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

June 15, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L087 - Thu 15 Jun 1978 / Jeu 15 jun 1978

PROPERTY TAXATION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BURSARIES PROGRAM

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEWS

VISITORS

PARLIAMENTARY INTERNS

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENT REVIEW

PENSION FUNDS

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

ESL PROGRAMS

PREMIUM ASSISTANCE

BURSARIES PROGRAM

MILK SUPPLIES

NORTH BAY PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

COLUMBUS MCKINNON LIMITED

MANITOULIN ISLAND JAIL

JURORS’ UIC PAYMENTS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

WASTE DISPOSAL

REPORTS

STANDING STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

MOTIONS

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

POLY AIRE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

SIMCOE DAY ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

SIMCOE DAY ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. M. Davidson: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: More delay.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. M. Davidson: On Monday, June 12 during question period, when questions were being asked of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) regarding property taxation, I rose on a supplementary question. Hansard has recorded that question as having been asked by the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson). I simply raise the matter to have the record corrected.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am sure the member for London Centre will appreciate it.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BURSARIES PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would like to advise the House that in conjunction with my colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), who is in Sault Ste. Marie today, we are re-establishing a bursary program to aid our efforts to correct the imbalance of doctors and dentists in our northern communities.

Mr. S. Smith: They are perfectly well balanced up there.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is only in southern Ontario where they may not be. The imbalance is in Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Starting in September of this year, the government will offer 50 bursaries of $3,000 annually to medical students and 15 of the same value to dental students to help them through their last one or two years of undergraduate studies. University administrators will have details of the program in September, and we will advise interested students of the application procedure.

In return, the students will undertake after graduation to spend an equivalent length of time, that is one or two years, in either an underserviced area or in one of our mobile dental coaches. In the event they are unable or unwilling to carry out their commitment of service, they will be required to repay the bursary plus interest. Interest will be payable from the date of receiving the bursary.

Within the next few days I will be advising the medical and dental schools in Ontario of the specific details of the bursary program, which will be administered by my ministry. Members will recall that my ministry operated a similar bursary program from 1969 to 1973 to deal with a deficit of doctors and dentists in some areas of the north at that time.

The program was successful and provided 120 doctors and 30 dentists for underserviced areas. It was discontinued because trends at the time indicated that sufficient doctors and dentists were trying to locate in the north. Recently, however, doctors and dentists have been leaving some smaller communities and the re-establishment of this program will help to provide replacements for them.

A particular problem which we will focus on is the recruitment of French-speaking medical and dental students because some French-speaking communities have difficulty attracting bilingual doctors and dentists. This program will cost a total of $195,000 per year and is one of two programs my ministry operates to attract health-care personnel to underserviced areas. The other, called our Underserviced Area Program, involves financial incentives or guaranteed professional incomes for doctors and dentists who serve in certain designated areas.

The funds for this program are being provided from the regional priorities budget of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, which last year provided my ministry with funds for five new mobile dental coaches. These well-equipped mobile van clinics are staffed by professional personnel and serve the communities of Ignace, Elk Lake, Beardmore, Hornepayne and Chapleau.

These two programs, the bursaries and the dental coaches, are good examples of the coordinating role of the Ministry of Northern Affairs and its use of the regional priority budget to overcome special problems of residents of northern Ontario.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEWS

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, when the government received the report from Dr. Henry Mayo and William Archer on local government in the regions of Ottawa-Carleton and Niagara, it was clear that their recommendations were matters of intense concern to local people and that much discussion and debate would and should ensue before even the first action on the reports could properly be taken by the government. This, after all, was the purpose of the reviews. In the ample time provided, a great deal of local response was in fact received before the government released its white papers.

At that time, I felt that a further month would be sufficient for discussion and consultation on the selected positions taken in the white papers.

This has not proven to be the case. While there is substantial agreement on some parts of the limited package presented in the white papers, other issues remain deeply contentious. The government would prefer, therefore, that more time be allowed for local discussion of these issues before taking any legislative action. It is the government’s hope that in the near future, sufficient consensus will exist to permit introduction of legislation on those matters covered in the white papers and possibly some matters --

Mr. Roy: Backing off again.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- not covered in them on which there is a will to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, when the report of the Hamilton-Wentworth Region Review Commission was released, impressed on all of us was the urgent need to settle quickly the question of the region’s government. The review had been commissioned to examine the system of government in Hamilton-Wentworth in order to dispel the atmosphere of confusion and doubt that has characterized this particular regional government in the past year. The commission concluded that the two real options for Hamilton-Wentworth were to retain the two-tiered system or implement a one-tier system for the same area.

According to the commission, its major recommendation for a fundamental restructuring to a single-tier municipal government was formulated as the alternative that will best serve the goals of strong and efficient local government.

In the short time since the release of the Stewart report, I have been impressed by the volume of the response and by the many thoughtful and reasoned viewpoints expressed, both by citizens and their elected representatives. Nevertheless, a dichotomy of perspectives continues to exist in the region and no consensus has emerged to indicate to the government that legislation to implement a one-tier government is appropriate now.

The government’s decision therefore, Mr. Speaker, is to take no action at this time with regard to Hamilton-Wentworth.

Mr. Bradley: Complete inertia.

Mr. Laughren: A familiar refrain from you, Darcy. No action McKeough.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have concluded there may be merit in giving the existing two-tier system --

Mr. Cassidy: The minister of inaction.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- more time to evolve and mature and to allow all parties more time to study the commission’s detailed recommendations for reform.

