before answering the specific question, as the new Minister of Revenue I wish to make some observations about the grant programme.

Mr. S. Smith: Revert to statements --

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: In the past six weeks, I have made a point --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I have made a point of reviewing this programme and it is my conclusion --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I presume this is a short answer?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Yes, it is, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Otherwise, it should have been given as a ministerial statement earlier.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: No, sir.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Well, we’ll time it. Thank you very much. The hon. minister.

Mr. Deans: On a point of order.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I have made a point of reviewing this programme --

Mr. Deans: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: The minister has said that before she answers the question, she wants to make a statement with regard to the grant programme. This is not the time for ministerial statements.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: At this point in time, I cannot tell whether it’s part of an answer. I can’t tell what’s been said --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: She said it is not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. The hon. minister will answer the question as she sees fit. If I decide that it’s a ministerial statement, I shall add time on to it, but I’d suggest that statements of policy and other such like matters should be given as ministerial statements. Maybe this is really part of an answer; I don’t know at this point in time. I can’t help what was said. We’ll hear the hon. minister and then we’ll decide.

Mr. Deans: The minister said it is not.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot tell.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, as part of the answer, I wish to provide a very few remarks as background.

Mr. Ruston: A few remarks?

Hon. Mr. Davis: This is as part of the answer.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I have made a point of reviewing this programme and it is my conclusion that the programme has been extremely successful in meeting the goals set forth by the government.

Mr. Sweeney: That is just propaganda. That is not an answer. That is not even correct.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: It materially assisted some 86,000 people in purchasing their first home. Indeed, more than a year after the end of the eligibility period --

Mr. Sweeney: That is on the election brochure.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: -- we still get calls from people wanting to apply for a grant.

While there has been an attempt to paint a picture of a great ripoff by the citizens of this province upon the public purse I am pleased to say that this is simply not the case.

Mr. S. Smith: What is nine million?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: The vast majority of people applied in all honesty and sincerity. In the case of the limited number of applicants who received the grants in error, the mistakes that were made were mainly honest mistakes.

Mr. Sweeney: That is the only kind you make.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: In fact, after approximately one year of intensive audit, my ministry has discovered a two per cent error factor in grants paid to ineligible applicants.

Interjections.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: All the most flagrant cases of abuse were uncovered in the early stages of the audit. The ineligible recipients now being discovered are those who purchased modestly priced homes and sincerely believed they were entitled to the grant. Sadly, recovery of these grants now works a real hardship on the families involved.

In response to the point raised by the member, out of 70,000 first supplementary grants of $250 each paid to date, only 18 were paid to persons who had previously been identified by our auditors as ineligible recipients of the initial grant payment.

Mr. Sweeney: How could there be any if you had already identified them?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Of these, 10 have been repaid already and there are no problems anticipated in collecting the remaining eight.

In my reply to the hon. member I have expressed my views of the grant programme. Although the problem of enforcement is not a happy one, we are continuing the audit of the home buyer grants.

Mr. S. Smith: It is my understanding that there are 18 people who received the additional money even though they had been identified as ineligible in the first place, but there was another part to the question which I asked originally and I didn’t hear whether she answered that, Mr. Speaker. That is, how much money has she recovered in total so far in her attempts to recover money from ineligible recipients, however honest the mistakes might have been in the first place?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: As I said in my statement, Mr. Speaker, it is two per cent -- $2,014,500.

Mr. S. Smith: You have recovered $2,014,500?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: This is the amount that is being recovered, yes.

Mr. Makarchuk: A supplementary to the minister: How can the minister reconcile her statement that the mistakes were made by modest home purchasers with that of the auditor who said most of the mistakes were made by people who bought expensive homes?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: That is simply not so, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister tell the House how many audits her ministry has performed out of the total number of grants that have been given out by her ministry, and what her plans are with respect to the rest of the grants given out?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: This is a matter of public record at the present time. It’s somewhere on the order of 25 per cent. A very high audit.

Mr. Peterson: And what are the minister’s plans?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: As I said in my statement, the audit is ongoing.

Mr. Peterson: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does that mean the minister plans to audit 100 per cent of the grants?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: No, Mr. Speaker, I made no statement to that effect.

Mr. Peterson: What does it mean? If it’s ongoing it doesn’t make any sense at all. What does it mean? What are the minister’s plans?

Mr. S. Smith: You’re still not going to audit them all?

Mr. Speaker: Do you have an answer? All right. One final supplementary. Is this a supplementary? No, okay.

Mr. Godfrey: Are we going to get an extension in the question-period time?

Mr. Speaker: No. As I recall the question, what was asked was partly answered.

The member for Bellwoods then with a question -- I’m sorry, Algoma.

Mr. Cunningham: On a point of order, the last one was over here, I believe.

Mr. Speaker: An answer was given over here.

Mr. Cunningham: The answer was over here. The last question was over here.

Mr. Speaker: No, no. We go in rotation here, here and here and we are now back here. The hon. member for Algoma.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification, am I given to understand then that the arbitrary answer of a question on this particular side of the House disrupts the question procedure?

Mr. Speaker: I answered that question a moment ago. I answered it and I said that what was said was, in my opinion, part of the original question. The member for Algoma, at last.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Mr. Wildman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the widespread serious concern over the effects of coke-oven emissions on the health of workers at Algoma Steel and the protests from the United Steelworkers of America over the minister’s decision not to hold public hearings in Sault Ste. Marie on the new omnibus workers’ health and safety legislation, is she prepared now to reverse her position and

schedule hearings in the Sault?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the leaders of the steel workers in the Sault on Friday afternoon and told them at that time, and I will reiterate it now, that it was not possible to

schedule all the hearings in all the centres that we would have liked to have scheduled them in. We should have had them, I suppose, in Peterborough, in Kingston, in Windsor, in Sarnia, in a number of areas.