One widely held view in response to the Stewart report was that the real problems of the region can be worked out within the existing framework. For now, then, we look to the elected representatives for their undertaking to work together to determine appropriate measures which will improve the functioning of the region. We would be prepared, at their request, to discuss suitable changes which may be necessary to effect improvements in the existing system; or, if experience shows that fundamental changes are necessary, to put the appropriate measures into effect.

VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the honourable members that we have some special guests seated in Your Honour’s gallery this afternoon in the person of 20 youthful Scottish exchange students who are paying a visit to our province and to our Legislative Assembly this afternoon. I would like to invite the honourable members to join me in welcoming these young persons and their tutors to this country.

PARLIAMENTARY INTERNS

Mr. Speaker: In keeping with that sentiment, I would like to call the attention of all honourable members to the fact that we have had 14 young parliamentary interns working for various members and caucuses for the past four and a half weeks and I am advised that tomorrow is their last day. As a gesture of hands across the border they asked if it would be possible to have their names entered into the record in Hansard, and so I am going to do that.

Under the supervision of Dr. Helen M. Graves, who is the assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan, the 14 young interns, who are under the Speaker’s gallery, are as follows: Michael Schwartz, Russell Carniak, Robert Coates, John Gillies, Hal Sargent, Kathy Babcock, Ann Lawton, Helene Nadjuk, Nicole Paron, Marcie Blumenthal, Nikkie Kilpatrick, Alice Pasqualini, Elizabeth Silverman and Richard Roosen.

It has been a pleasure having you.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENT REVIEW

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr. Speaker: In his statement of March 31, at page 1083 of Hansard, when discussing the committee on rent review, the minister said this “will give us time to move into the legislative drafting stage, implementing the general principles approved by that committee . . .” and “I hope to be able to announce the specifics of at least the government’s intention, reflecting the desires of the Assembly as expressed through the standing committee’s deliberations.”

Given those statements, can the minister state whether he intends to implement the recommendations of the standing general government committee’s report on rent review which have been made known through press reports, which I gather follow pretty closely our party’s position and which all members of the committee are alleged to have signed?

Mr. Cassidy: Which position is this?

Mr. Foulds: Which one? Today’s or tomorrow’s?

Mr. Rotenberg: Wait for it.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the minister going to keep to his commitment of March 31 and will he be bringing forward legislation to implement those recommendations?

Mr. Rotenberg: Why don’t you wait for the report?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will wait until the report is tabled, which I understand may be after question period today --

An hon. member: All you have to do is read the Star and ask the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner).

Mr. Bradley: There’s no honour among thieves.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- in order that I may assess the report itself and decide what action the government will take, whether we will respond directly to the majority report, or perhaps the Hall report or the Campbell report or the Breithaupt report or the Epp report; or whatever comes out of those deliberations.

Mr. Makarchuk: You guys asked for that one.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since the minister knows full well that he will learn in a few moments the report was signed by all members and is quite unanimous, will he stay by his promise of March 31 that he would bring in legislation which would implement the general principles approved by that committee? That’s a promise he made on March 31. Is there any reason why he should wish now to weaken that particular promise?

Mr. Roy: The minister might as well back off again, he has the example of Darcy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the honourable member will give us an opportunity to read that report, I think I will be in a position to make a statement to the House tomorrow morning. For those members who will hear it tomorrow morning, I will make a full statement to the House on our intentions. I can assure the member generally that of course I, like the rest of the government, live up to all our promises.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) won’t hear it.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister agree that unlike the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party has been absolutely consistent on this issue --

Mr. Bradley: Consistently bad.

Mr. S. Smith: Hurrah for you, Michael.

Mr. Cassidy: -- that we have fought from the very beginning to get a continuation of rent review on a continuing basis to protect tenants of this province; and that it’s because of the initiative taken by my party that the Liberal Party has finally found out the right action and has swung into line?

[2:15]

Mr. Rotenberg: You’re consistent in leaking to the press. You’re consistent in taking everything to the press, that’s your only consistency.

Mr. Martel: Why don’t you crawl back into your hole?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The NDP has been consistent -- and certainly the party whip has worked more effectively than the Liberal Party’s whip -- but it hasn’t been any more creative than the Liberal Party either.

Mr. Roy: You’ll have to borrow Cassidy’s roller skates.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s all we can say about what you have done, Larry -- you’ve been creative.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question which I guess pertains both to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and also to the provincial Treasurer. I’ll try the Minister of CCR first.

Will the minister move as rapidly as possible to make employee representation on pension boards of private companies mandatory, so that employees are aware of and can influence decisions on their own pension plans? Will he also make mandatory the inclusion of an actuarial statement with each annual report of private companies, stating the position of the fund, the extent of the liability and the assumption upon which liability calculations and contributions are based?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I, of course, wouldn’t be prepared at this time to give a commitment to do any of those things without doing what I guess on this side of the House we put a high priority on, and that is first having extensive dialogue with all the people involved --

Ms. Gigantes: Dilly dally.

Mr. Roy: Get an expensive report.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- the companies, the pension funds, the persons running them, and the employees involved.

Mr. Pope: Who refers everything to committees?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We put that as a high priority and we will have that dialogue.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Since it is fully within the capacity of the Legislature to have committee hearings on any proposed legislation and to have all the dialogue necessary, and since I assume that the minister must surely be aware of the very serious rumours of unfunded liabilities which presently exist in both public and private pension funds, I would have thought these dialogues would have taken place already.

Will the minister give this House some commitment that this is under active study and that we will have some legislation to give employees representation and to make public disclosure mandatory so that we will all know where we stand? Will he bring such legislation forward, at the very latest in the fall of this year?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, the member is aware that the royal commission on pensions is looking into the entire area and all aspects of pensions. I don’t think it would be appropriate for us to unilaterally come out at this time and undermine the work of that royal commission at this particular time.

Mr. Blundy: Tell that to the Prestolite employees who are losing their pension funds.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s just foolish to suggest that. May I further say that one of the things the private sector is telling us all the time is that it has to be in a position to have some reliability and some predictability on what government is going to do.

Mr. Roy: You can’t rely on McKeough for that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: When you set up a royal commission and you tell the private sector, the public at large and the employees that this is the forum in which these matters are going to be discussed, then it is obviously incumbent upon us, barring a crisis, to let that process play out. That’s what it’s all about. With respect, for a party such as the Liberal Party, which is falling over itself in trying to capture that part of the electorate, the private sector, and play up to private enterprise and free enterprise -- all of which is quite properly the territory of this party, I am happy to say --

Mr. S. Smith: You are getting nervous, aren’t you?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- for that party, in an attempt to curry favour with that sector, to now say that unilaterally, without dialogue, without waiting for the royal commission to report, we should just slap on legislation isn’t going to help it a heck of a lot as it tumbles down that road, fast on what it has done with the landlords just recently.

Mr. Bradley: That’s just what we need, a lecture from you.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question to the minister, because of the fear which may be created in people’s minds because of the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition, will the minister now give a categorical assurance that none of the persons who may become entitled to pensions in the private or the public sector is in any jeopardy at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can phrase it in this way: The superintendent of pensions has not reported any critical cases to me since I have been in this job.

On the basis of that track record, I feel very safe in presuming that there is no imminent crisis upon us and no one is in that position.

I will, however, for the benefit not only of the House but of course, all those who have pensions which they may be concerned about -- perhaps unnecessarily throughout the results of this exchange -- check again with the superintendent of pensions and perhaps report as early as tomorrow morning, if possible.

Mr. Roy: How can the minister stand there and try to posture as a defender of the consumer, when he will not give an undertaking to my leader, and in fact he will let some of the consumers sit on board and have some input in pension plans?

How can the minister stand there and say that private enterprise in this province is looking for some predictability of government when one of his leaders, the Treasurer, stood up in this House in the last three or four days and backed off on every report he has commissioned in this province over the last two years?

Mr. Stong: Unreliable.

Mr. Makarchuk: Darcy’s great flexibility; Flexible Darcy, they call him.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What has been occurring in some of those instances -- all of which the Treasurer has very carefully outlined and explained -- of course to a very large extent results from carrying on the very type of dialogue this government likes to undertake prior to legislation, and obviously dialogue sometimes results in a situation in which you don’t proceed.

Mr. Roy: Now he’s defending the Treasurer. He is backtracking and he knows it.

Mr. Martel: A one-tripper.

An hon. member: Do you realize the Treasurer thinks your defence is the kiss of death?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member’s party and leader, on the other hand, would prefer to go to legislation and talk later; have the dialogue later and then come back and rectify mistakes. We don’t think that is the way to govern.

Mr. Roy: We will give leadership here. The minister’s party has lost its will to govern over there.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Fiddle. You don’t know what you are talking about.

Mr. Wildman: In his investigations, would the minister check with the superintendent of insurance on the Prestolite matter, where it is rumoured there is an unfunded liability in the range of $5 million in that pension plan? If that is the case, will he look at the provisions of the American legislation which requires at least one-third funding for any pension plan like this?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will look into Prestolite and will be pleased to report to the member.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Energy arising out of the discussions of the last couple of days about the --

Mr. Yakabuski: Not again.

Mr. Cassidy: -- proposed increase in allowable radiation standards which have been put forward by the interorganizational working group, a committee of which Ontario Hydro and the AECB are, apparently, members.

The proposal would raise the allowable exposure to 100 rads from the present 25. I want to point out that 10 rads causes temporary sterility; 250 rads would kill half of the population if people were exposed to that level.

In other words, it is a serious increase in the exposure level.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Cassidy: When did Ontario Hydro discover that Ontario reactors could not meet the 25 rad safety standard in the case of an accident; and why is it that nobody at Ontario Hydro notified the Porter commission of these findings?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It depends on the intensity and the length of the period of exposure.

Mr. Renwick: He will answer the second part first.

Mr. McClellan: Let Stephenson answer; she knows the answer.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Involved in that question were two or three premises that I cannot accept.

The premise that 25 rads is not safe is a premise which has not been accepted by the scientists involved.

Ms. Gigantes: What about 100?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The whole study of the interorganizational working group that the honourable leader of the third party has referred to has been looking in detail at this very complex and scientific subject. They presented their first draft reports to the Atomic Energy Control Board some months ago; and also to the reactor safety advisory committee, which is a group made up of scientists and people coming from industry and from government and from universities and so on. They are now working on their second draft.

They have also told the Porter commission that this work was under way. To imply strongly in this House, as has been done just now, that Ontario Hydro is now operating at an unsafe level is most unfortunate. On a subject which is of such great public importance, I would hope that we in this House would try our best not to make a very volatile subject even more inflammatory.

Mr. Martel: You told us that about Denison too.

Mr. Laughren: Where is your responsibility?

Ms. Gigantes: You have blinkers on.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I would hope we would keep the alarmist talk down.

We all owe that to the people of Canada and to the people of Ontario.

I can only assure the leader of the third party that Ontario Hydro operates today, as it always has, under the Atomic Energy Control Board’s safety standards. Until those standards are changed, we are operating safely. Even Dr. Porter said the other day that he would live outside any of the generating reactors.