However, what we have done is to try to centralize the hearings in places where it would be reasonably convenient for both employers and employees to present their points of view to the staff of the ministry regarding the proposed legislation. When I spoke to the steelworkers on Friday in the Sault, I suggested to them that if they had difficulty in attending meetings either in Thunder Bay or in Toronto, they could let me know and we would very seriously consider their request to have a special hearing in Sault Ste. Marie to accommodate them.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Is the minister aware it is 400 miles to Thunder Bay or Toronto from Sault Ste. Marie, and if she is, is she willing to take into account the statement by her deputy minister in Sudbury on Thursday that he felt they should look very seriously at scheduling hearings in the Sault as part of their regular hearing process?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I do wish the hon. member would listen. I agreed completely with the kind of thing that my deputy specifically said.

Mr. Breaugh: Now, now, now; be nice.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am very much aware of the distances between Sault Ste. Marie and Toronto and Thunder Bay, but I would remind the hon. member, who lives in Sault Ste. Marie, that Sault Ste. Marie is only 185 miles from Sudbury.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Can the minister clarify whether the hearings in Thunder Bay are two days or one day? There seemed to be some confusion over the weekend.

Hon. B. Stephenson: They are two days in all the centres in which they have been established.

AIR POLLUTION

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. In view of the minister’s decision to pay for the cleanup of lead-contaminated soils in the vicinity of the three Toronto lead smelters, will the minister apply this same principle and pay for the washing of insulators on Windsor utilities poles, insulators contaminated by air pollution emanating from Detroit industries?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on Friday, this particular cleanup in Toronto can come within the provisions of health-related environmental projects. I also indicated that there was no final decision as far as the allocation of public funds for that cleanup. I question whether or not one can draw the analogy between what’s happening in Toronto and the hon. member’s proposal for the Windsor area. However, if the hon. member would send me more particular details, I would be happy to look at it.

Mr. Singer: How about the St. Clair River and mercury?

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that approximately two years ago a Mr. Donnelly Hadden, a US lawyer acting on behalf of 11 La Salle families, obtained $117,500 in settlement as a result of air pollution from US industry? Will the minister join with the Windsor utilities in suing the air polluters from the American side, in the light of the fact that Mr. Hadden states that the case is a very good one and the chance of being successful is very high?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We would be very happy to consider that.

STORMONT, DUNDAS AND GLENGARRY TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. Samis: Question to the Minister of Education: In view of the fact that the secondary school teachers in the counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry have gone on strike this morning, could the minister advise the House if he’s planning any special or personal initiatives in order to try to get the two sides back to the bargaining table?

Hon. Mr. Wells: We have already conferred with the Education Relations Commission. They stand ready, as they always do, to assist in this matter, and they have a mediator standing by to help the parties arrive at a satisfactory negotiated agreement.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the dispute seems to revolve around working conditions, and because the board does not consider working conditions a negotiable item, is the minister satisfied that both parties are negotiating in good faith and within the spirit and terms of Bill 100?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’ve seen nothing to indicate to me that either party in this dispute has been negotiating in bad faith. I think there are some very spirited negotiations going on, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate any bad faith.

GLENGOWAN DAM

Mr. Edighoffer: Question for the Minister of the Environment: As the main purpose of the new proposed Glengowan Dam in the Upper Thames watershed seems to have been changed from flood control to flow augmentation, would the Minister of the Environment make certain a review is undertaken under The Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Conservation authorities will come under the provisions of that Act, hopefully by June. At the present time, the authorities are working with people in my ministry to include various projects that are planned now, are on the books for the immediate future, so that we can get under way as far as those projects are concerned; and then, of course, any subsequent projects.

I’m aware of the controversy surrounding the Glengowan Dam, because of the changes the hon. member mentioned, and I would expect the authority would want us to hold a hearing in respect to that project.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Mr. McClellan: Question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, who I think is still in the assembly: Given the fact that the Minister of Community and Social Services has indicated it will take upwards of a year, a year and a half, possibly two years before this scheme is in place and functioning -- and I suspect that may be optimistic -- could you tell us what measures you may have in order to deal with the kind of chaos that the report details -- on a short-term basis, on an interim basis? Or do we have to live with this chaos for another year and a half or two years?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I’m sure the hon. member does appreciate how difficult it is to bring in three or four major ministries with children’s programmes and do it very quickly. As the minister indicated, our desire is to have it integrated as smoothly as possible so as not to interrupt those programmes that are helping children at the moment; but it will be done as quickly as possible.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: May I ask the minister when she intends to respond with respect to the concerns that were raised at the PMLC meeting of January 21, given that she indicated she would be responding to those financial concerns by early March?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The Minister of Community and Social Services and I will be at the PMLC meeting on April 15, I believe it is.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the concern expressed by the ministry in relation to children’s services, can the minister explain why children’s aid budgets were so savagely cut back during the period that these recommendations were being --

Mr. Speaker: That is not a supplementary to the first question.

HOME WARRANTY PLAN

Mr. Givens: To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Since the passing of The Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act last year, what has the minister been doing to weed out all the bad actors, those who have been guilty of dishonesty and shoddy construction practices, who have defrauded people to the extent of thousands of dollars? Has he simply been registering everybody under the Act, or has he refused registration to anybody under the Act because of previous bad conduct on their part?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If the hon. member has examined the Act, he knows we neither register nor refuse to register anybody under it.

An hon. member: No, you don’t.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is administered by a completely independent board which handles all the registrations and the refusal of registrations. I am prepared to ask the board that question and see if I can get a reply for the hon. member.

Mr. Givens: A supplementary: Under

section 7(b), isn’t registration reusable to anybody who in the past has conducted himself in a way where we are afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on his undertakings in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty? Don’t the ministry and the registrar have the right under that to refuse registration? Isn’t it a mockery under the Act for them to accept everybody with open arms?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear that we don’t accept anyone, and I don’t have the right to refuse registration. The registrar does. The registrar is employed by the private sector. I am prepared to get a report from the board for the hon. member to tell him what has happened under the Act insofar as refusal of registration is concerned.