Mr. Martel: You told us there was no danger at Elliot Lake either. We got all the platitudes like that then as well.

Mr. Laughren: We have heard that before.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will the minister confirm that Ontario Hydro has established that it cannot operate in the case of serious accidents within the 25-rad safety standard, and has, therefore, participated in recommending a 100-rad safety standard? Will he also confirm that, while the 25-rad standard could be marginally dangerous to people who were suffering that exposure, the 100-rad standard is very substantially dangerous in the event that anyone was exposed to that level of radiation?

Mr. Laughren: We have learned the hard way.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I regret once again that there are premises and implications in that question which I simply cannot accept. It is true that Ontario Hydro, along with Quebec Hydro and others in the nuclear energy field, is participating in this study dealing with the radiation safety question.

Mr. Laughren: They have a vested interest.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Until such time as that committee has done its work and until the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada has made its decision, we have every assurance they are operating at a reasonable and safe level.

I think it would be most unfortunate and inaccurate if we were to perpetuate the kind of feeling here that until such time as that report comes out from AECB we are living in a very hazardous situation.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: For purposes of clarification, I wonder if the minister would check the terminology of that report to establish whether we’re talking about rads or rems or whatever, because there is a very distinguishable difference. It would be a good idea to make sure the statement itself is accurate.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I would be pleased to respond to that. The committee itself is dealing with principles and criteria which are being established, which have been established and which may be amended, governing a number of safety features, including the famous acronym rad, which is radioactive something or other.

Mr. Breaugh: Use the technical term “hot stuff.”

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I’ll get the correct term.

Mr. Martel: And you want us to believe you know the answer?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I will make sure that all members get the report, once the Atomic Energy Control Board has approved it, it will be public knowledge. We also understand it will be written in language which the general public can understand.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: Is the minister telling us or denying the report that Ontario Hydro is participating in a study which is going significantly to loosen safety standards? Is there a yes or a no to that? If so, would he please table for our information the information on which Ontario Hydro is arguing the case so that the Atomic Energy Control Board will loosen its standards, and then he can come and tell us that it’s all right because the Atomic Energy Control Board says so?

[3:30]

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Once again, there are premises and implications in that question I just can’t agree with. Ontario Hydro is participating in this study, as it should. I think this is a responsible act on their particular part.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister think increased radiation is a good thing?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: But the member must wait until the Atomic Energy Board of Canada has taken a look at it and also until the --

Mr. Cassidy: They wouldn’t.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- reactor safety advisory committee which is made up of the best scientists and engineers in the country, has looked at it.

Mr. Warner: Why doesn’t the minister ask them himself?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Once they have looked at it and come back members get that report, and so will we.

Mr. Foulds: The AECB says increased radiation is a good thing.

ESL PROGRAMS

Mr. Speaker, I’ll turn my question over to the Minister of Education, who has just come into the House. That will leave the Provincial Secretary for Social Development off the hook, I might say. I’ll start again.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We had a very thorough discussion about this particular matter during the estimates.

Ms. Gigantes: But no answers.

Ms. Gigantes: They’re your criteria.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m not saying they’re right or they’re wrong; however, based on their figures, there was a decline this year in the number of students who should be in these classes.

Mr. McClellan: The minister knows why that is.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Therefore, applying the formula in the way the Metropolitan Toronto School Board does, it needs fewer teachers. I’m not saying whether that formula is right or whether the definition of who falls into this category is right.

Mr. McClellan: That’s the problem, the minister knows it’s the definition.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The fact is there has been a decline; therefore, using their formula, they find they need fewer teachers this year than they did last year.

Mr. McClellan: None. He doesn’t have any.

Mr. Cassidy: None.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think we have the assurance and the faith in the integrity of those people who are elected, as we are elected, to the area school hoards and the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and who take their jobs as seriously as we do, that they will do what is best for those students in Metropolitan Toronto. I believe that they wish, just as sincerely, to be as sure those programs and teachers are available, as those of us who are elected to this Legislature do.

I don’t have any legislative procedure, but I do have a procedure to pass that money on to the Metro school board --

Ms. Gigantes: To wash your hands.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- then I believe that those ladies and gentlemen, working with the problem they have before them, will be sure the money is spent in the areas where it should be spent.

Ms. Gigantes: By the minister’s definition.

Mr. Foulds: How did they qualify?

Mr. Cassidy: So the grants will go down next year. Is that right?

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s beyond my control --

Mr. Foulds: Most things are.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Bellwoods with a final supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: Final supplementary? Mr. Speaker, why do you always change the rule when I stand up.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: Does the minister not agree that since he funds the ESL program it is within his power to establish the criteria for funding which would give a broad definition to ESL, incorporating all kids who need ESL programs and not just children who were born abroad? May I ask the minister why be doesn’t revise his criteria to require that kind of a definition?

Hon. Mr. Wells: As I said a few minutes ago, I think that’s a reasonable suggestion to look at. But my friend shouldn’t ever forget that there are also people elected a lot closer to the local community than he and I, who were elected specifically to look after the educational needs of the community.

Mr. Foulds: Speak for yourself.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We all talk in this House about these people having the autonomy and the power to make some of these decisions. They are the ones who have to make some of these decisions, and it behoves us sometimes to believe that they have the sense to make the right decisions.

Mr. Grande: To whom are they accountable?

Mr. McClellan: You know it’s the right thing to do; you should just do it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for London Centre with a spanking new question.

PREMIUM ASSISTANCE

Mr. Peterson: Thank you very kindly, Mr. Speaker. I would take the liberty of informing you now, sir, that there’s the possibility of a supplementary. I would beg your indulgence for at least one.