Mr. Samis: Since there was a report recently that, I believe, half the builders in the province still aren’t registered with HUDAC, can the minister tell us what’s being done to try to expedite the whole registration process?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We have asked the board of directors to put on additional staff. They have agreed to do that. There was absolutely no way of knowing the number of builders in this province, since they have never previously been registered, and we had underestimated the number and so had the board. However, we are prepared to try to catch up with that as quickly as possible.

ALLEGED OHIP FRAUDS

Mr. Dukszta: I have a question to the Minister of Health. Can the minister tell me when he will introduce the amendments to The Health Insurance Act and others, if necessary, which will enable him to legally recover the OHIP overpayments to the sum of $1,106,737 as defined in the recommendations of the medical review committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons as at June 30, 1976?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as the member will recall from last Thursday’s question period, I indicated then that we were considering whether legislation was required or administrative changes to carry out these procedures. I am not aware that there have been any difficulties in recovering any of the sums pinpointed through any of the audits, whether it be the profiles done by OHIP or whether it be audits by my inspection branch of particular laboratories and other facilities.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: The two cases which I mentioned on Thursday -- the medical review committee against Wakil and the other one involving the College of Optometry -- have put in jeopardy 175 cases which are waiting. The amount of money that I specified is over $1 million. The ministry has recovered so far $600,000. My question is, if the physicians decided now to recover that money which they paid and sue the ministry, will it be compelled to pay $600,000 right now for the money already recovered?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have had no such indication of that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary question, then, not a complete statement.

Mr. Dukszta: Yes. Could the minister tell me then on what legal grounds he can assure me that these physicians will not attempt to recover this money when the court has already judged that The Health Insurance Act is actually inoperative?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will review it further with the solicitors of our ministry. But in the previous reviews on several occasions since I took over the ministry, there has been no such indication that there’s a danger of that. The member is not a lawyer, I’m not a lawyer; I’ll check it again with those who are.

Mr. Dukszta: But what --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You are asking about the same question over again.

Mr. Dukszta: I want to establish one thing, Mr. Speaker -- whether the minister is aware of those two cases I am talking about and how they affect the functioning in his ministry in respect of recovering the funds -- and he is not answering my question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the cases; I indicated that last Thursday. Perhaps the member would read Hansard.

MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Treasurer, I will direct this question on market value assessment to the Minister of Revenue. Since the Treasurer has indicated there is virtually no chance of implementing market value assessment on the present legal

schedule which now exists, since he asserts that much more information on this subject will be needed, could the minister tell us why a complete data base was not developed prior to the Blair commission hearings so that both the public and the commission could have a better understanding of its implication? Secondly, why is a complete data base for the province not now available for a better study of the proposal?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I have no idea.

Mr. S. Smith: Why not?

Mrs. Campbell: We knew that.

Mr. Good: In reply to the answer, I’d like to ask a supplementary. When the minister does try to get an idea of that, would she also get an idea of --

Mr. S. Smith: Of anything.

Mr. Good: -- how she expects a proper assessment of the implication of this to be of any value without a statement by government as to what its proposed grant structures might be to correlate with the market value assessment?

Mr. Peterson: At the same time that she’s answering those questions --

Mr. Singer: Or not answering, as the case may be.

Mrs. Campbell: It’s a waste of time.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the member proceed?

Mr. Peterson: -- I wonder if she could provide to the people of this province specific information on the specific nature of the impact of property market value assessment on certain communities.

HIRING OF HANDICAPPED

Mr. di Santo: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Last November the minister announced that the Ontario government would set an example for the private sector in hiring the handicapped. Could she tell us how the programme has been developing since January, when it was supposed to start? Is the programme restricted to her department or open also to the other ministries? Third, as a result of this programme, has any handicapped person been hired by the government in the meantime?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The programme -- the pilot project -- is restricted to the Ministry of Labour at this time. The co-ordinator for the programme has been employed. The co-ordinator is reviewing with all the associations of handicapped individuals within the province of Ontario the names of potentially available handicapped persons to be employed in certain areas.

There are, to my knowledge, two who have been employed since, I think, December -- actually before the programme started -- as a result of the impetus of the programme, and more are being considered at this time. In addition, a programme of increasing awareness in an educative way is being developed by the ministry in order to assist other ministries to develop this kind of programme within their specific responsibilities once we have got ours really under way and functioning.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Mr. Laughren: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to standing order 28 and to the provisional rules which apply for this session, I wish to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I am dissatisfied with the answer to the question on laryngeal cancer and compensation by the Minister of Labour and that I wish there to be an adjournment debate tomorrow night at 10:30. I have so notified the Clerk of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. So noted.

SPEAKER’S RULING

Mr. Speaker: As I indicated on Thursday last, I informed the House that I would take Mr. Bain’s petition under consideration and inform the House as to whether or not it constitutes a proper petition to the House under the standing orders. At the same time, I said I would make a more comprehensive statement with respect to petitions.

[3:30]

As I stated on Thursday, we are proceeding at this session under the provisional changes to and additions to the standing orders as adopted by the House in 1970. These provisional changes and additions were adopted unanimously by the House on December 16, 1976. Paragraph 5 of that order specifies that the government shall provide a response to the House within two weeks to all petitions presented to the House. If this provision is to work, I am sure the members will agree that petitions must be only those properly within the jurisdiction of the House and presented by petitioners who knew when they signed that they were signing a petition to the Legislature.

If frivolous petitions or petitions which are intended for individual ministers -- or on matters which are not within the jurisdiction of the House to remedy -- are continuously tabled, the whole procedure of presenting petitions, which is a very ancient and important one -- having originated in the 13th century -- will be compromised to the point where it is useless. The public petition serves as the only mechanism by which an individual or the community can directly ask Parliament to change some aspect of the general law, rectify some personal or local grievance, or reconsider a general administrative decision.

I refer you to May’s Parliamentary Practice, 19th edition, page 811, and W. F. Dawson’s Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons, page 238. The history of the modern petition actually dates from the 17th century. In 1669 the Commons passed two resolutions which constitute the legal and philosophic foundation of the modern petition.

These read as follows: “that it is the inherent right of every commoner in England to prepare and present petitions to the House of Commons in case of grievance, and the House of Commons to receive the same”; secondly, “that it is an undoubted right and privilege of the Commons to judge and determine, touching the nature and matter of such petitions, how far they are fit and unfit to be received.”

In all jurisdictions of which I am aware, petitions may be sent to the table as provided in standing order 83. If, after examination, the Speaker rules that the petition is in order, it is deemed to be received by the House, and may be read by the clerk if required as provided in standing order 85, clause b of which provides that no debate may take place at that time unless on a complaint of some urgent personal grievance requiring immediate remedy, in which case, it will be taken into consideration immediately.

As to the substance of the petition it must, as I mentioned previously, relate to a subject matter over which Parliament has some control. Hence, the House will not receive a petition relating to a matter which has been delegated to the control of another body. For example, in the House of Commons of Canada, a petition complaining that certain recommendations for the House have not been implemented by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, was held by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux to be outside the House’s purview. Moreover, a petition may not specifically ask for the expenditure of money. This principle is incorporated in our standing order 84.

In dealing with the substance of petitions, Mr. Speaker Jerome in the House of Commons of Canada recently made the following observations: “This is a representative institution and the elected representatives are the ones who should carry into this chamber opinions or reflections on the performance of the government, not messages from the outside brought in here in some other guise. A petition which seeks to place before the House the opinions of people who are not responsible elected members, ought to be viewed in accordance with the straight

interpretation.”

For the above reasons, it is my intention to receive petitions, and give myself time to study them. I anticipate that on the sitting day following the presentation of a petition by a member, I will be able to rule on the propriety of the petition. I, therefore, point out to the House that when sending a petition to the table a member should not make any comment on its contents. If and when the petition is declared to be in order, standing order 85 will then apply.

I also feel obliged to caution members that, in the past, documents purporting to be petitions have been offered to the House. These documents have, in fact, been altered after they were signed by the petitioner. I will insist that petitions be properly addressed to the House by the petitioner and that no alteration of the document takes place. My point simply is that petitioners must have known that they were petitioning Parliament, not only signing a document as an expression of views to an agency of government.

The House has gone a long way in modernizing the procedure on petitions and eliminating some of the ancient forms of speech which are still required in petitions presented to other jurisdictions. As stated, the only requirement we have really retained is that the petitioners must be aware of what they are signing and that this must be evident on the document they sign.

Finally, it appears clear to me that the House wishes to provide an avenue for the citizens of this province to address grievances directly to Parliament. The House has declared itself in this matter and it is incumbent on all of us to maintain the integrity of this procedure. I ask for the assistance and co-operation of all members.

Referring specifically to Mr. Bain’s petition tabled last Thursday, while it does not appear evident that the signers knew they were petitioning Parliament, I am giving it the benefit of the doubt on this occasion and will accept it. But I urge upon the members that in future when a petition is circulated, it indicate that it is addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly and is in fact a petition to the Legislature for the redress of a grievance. Under provisional rule 5, the government has until Monday, April 18, then to respond to this petition.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, may I make a comment on that statement and ask a question on a point of order? Since it is not a remedy that is used by members of the assembly but is a method by which the everyday citizen of the province can petition the government, would Mr. Speaker give consideration to publishing in the Ontario Gazette at least some form of specific statement showing what the form of the petition must be, similar to the detailed instructions which are given with respect to private bills? Otherwise, the citizen of the province will not know what this technical procedure may be, interesting as it may be to us in the assembly.

Mr. Speaker: I realize the difficulty. Do you wish to make a brief comment on this?

Mr. Breithaupt: I just wanted to comment as well, Mr. Speaker, that when you are considering the possible eventual reprinting of the rules of the House, as these other rules may well be included, not only the matter of an index, of which we had spoken as being possibly useful as an addition, but perhaps an example or two of a petition in the end papers of the rules of the House would be most useful.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, just before you complete your statement in this connection, since you are establishing ground rules for a procedure in this House, which we all hope will be used much more extensively than in the past, I didn’t fully understand your proscription prohibiting a petition calling for the expenditure of money. I understand, of course, that only the government or the advisers to Her Honour can introduce legislation calling for the expenditure of money, but it might very well be clear that in order to achieve redress, money would have to be spent.

For example, an easy indication would be an inadequate road system in a certain area. It may well be that money would have to be spent. I just wonder if further consideration might be given to your proscription and that in fact we might make it clear that petitioners might bring forward a petition that would call for the expenditure of money, if accepted by the government.

Mr. Speaker: We don’t want to get into a debate on this.

Mr. Godfrey: It’s important.

Mr. Speaker: I know it’s important. If all members will read and digest what I have just read, I think it might be useful. I think the suggestions which have been made, by the way, are quite reasonable. We’ll certainly try to be as helpful as we can in those regards, such as an example of a petition to the Parliament and other suggestions here. I think we can fund these. Also it might be helpful to get together on an informal basis to discuss these various things. I know I have been involved, along with the other presiding officers and the clerk’s staff, with quite a lengthy discussion on what is really meant by the word “petitions.”

As we reflect upon this, on reading the statement which I have just made and applying it to rule 5 in the new provisional order, I think we should start on that basis.