To the Minister of Health: Why, in applying for temporary premium assistance under

section 24 of the Health Act, are all applicants compelled to give full details of their liquid assets without being informed of the upper limits of such assets which would preclude eligibility from such assistance?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. As the member was reading that question, it didn’t come across clearly. Was he asking about why they are asked about liquid assets?

Mr. J. Reed: That’s about the way you read them.

Mr. Peterson: I would like to rephrase my original question in view of the Minister of Health’s medical problem, not understanding it. The question is, why does the ministry not reveal to an applicant for temporary premium assistance, even though it requires a financial statement from him, what are the upper limits of his financial status which would preclude his being eligible for this assistance? Why doesn’t the ministry tell him the rules?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will check into the procedure. I don’t review all the applications, obviously, but I would assume that when the procedures were established it was on the basis that those who need it will get it; those who don’t, won’t.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: In fact, there are no rules about who needs it and who doesn’t need it. No one can apply unless the ministry has responded that yes, there are rules.

Let me read a letter from Mr. Hope, head of the pay-direct enrolment: “It was decided by OHIP that the upper limits for temporary assistance criteria may not be made available to the general public.” Why does the ministry keep this secret? As there is an appeal, why does the ministry not let people know the rules from which they can appeal?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On the question of appeals generally, I have made it clear to my staff repeatedly -- in fact there were one or two things that came to light recently -- that in all matters where appeals are available we must develop -- and this is under way -- set forms or letters or whatever. These are to go to people if they are denied something to tell them that they do have the right of appeal.

Mr. Roy: Secrecy though -- respond to the secrecy.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That was made very clear and will be cleaned up where it is deficient.

Mr. Peterson: But the applicant doesn’t know; how can he possibly appeal?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I said I would check into the matter. I don’t receive the applications to review them, but the taxable income criteria are very clearly spelled out. I’ll check all the other information to see if it is deficient in any way.

BURSARIES PROGRAM

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health with reference to his statement regarding the bursary program for medical doctors: The statement implies there will be a three- or four-year delay before any doctors are coming onstream as a result of this program. How does the minister plan to deal with the immediate program of shortage of medical people in northern Ontario which in some areas is acute right today?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the first benefits of this reinstatement of the bursary program will be within a year. I pointed out that it is for the last one or two years of study so we will start to get people coming out of the schools within about a year. Secondly, I would point out that the underserviced area program has been extremely successful. We are reinstituting this as an aid to that program.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Not in all areas.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It isn’t always perfect but I think our record in terms of the number of vacancies at any point in time has been extremely good.

Mr. Martel: Except if you are in those communities that don’t have doctors.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t recall receiving any letters from the honourable member about particular communities, but if he cares to let me know, then we can get Dr. Copeman and his staff working on them. But I think if one looks at places like Chapleau, for instance -- it’s not that far from Sudbury --

Mr. Martel: Just on the outskirts.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: --

whereas I recall, there were two doctors --

Mr. Martel: Three hundred miles.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member keeps telling me that in the north that is close.

Mr. Martel: Just a jaunt in the morning.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s right. Might keep in shape.

Mr. Martel: You might jog there some day.

Mr. Wildman: What about Dubreuilville?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have been very successful maintaining services there. We recognize for a variety of reasons we are facing problems in the future. To meet those problems before they get too acute we have reinstituted this program to assist the under-serviced area program.

Mr. Martel: I hope you make a tour to the north.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary: He motivated me to ask the next question. Is the minister aware that the only neurosurgeon we have in the city of Sudbury is leaving town and we are left without a neurosurgeon for a large population such as that?

Mr. Conway: Send Elgie.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am very well aware of that, and that was the prime reason I was motivated to indicate that a CAT scanner will be allocated to Sudbury. It is obvious in this day and age you are not going to get a neurosurgeon back to Sudbury without that particular diagnostic tool. That is why I did it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: In view of the fact the minister is bringing this program back in, could he indicate to the House what shortage there is in doctors and dentists in the northern program? Could he also indicate if he has any other programs in mind to stimulate people to move to northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I recall, we are running about 10 per cent vacancy right now, which is not considered to be a crisis or an unmanageable situation. Rather, looking ahead, we want to be sure it doesn’t get much worse than that and we think the reinstatement of the bursary program will be of assistance in that regard.

[2:45]

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: I would like the minister to clarify, if he would, whether he is restricting his efforts to bursaries for present undergraduate students or does it apply in the immediate situation, for example, to Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital dentists in Thunder Bay from which he withdrew the underserviced area program grant? Is he reinstituting that portion of the under-serviced area program -- the immediate grant -- to someone accepting a job in an underserviced area? Secondly, is he applying it to nurse practitioners?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The answer to the second part of the question is no. In answer to the first part, I just sent the honourable member a letter yesterday, explaining all the details of the position at Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital and indicating how I think that can be resolved. I think the effort to date hasn’t been totally effective because it hasn’t been all-inclusive. What I have announced today is in addition to the underserviced area program; it is not rolled into the underserviced area program.

MILK SUPPLIES

Mr. G. Taylor: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. On a newscast last night, there was an item concerning the plight of the cheese processors and milk producers of eastern and central Ontario in regard to the lack of markets and diminishing markets.

Mr. Riddell: That’s been asked. Where have you been?

Mr. Wildman: That was already asked.

Mr. Kerrio: I just happen to have the answer right here in front of me.

Mr. C. Taylor: When is the minister going to get tough with Ottawa and get back our quotas for our farmers and cheese processors in this area --

Mr. Martel: The minister put him up to that. Did he get help on this?

Mr. C. Taylor: -- so that they will not be left in the proverbial position of sucking the rearmost mammary gland of some animal peculiar to farming?

Mr. Roy: You are only two weeks behind with that. We raised it here.

Mr. Martel: Good question.

Mr. Kerrio: Answer the last question first.

Hon. W. Newman: I believe I answered part of the question the other day for one of the members opposite, but I’ll be glad to explain it to the member in a little more detail.

Mr. Martel: The member is fired.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Explain it slowly.

Mr. Bradley: That’s an abuse of the question period.

Mr. Germa: Read Hansard.

Hon. W. Newman: I had the opportunity a week ago Monday to meet with the federal Minister of Agriculture regarding this particular matter. I made many suggestions to him about how he could allocate more industrial milk quota or MSQ to this province for the making of cheddar cheese, which we’re short of now. We thought they were very constructive recommendations. One was that milk equivalent export outside of Canada would not affect the total national supply management system in Canada. Therefore, we should get credit for what we export from Ontario out of the country.

We felt we should get credit for industrial milk that was moving to other provinces from Ontario. Because we have been encouraged by Ottawa to produce specialty cheese over the last three years in order to replace imports, which we have done in Ontario, where we have produced at lot more specialty cheese, we felt we should get the necessary credit we needed for industrial milk to supply the needs for cheddar cheese.

We went as far as to recommend to Ottawa that Ontario, in conjunction with the dairy farmers of Ontario, would be prepared not to tender any powdered milk or butter to the Canadian Dairy Commission in return for a reduction in the in-quota levy of milk, and also for the additional quota we would need to produce the cheddar cheese that is desperately needed here in Ontario, not only for our own consumers but for export purposes.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: I wonder if I could ask the minister when he feels these changes will be brought about so that the farmers in eastern Ontario will feel the effects of the changes?

Hon. W. Newman: As the honourable member knows, a week ago Monday I met with Mr. Whelan and all his staff. I think we presented a very good case. He also asked us to send through more detailed information and statistical data. We feel his people did not have accurate data -- and that’s a matter of opinion -- so we sent him the data we had, which we felt was very accurate, in order to justify our particular case.

I’m sure he knows the plight we are in in Ontario. I’m very hopeful that some consideration will be given to some of these matters. We didn’t go down only to tell him about our problem and how we needed the milk, but we offered him solutions without disrupting the whole national milk supply management scheme. I think that is very fair because we said, “This is what we will do to make sure it works.” As the member knows, the total industrial milk quota is allocated by the Canadian Dairy Commission, which is under the control of the federal government and the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Yakabuski: Supplementary: In view of the fact that I met just yesterday with representatives of the National Farmers’ Union and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in Renfrew county regarding this very matter --

Mr. Bradley: You need a third arm to pat yourself on the back.

Mr. Roy: Do they still vote for you?

Mr. Yakabuski: -- is the minister also aware of their concern that the shortage of cheddar cheese might lead to the acceptance of an imitation cheese that could get on the market here in Ontario and Canada?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Pardon my cold. When I was down in Ottawa talking to Mr. Whelan we talked about many other matters. One of the matters which we talked about was cheese analogue, which is the phoney cheese, if you want to call it that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You are the big cheese.

Hon. W. Newman: We’ve asked him to do an in-depth study of the contents of that commodity in order that we can deal with it at an appropriate time. I assume we will be talking about it at the federal-provincial conference in July in Yorkton, Saskatchewan.

Mr. Cassidy: I have the experimental farm in my riding, Mr. Speaker, which is why I’m qualified to ask this question.

Hon. W. Newman: I am glad to hear it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m not sure that qualifies the honourable member.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister say whether it is a proposal or whether it has been agreed that the export levy in Ontario will, in fact, be cut? If it is going to be cut, what steps will he take to ensure that the benefit is passed on to the consumers of cheese and dairy products in Ontario?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure what the honourable member means by the export levy being cut.

Mr. Cassidy: That is what the minister said.

Hon. W. Newman: No, I said we should get a credit. It may be my cold, and the honourable member may not have understood. The amount of product going out of Ontario, outside of Canada, would not affect the national supply management in Ontario, but we should get credit in the province of Ontario for that MSQ that is being exported out of this province and out of the country.

NORTH BAY PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on June 8, the members for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and Nipissing (Mr. Bolan) asked me to report on an incident in the North Bay Psychiatric Hospital on Tuesday night, June 6, in which two staff members were injured, one very seriously, by a male patient.

The member for Nipissing specifically asked if I was aware that this particular man had been a patient at Penetanguishene mental health centre on a Lieutenant Governor’s warrant for some time. He also asked why the patient was released from the maximum security Penetang facility and transferred to what he referred to as a “loose security hospital” like North Bay Psychiatric. In addition, he requested that I explain the procedures involved in the transfer. The honourable member also stated that on the day in question, the patient had been given a pass to go to downtown North Bay.

In order to put the entire matter into its proper perspective I would like to outline the previous history of the patient in question, beginning on October 20, 1976, when he was admitted initially to North Bay Psychiatric Hospital on an order of remand under the Criminal Code.

On December 21, 1976, two months later, the staff at North Bay Psychiatric Hospital felt that the patient’s mental condition had improved to the degree that he was able to stand trial. Consequently, he was returned to court and on January 24, 1977, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. He was ordered to be held in strict custody until the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor was known.

On January 27, 1977, the patient was admitted to the mental health centre at Penetanguishene on a warrant signed by Her Honour, the Lieutenant Governor. The warrant stated that the administrator of the mental health centre at Penetanguishene was to safely keep the patient until his discharge or transfer was authorized by lawful authority.