To answer the query of the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, rule 84 in our standing orders is quite clear in that regard. If there is a matter of

interpretation of what is the expenditure of public moneys, which is the next thing, I don’t think we can get into that and explain it here. But I think a little thought upon the statement will be helpful.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a constructive suggestion. The new procedural affairs committee was intended to advise on matters like this. I certainly have grave reservations about a number of the things in your statement. I fear it may put us back to where we were a couple of years ago where petitions have to be vetted by the table before they can actually be raised publicly in the House. Would it be possible for the recommendations that have been put forward to be treated as that, rather than as a ruling, and for the matter and the comments therefor thereon to be considered by the new procedural affairs committee?

Mr. Speaker: They need not be vetted by the table before they are presented. You may present them and I’ll examine them and report the next day to the House as to the propriety and reasons therefor. But I might say with the new standing order 5, petitions become very important and they must be true petitions or the process as requested and instructed by the House will break down.

Mr. Godfrey: On a point of information.

Mr. Speaker: I still think, rather than getting into a number of questions here, we should examine the statement because it’s pretty hard to grasp. It’s quite a lengthy statement. Is there anything that needs immediate clarification?

Mr. Godfrey: The problem is that there are a number of petitions, I’m sure, being signed at this very minute throughout Ontario. Are you going to rule these out?

Mr. Speaker: Well, maybe. If they’re not petitions to the House on something on which the House can properly act, then they are not true petitions. Mind you, many of the things which have been entered as petitions can be certainly handled by the House, but not under petitions, if I may say, and that can be explained at any meeting which you might decide to hold.

Mr. Deans: One point, if I may: Wouldn’t this be a suitable matter to refer to the new procedural affairs committee?

Mr. Speaker: I still think if people read the statement and think about it, a lot of questions will be answered. If further clarification is needed, I would suggest we have a meeting caucus by caucus or whatever you have to discuss the matter and explain it. Petitions are now -- and I say it again -- a very important order and they should be proper petitions, or otherwise the House cannot properly deal with them.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

TAX REFUND DISCOUNTS ACT

Mr. Davison moved first reading of Bill 15,

An Act to regulate Transactions involving the Purchase of Tax Refunds by Discount.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Davison: The purpose of this bill is to regulate certain business practices relating to the purchase of tax refunds by discount. The bill limits the amount of the discount which may be charged when a person enters a transaction of this nature. The bill requires that the person who purchases a tax refund must pay at least 95 per cent of its value to the person selling his right to the refund.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT

Mrs. Campbell moved first reading of Bill 16,

An Act to amend The Ontario Human Rights Code.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Campbell: By way of explanation, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit discrimination on the basis of an individual’s sexual orientation.

[3:45]

PUBLIC UTILITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved first reading of Bill Pr 17,

An Act to amend The Public Utilities Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to set up a review committee before a public utility can shut off water, Hydro, gas, oil or telephone. The exploding costs of gas, oil and energy, including electricity, has made it extremely difficult for many to be able to meet their bills on time.

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of Bill Pr 18,

An Act to Relieve Persons from Liability in Respect of Voluntary Emergency Medical and First Aid Services.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of The Good Samaritan Act is to relieve persons from liability in respect of voluntary emergency first aid assistance or medical services rendered at or near the scene of an accident or any other sudden emergency.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise to reply to the Throne Speech, since I suspect it will be the last opportunity before we hit the hustings sometime in 1977 to do so and therefore I’d like to set a number of matters before the House and before the government.

I’d like to start, if I may, rather than with the usual frivolity, right at the end of the Throne Speech itself and try to set a tone for the government House leader, who is here, if not the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), who wouldn’t believe me anyway. On page 29 of the Throne Speech it says, Mr. Speaker: “With dependable legislative cooperation, it can be achieved” -- meaning the programme of the government -- “by this assembly by the end of the present year.” I want the government House leader to know and to report to the Premier (Mr.

Davis) that while there will be volatile moments, from time to time in this legislative chamber -- we witnessed them this afternoon, we witnessed them last Friday morning -- by and large we on this side of the House, in the official opposition, will be positive models of co-operation.

Mr. Breithaupt: Except when he moves his amendment.

Mr. Lewis: The government cannot possibly -- except perhaps for the occasional amendment -- the government cannot possibly ask of us more co-operation than it will get. We come from that inheritance -- members may recall the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. Co-operation is an endemic, genetic part of every social democrat in this House and I want to assure the Premier, through the leader of the House, that we will certainly assist in the passage of useful and important legislation.

There are, of course, important things to do which flow from the Throne Speech. No one denies that. It would seem that, from time to time, minority government is acceptable to the people of Ontario. I myself was surprised, during a recent CBC radio noon phone-in on minority government, to find a very large number of people calling in to say that they hoped it went on virtually forever. Therefore, without prolonging it, we will not be distracted by procedural trifles, not trapped into the irrelevance of turning this place into a steaming cauldron for the sake of a challenge to the Chair or some such.

But if there is an issue which genuinely divides us, as I suspect and I’m sure there will be on more than one occasion, so be it. If that should lead to the campaign which everyone now talks about, so be it. There is neither fear nor hesitation on this side of the House if that comes about.

The Throne Speech itself, Mr. Speaker, was not bad as Throne Speeches go. I have said that before and I say it again. I guess I’ve been in this House 30 or 40 years -- so it seems -- but I’ve certainly listened to 13 or 14 Throne Speeches. As they go, consistent in their rhetorical and substantial mediocrity, this is a trifle better and I won’t cavil with that. It’s ironic that the government should receive such plaudits, even on occasion from the opposition, for simply including in a Throne Speech that which it is a job of any normal government to do.

As a matter of fact, the Throne Speech largely compensates for errors of omission which have harassed and been characteristic of this government for the last several decades.

Doesn’t it trouble the government members to be talked of in terms of decades?

Mr. Grossman: No.

Mr. Lewis: But in truth we’ll try -- no, I guess it doesn’t -- we’ll try to overcome that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It’s nice to be a part of the heritage.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I guess it is. They begin to take it for granted, don’t they; and then these trifling setbacks are always the more traumatic for it.