On May 9, 1977, the administrator of the mental health centre at Penetanguishene submitted a request to the director of the psychiatric hospitals branch asking that the patient’s case be reviewed by the advisory review board in the fall of 1977.

On May 19, 1977, as authorized under

section 31 of the Mental Health Act, I requested the secretary of the advisory review board, Barry Swadron, to have this man’s case considered when the review board sat at the mental health centre at Penetanguishene.

The patient was seen by the advisory review board on October 14, 1977, and the board unanimously recommended that the administrator of the mental health centre at Penetanguishene be given the discretion to transfer the patient to North Bay Psychiatric Hospital to be safely kept at that facility. The patient was transferred to North Bay Psychiatric Hospital on January 3, 1978. This patient was not considered dangerous to himself or others on the date he was transferred to North Bay.

On admission to North Bay Psychiatric Hospital medication was prescribed and it was decided that the patient should get involved in work within the hospital. However, he was not allowed off the hospital grounds without staff in attendance because of his status as a patient under a warrant of the Lieutenant Governor.

Records at the hospital indicate that the patient used his privileges well and did not abuse them. He had been working with the gardening crew without incident. However, on February 15, 1978, he refused medication. He agreed to resume medication on March 2 but refused again later that month. Medication was therefore discontinued on March 31, 1978. On June 6, 1978, he was again seen by the advisory review board. Following the interview, staff asked him to return to his ward, but he stayed in the corridor and was using the public telephone. The staff assumed the patient would return to his ward as usual.

When he did not return, a ground search was initiated and he was located. When he saw staff in the area, he climbed on to the back of a truck, picked up a board and refused to let staff approach. An emergency call was made and additional staff came to the scene. Approximately 15 staff then surrounded the truck to prevent the patient from escaping.

As Mr. Bob Guillemette, registered nursing assistant, came out of the building near the truck, he was struck on the head by the board held by the patient. Mr. Guillemette had made no overt attempts to subdue the patient but was simply walking by the truck towards the group of staff surrounding the vehicle. Soon after this, Mr. John Black, registered nursing assistant, was struck on the head by the same board. Mr. Black had not made an overt attempt to subdue the patient but was attempting to assist Mr. Guillemette. The patient was finally subdued by staff.

At 7:50 p.m. the North Bay city police and an ambulance were called, and Mr. Guillemette and Mr. Black were transferred to Civic Hospital in North Bay. The administrator of North Bay Psychiatric Hospital immediately arranged with the duty medical officer at the mental health centre at Penetanguishene to accept the patient on transfer and called an ambulance to have him transferred to Penetanguishene, accompanied by staff.

The next morning, Mr. Bob Guillemette was moved from Civic Hospital in North Bay to the Toronto General Hospital. At the present time, Mr. Guillemette is in the neurological unit at the Toronto General Hospital in critical condition.

The second injured staff member, Mr. Black, was discharged from the Civic Hospital in North Bay on June 12, 1978.

Finally, my staff have assured me that on the day in question, June 6, the patient had not been given a pass to go to downtown North Bay.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am certainly not trying to tell you what to do, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the lengthy statement and in view of the fact that the standing orders are quite clear, could we have some time added to the question period for that statement, please?

Mr. Speaker: Due to the amount of detail that was involved in the answer to the question, I think it would have been more appropriately made during statements by the ministry. I will add three more minutes to the question period.

Mr. Bolan: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware of the fact that, before this particular incident, several employees had complained to the administrator about the fact that this man was considered dangerous and that he should not be working in an area where there were tools such as garden tools and what have you? If that is the case, what proposals does the minister have whereby employees complain to the administrator about a situation which they might consider dangerous?

Ms. Gigantes: Bill 70.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it is ultimately a decision of the physician in charge of a patient’s case to assess the potential for physical harm to himself or to other patients and staff, and to prescribe a proper program for the treatment and rehabilitation of the patient. That is always the course that will be followed, and ultimately it is the physician in charge who must assume that responsibility.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Now that the minister has had the opportunity to review not just this case but the general principles underlying the particular situation, is he prepared to recommend to his colleague the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) that no exemption be sought from the health and safety legislation for psychiatric hospitals so that workers in the psychiatric hospitals will be able to work with management in order to get the safest procedures to follow in cases like this so that this kind of tragedy will not happen again?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the question of that particular legislation is one which is under active consideration by my colleague and the government but, as he also knows, the question of safety in the workplace in terms of dealing with patients and care for oneself is something which is stressed repeatedly and regularly in the psychiatric hospitals as well as in the public hospitals.

I may say that one of the things that happened yesterday in the standing committee on social development in reviewing Bill 19 is particularly germane to this particular incident, inasmuch as the committee had proposed to it by one of the members -- my colleague the member for York East (Mr. Elgie), a treatment model which we had discussed with the medical association and others six months ago, which will be of tremendous assistance in cases like this, because this particular individual had refused -- and he was competent, a competent patient -- to take his medication as of the end of March.

Under the amendment passed by the committee yesterday, we will now be able to deal with that kind of a situation to ensure that all possible is being done to assist the patient and, thereby, hopefully avoid any unnecessary incidents.

COLUMBUS MCKINNON LIMITED

Mr. Bradley: A question for the Minister of Labour: Now that the strike at Columbus McKinnon in St. Catharines has reached a Niagara Peninsula record, I believe, of eight months in length and in view of the fact that several mediators from the ministry have been unable to bring about a settlement of this very difficult labour dispute, would the minister be prepared to intervene personally to resolve the differences between the two parties?