We will deal with a number of matters which flow specifically in the Throne Speech, and I don’t hesitate to make the acknowledgement that some of them are worthwhile.

In NDP terms -- if I may, Mr. Speaker, address the members opposite -- the Throne Speech showed two things. Number one, it showed how contained the government is in its approach and therefore how much further we would wish it to go in a number of specific and important areas. For the government, politics remain still the art of the possible -- or the art of the minimum I suppose would be more accurate. For the New Democrats, of course, politics remain the art of the reasonable. We are angelic by comparison.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The art of the impossible.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The art of the impossible.

Mr. Reid: At least he didn’t say it was the art of the rational.

Mr. Lewis: It sounds magnificently reasonable to me. I kind of like the juxtaposition, Mr. Speaker; it flows lightly off the tongue. The art of the minimum versus the art of the reasonable; I think that flows neatly and shows the differences on opposite sides of this House.

Mr. MacDonald: You’re obviously not too quick over there.

Mr. Lewis: More than that, the government Throne Speech also demonstrated a number of fundamental areas of disagreement, partly by what it included partly by what it omitted; a number of areas that evoke profound ideological difference between the official opposition and the government. That’s fine. That’s what a Throne Speech should do; and in many ways that’s what is healthy for the politics of Ontario and wouldn’t they be sad if we didn’t polarize it that way anyway, eh fellows?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Absolutely.

Mr. Lewis: So, in fact, we are accommodating them by drawing attention to the reality of politics in this province.

What I’d like to do is try to illustrate first where the differences between how far the government has gone and how far it should go are apparent in a number of specific issue areas, and then speak to various fundamentals which emerge from the speech.

First, a number of specifics, just to give you a sense of what we mean, Mr. Speaker. Number one, rent control -- or, lest I offend dear Sidney, rent review; right. He is not the only Sidney to say it was a far far better thing that you have done. In any event --

Mr. Foulds: You know what happened to him.

An hon. member: Guillotined.

Mr. Breithaupt: But not until the last moment.

Mr. Lewis: Well, what happened to him at times this Sidney would prefer. I want to submit, Mr. Speaker, it was perfectly logical for rent review and rent control to be extended, and to the extent of that logic we can support it. But isn’t it absurd that, having had the opportunity to deal again with the rent control-rent review process, the government is clearly determined simply to give an imprimatur on what already exists without taking into account some basic and useful reforms?

For example, the government could of course lower the percentage rent increase which is permissible, to follow again the wage and price guidelines which permeate the rest of the economy. It could of course lower it to six per cent. Clearly the government has already indicated that it won’t do that because it is absolutely tenacious in its ideological rigidity.

The government could also use the whole reform of rent review legislation to provide for important and fundamental administrative reforms of the process. The administrative process in rent review is a nightmare for those who experience it. In several instances, particularly as it applies to appeal, the administrative aspect comes virtually to an end. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) knew better than most to exempt himself from the field as quickly as possible. He is a relatively logical man. He can find his way from A to C via B. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr.

Handleman), on the other hand, finds it difficult finding A, let alone going beyond. As a result the administrative process in rent review is really impaired.

I want to remind the members opposite --

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: Am I going to be heckled? Is there no safety in numbers? This is what I hoped for.

I now want to read, via the Chair, to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the fascinating comment made by Brian Bucknell, the associate professor of law at Osgoode Hall, who has written the first major paper on the rent review process. You will know, Mr. Speaker, he was a tenant representative on the rent review board before he removed himself. His paper was called “Rent Review in Ontario: Policy, Politics and the Well Paved Road.” Just let me read a paragraph into the record for the edification of the House:

“While many of the policies embodied in the rent review programme are open to debate, there are two fundamental assumptions which from both a substantive and administrative point of view shaped and misshaped the whole scheme.

“The first of these assumptions was, as noted previously, that rent control could be a temporary measure, that a two-year life span for the whole programme was acceptable and that the administrative structure required by the programme could be assembled, have its work completed and be disassembled within 18 months. Obviously the decision to have a temporary scheme had no foundation in economic theory and it can only be regarded as a political response of a disaffected government to a programme which it disliked.

“The other assumption was that the rent review programme could be established and administered wholly separate from the general law of residential tenancies. Rent control is in theory inseparable from a regime of security of tenure.”

The maladministration of rent review haunts the validity of the programme. It makes it for many tenants in the province of Ontario unworkable. If the minister had one whit or spark of creative juices about him, he would use the opportunity of the extension of rent control to provide for a complete revamping of the administration of the Act. I dare say, Mr. Speaker, that that will not happen; and it is because it won’t happen that the New Democratic Party finds itself at variance, again, with the government.

I really think -- and I want to say this as genuinely as I can, because I have no ill feeling at all for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- he is the wrong minister for rent review-rent control. As a matter of fact, if I may submit to you humbly, Mr. Speaker, he is the wrong minister for anything to do with consumer protection -- anything at all, whether it’s rents or whether it’s television repairs. His refusal to consider a simple intrusion on the private marketplace to protect consumers from illegitimate private behaviour makes this often unworkable; and it leads to the minister’s own lovable eccentricities, which then govern, piously, the programmes we implement.

Making the member for Carleton Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is almost as silly as making the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) Minister of Revenue. In both instances it simply doesn’t make sense.

[4:00]

The second specific I want to draw attention to -- not to mention beer at the ball game, which I wouldn’t let past my lips for fear, either.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What, the beer or the comment?

Mr. Lewis: The second point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, relates to the alleged programme in the Throne Speech to stimulate rental accommodation and to continue the government’s increase of the building of low-income family housing. We’ve heard so often in Throne Speeches the stimulating of rental accommodation it seems hardly necessary to pay it heed now. I can only say that we will wait with appropriate anxiety what the government is going to do, although its actions have belied its words a thousand times before. In terms of the significant pretensions --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You haven’t got an envelope yet? Didn’t you get an envelope yet?

Mr. Lewis: No, I haven’t but I will. I will and I’ll see the programme.

In terms of the pretentions over the building of low-income family housing I also want to remind the government how little the facts jibe with the rhetoric in the Throne Speech. It talks about increasing the continued increase of low-income family housing. Can I remind the government of something? Before the Ministry of Housing was formed we were building low-income family units in Ontario -- socially assisted housing -- at somewhere between 2,000 and 8,000 units a year. Then we created the Ministry of Housing, in October, 1973. In 1974 we built 494 units of socially assisted family housing for all of Ontario. In 1975 we built 474 units; and in 1976 we built 202 units for all of Ontario.

Mr. MacDonald: Shame.

Interjection.

Mr. Lewis: The minister doesn’t think that’s valid? The figures come from his ministry. Those figures are for low-income, socially assisted housing.

Mr. Cassidy: They’re right on, and you know it.

Mr. Lewis: That doesn’t include the senior citizens’ housing, which is a separate component, in which he also hasn’t been making any great strides.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What else?

Mr. Lewis: What else?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Go ahead, there must be more.

Mr. Lewis: No, that’s it.

Mr. MacDonald: How much more devastating do you want it to be?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing will have an opportunity to enter into the Throne Speech debate later on.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: On a point of order --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s a matter of judgement, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My apologies.

Mr. Lewis: Your apologies are accepted -- on behalf of the Speaker. I want to remind the minister --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have always known the Deputy Speaker to be a man who could speak for himself. He doesn’t need the Leader of the Opposition to speak for him.

Mr. Lewis: The Leader of the Opposition is a close enough friend of the Deputy Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Davis: In fact, if you listened to him more often you guys would be better off.

Mr. Lewis: -- to know when to be cautious. I see him in a reasonable mood and I am taking advantage of it while it exists, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Just don’t press.

Mr. Lewis: Fair enough. I simply ask the Minister of Housing, therefore, if he’d like to document and refute the facts by all means, but in socially assisted, low-income family housing, his record has been dreadful. It speaks volumes about his ministry.

As a matter of fact, it might as well be said now: the Minister is turning OHC administration over to the municipalities; he is selling HOME land to the private sector as fast as he can; he’s reducing the number of houses that he can build generally; he’s tying himself into the federal programmes -- AHOP in particular -- so that the province has very little involvement. The minister is dismantling the Ministry of Housing with an adroit facility. He is in fact making himself a minister without portfolio.

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: The only thing desirable about it is that the people didn’t suffer.

Mr. Lewis: The third point I wanted to make to the Premier, just in a brief review of some of the ingredients of the Throne Speech, has to do with the royal commission on the freedom of information and individual privacy. Again, as in rent, as in housing, it’s another missed opportunity.

And if I may say, earnestly, to the Premier, it just doesn’t make sense. The government has all kinds of laws to choose from, and what we are receiving on this side of the House and in the public in general, is the beneficence of a government that is unwilling to share what it regards as secrets. This is in fact -- if I may respectfully say through the Speaker -- a very secretive government. Its members think that government secrecy is somehow the art of politics; it is, of course, the bane of democracy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not at all. We are interested in some measure of privacy.

Mr. Lewis: I appreciate the measures of privacy, that need not deny freedom of information. I want to remind the government, since I see the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) shaking her head, I want to remind the minister and her colleagues how long the government sat on that report on residential treatment for children before it was publicly released. If the ministry wants to understand --

Mr. Breithaupt: Twenty months.

Mr. Lewis: -- the feelings of those on this side of the House about whether or not it is genuine in what was advanced today, one need only put it in the context of the absolutely indefensible secrecy which the government tolerated for 15 months.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It really is silly.

Mr. Lewis: I hope, through you to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that this commission will mean something. My colleagues the members for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and Wentworth (Mr. Deans) found it a matter of some irony that the man chosen to head the commission, Dr. Carlton Williams, past president of Western University, was during the time of his tenure one of the people who refused to give information to the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism when it asked for it; and that makes one worry just a little about the nature of the commission.

May I say to the Premier, as gently as I can, I think he knows that I have, and my party has, complimented the government on certain appointments. Whether it was Arthur Porter or Arthur Maloney, on very many occasions we congratulated the government on the appointment. May I say this appointment is one of its lesser marvels. I say no more than that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is too bad, because he is a very able person and will do extremely well.

Mr. Peterson: The Leader of the Opposition is very wrong. He is very wrong.

Mr. Foulds: Not in that field.

Mr. Peterson: If he knew the man he would change his mind.

Mr. Lewis: If the commission turns out to be an excellent commission, I’ll accept it.

Mr. Speaker, the next point I want to deal with in terms of the items --

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of information, I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition could tell us as to the extent of the freedom of information Acts in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, how far-reaching they are --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Or British Columbia.

An hon. member: What about Alberta?

Mr. Lewis: May I proceed now, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t feel constrained to answer. I don’t know if there is a freedom of information Act in Manitoba or Saskatchewan. I wouldn’t really wish to prolong it --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question is out of order, unless you specifically accept it.

It is something which the government could have won from this House easily and willingly; and it is an example, again, of the difference between the extent to which the government is prepared to proceed and the extent to which we in the opposition think it ought to proceed. I am sorrier than I can say that on this matter the ministry was unwilling to take its courage in its hands for the sake of whatever opulent carrot it is prepared to offer the various school boards.

But why was it that we have to have, instead, a vague reference to a heritage language programme when we might have done this kind of thing specifically? Not to mention, in other parts of the province like the northern parts, an amendment to The Education Act which could have provided for Cree and Ojibway to be put on a similar footing.

And further, Mr. Speaker, there might have been a specific initiative in the Throne Speech which spoke to the experience of teachers in the various education colleges, in order to provide teachers from a much wider multiplicity of backgrounds to teach, not to mention providing a sensitivity to some of the more difficult problems.

In the midst of the present crisis in the country, Mr. Speaker, none of us can afford to forget the wealth and variety of languages and cultures which make the composite of Ontario. It would have been nice to see something other than the facile reference to heritage languages in the Throne Speech. That’s something, again, where we would like to take the government rather further than it was prepared to go.

It is, I guess, worth pointing out that these are the same groups of people, largely immigrant groups of people, who are experiencing enormous economic problems at this point in time. I judge an absolutely disproportionate number are unemployed, with terrific inflationary pressure to boot; and one senses the need for a demonstration of faith contained in the Throne Speech. It was not there.

Number six, Mr. Speaker, I might like to make reference to what was tabled today in the Legislature in the consolidation of children’s services in the province of Ontario and the striking of a provincial authority. I am not willing to cavil, nor do I want to get into the argument about who was responsible for bringing it --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well they weren’t, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: -- but I can remember back to debates in this Legislature when William Davis was a mere Minister of Education --

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: -- in the middle 1960s, when the therapeutic environments for emotionally disturbed children were discussed most heatedly. I have often wondered to myself since, and I’d like to pursue it when the bill is actually introduced, what went wrong. I have a feeling that we concentrated our energies with such focus on young children that we forgot the adolescent range.

We did provide some important social changes for kids of six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11; it was really quite fundamental and quite dramatic and quite important. But somehow the pressure of the disturbed adolescent in Ontario society escaped this legislative forum; things went from bad to worse, as a result of the enormous proliferation of statutes -- group homes, therapeutic settings, whether it was a psychiatric hospital, a Thistletown, a children’s boarding home, a children’s institution, a centre under The Children’s Mental Health Centres Act -- and then the residential report chronicled it all.

[4:15]

We have on this side of the House some anxieties about what the government has introduced. We have some considerable anxiety about how long it seems it is going to take before the local or regional groups get together to decide on rationalizing the system, sorting it out and finding the money to pay. We will be pressing very hard to get some details about that. But I want to put to the minister, because I know she is genuine in this, something that worries me personally even more greatly, although I suppose it isn’t the kind of thing on which one bases opposition to the principle. I have a feeling, intuitive but firm, that we have chosen the wrong ministry.

One of the reasons that we have had this incredible consequence of children in trouble in Ontario flows directly from the previous Department of Social and Family Services, which was completely inadequate to deal with it. The minister may recall that the reason we set up The Children’s Mental Health Centres Act under the Ministry of Health was because the Department of Social and Family Services was utterly incapable of dealing with it. They never seemed to have the capacity or the apparatus. I think that was partly because it is seen as a welfare ministry, and I guess it will never be seen otherwise.

I have heard nothing but positive things about Judge Thomson, for example, from all those I have talked to. And I understand that the civil service appointment from Management Board -- is it Barnes or whoever? -- is a go-getter, an active person; so maybe there will be reasonable administration. But I really wonder about the competence of Comsoc, whether it is under the present minister or anybody else, to handle it.

I want to remind the minister that when we moved mental retardation from Health into Comsoc it was an utter disaster. Not only did we have to have an inquiry into Huronia shortly after, but no one can persuade anybody in this province who is knowledgeable that that ministry has adequately handled the mentally retarded or that services in the community have been provided, as the member for Brock (Mr. Welch), when he was Provincial Secretary for Social Development, promised in his now infamous green paper or white paper, or whatever the devil it was. One worries about that ministry.

I would have thought in the best of all possible worlds -- and we think in terms of the best of all possible worlds over here -- that Education might have been the place. An educational environment is really what you want for these kids -- not in the strict learning sense, but in the sense that if kids are identified earlier, responded to through the educational process, and integrated early, then you don’t have to set up separate institutional arrangements for them.

By setting up a children’s authority, a separate division, in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, I wonder whether we are doing anyone a favour ultimately. I understand the politics of it. I understand the difficulty of it. I am expressing a grave personal reservation. I worry about all of the implications. I look at the rest of the programmes in Comsoc and, honest to God, I don’t know how the children will not be defiled by the inadequacy of the rest of the ministry. With all of the best will in the world, the whole inheritance of that ministry, precludes an appropriate setting.

But I don’t know what one does, other than to register as strongly as I can what would have made more sense; and politics often becomes the art of what is essentially common sense.

The other thing I want to put to you, Mr. Speaker, is this question of the new occupational health and safety statute. It is the last specific item I would like to make reference to that flows from the Throne Speech. Again, who would dispute it? But if I may say to the House leader, and to the Premier in the wings, we in this caucus are increasingly worried about the way in which occupational health is still being dealt with, despite the alleged successes or advances we have made.

For example, may I ask, plaintively, where is the occupational health institute that was promised by this government in the last throes of the 1975 election campaign? And why the devil don’t we have it? Does not the government yet recognize that an occupational health institute of that kind is absolutely indispensable to do the kind of scientific and educational range of work without which individual statutes are of only modest use or modest application?

Because there hasn’t been a focus -- because the government has refused to entertain that vehicle which could have said something to the world -- then, if I may, I submit there are a number of matters arising which worry many of us greatly.

Why are we having the perversion of Bill 139, which was passed in good faith in this House? How is it that the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) is prepared to side with the International Nickel Company over the question of whether or not a worker has a right to leave a place which he or she believes to be unsafe?

I mean, we passed it in the House in good faith. Nobody ever believed in this Legislature -- never--that a worker who left a job because he believed on reasonable grounds that it was unsafe, would then be sent home without pay and that some other worker, who could be dragooned into it, would step in to do the job. No one thought that that would be the

interpretation of the legislation in this House.

That’s a breaking of faith. It’s a breaking of faith in the field of occupational health on the part of the Minister of Labour. And it is simply unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.

Why this instinctive wish to close out the media to the public hearings that were being held on the new omnibus bill? It again bespeaks the same frame and attitude of mind which still worries about whe