Hon. B. Stephenson: To my knowledge there has been no face-to-face negotiation for the last several days between the parties in this dispute, and it would seem to me to be the most appropriate action to encourage them, persuade them, cajole them, do something, to get them back to the table again to discuss their differences. That is actively being pursued at the present time by the director of industrial relations and it’s hoped at this point that there will be yet another meeting early next week, at which time we will be actively attempting to resolve the problem.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary: In light of the fact that the union reduced its proposals on the last two occasions when the parties met in Toronto and that the company has rejected these proposals without even offering the courtesy of a counterproposal and in view of the fact that, as the minister says, no meaningful face-to-face negotiations have taken place, would the minister not agree that, since her ministry has worked very hard to resolve this question, the only real option left would be the minister’s own personal intervention using the best in her office, so to speak, to bring the two parties together and to encourage them to meaningfully negotiate a just and equitable settlement?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I am not convinced that I am the most able individual in the area of labour-management relationships in resolving problems.

Mr. Mancini: I have said that all along.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There are many on the staff of the Ministry of Labour who have had much more experience and, I think, are very much more capable. Those people we will be delighted to direct towards finding a solution to the Columbus McKinnon problem.

MANITOULIN ISLAND JAIL

Mr. Lupusella: I have a question of the Solicitor General: Considering that the conditions in Manitoulin Island police jail are “a clear insult to human dignity, disgusting and worse than a Nazi concentration camp” as was stated by a county court judge in last Tuesday’s Globe and Mail, can the minister state to this House what he is prepared to do in order that the basic concepts of decency and humanity will prevail and that steps will be taken to provide adequate cells in the cause of law enforcement?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather unique situation in this particular area and as the

article points out quite correctly --

Mr. Cassidy: They are all unique.

Mr. Germa: Whose riding is that?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- the OPP is using other facilities when this particular facility is full.

Mr. Wildman: Yes -- Espanola and Sudbury. Sudbury’s 100 miles away.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is only in certain times, when this has happened in the past, and I have asked --

Mr. Germa: It is the member for Algoma-Manitoulin’s (Mr. Lane) riding. He is not looking after it.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- the commissioner to look into it. But as the

article states there is a change in policy there. When that cell is filled, they use facilities in an adjoining community.

Mr. Laughren: You should spend a weekend there, George.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is quite definite that the conditions that prevailed in respect to the trial that took place before Judge Hogg will not happen again, and I have asked for a report that that will be confirmed.

Mr. Lupusella: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: It’s really a shame that this particular incident took place in Ontario. But, anyway, taking into consideration that maybe other OPP jails similar to the one which exists in Manitoulin Island exist elsewhere, would the minister undertake a widespread investigation of all OPP jails existing in the province in order that the situation will be corrected as soon as possible?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the member is prone to exaggeration.

Mr. Laughren: Spend a weekend there.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is not happening all over the province and he knows it.

Mr. M. Davidson: He didn’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: There is nothing the matter --

Mr. M. N. Davison: They should lock you in that cell for a week.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- with that jail cell. The cell is quite clean.

Mr. Cooke: You try to minimize everything.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It’s quite proper. It is quite a modern cell from that point of view.

Mr. Cooke: Why don’t you talk to Frank?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The problem here has been overcrowding. That is the problem. You can’t put three or four people in a cell, and it shouldn’t be done. It’s a question of overcrowding. It’s not a question of an old, ancient, improper facility at all. If it is used properly, it is quite a modern facility. To imply this is happening all over the province in OPP lockups is nonsense.

Mr. Foulds: One place is too much.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: If you have any evidence that there are other areas and other lockups that are like this, please let me know.

Mr. Lupusella: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think the implication which was expressed by the Solicitor General is not what I have said. I encouraged the Solicitor General to undertake an investigation around Ontario in order that similar incidents wouldn’t take place. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Laughren: He is misleading the House.

JURORS’ UIC PAYMENTS

Mr. Roy: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary of Justice, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). That’s one of the useful features of policy secretariats when the minister is not here. I would like to ask the minister this, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact that one of the highest duties of citizens in this province is serving jury duty, and in view of the fact there are a great number of people unemployed, would the minister agree to get in touch with the federal Minister of Immigration and Manpower and advise him that as a minister of the crown and as Provincial Secretary of Justice in this province he abhors, or disagrees with, the fact that unemployment insurance benefits should be cut off for an individual who serves on a jury and happens to be unemployed in this province?

Mr. Worton: Pay a little more for jury duty.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am surprised that is being done in view of the amount we pay jurors.

Mr. Roy: Yes -- 10 bucks. That’s a supplementary income.

Mr. Martel: Don’t brag about that one, George.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I can’t see how that would be considered a supplementary income to any extent. I would be happy to look into that.

Mr. Roy: If I may ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: While the minister is informing the federal Minister of Immigration and Manpower of the wishes of this House, that there is a contradiction in having UIC benefits cut off while serving jury duty, would he also give some consideration, as has been promised by many of his predecessors, to looking at what people who are serving on juries are paid in this province?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: To answer the last question, we are doing that, particularly in cases of long trials. For example, if, like the Jaques case, they extended over 10 days or two weeks, there certainly should be added compensation.

Mr. Roy: That’s right, for self-employed people.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr. Charlton: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. In light of the fact we are going to be allowing for French-speaking juries in some areas of the province, and in view of the fact that French-language advisory committees are supposed to be elected this fall by the French-speaking ratepayers of this province, why is the minister not prepared to have identification of French-speaking Ontarians as a part of the municipal enumeration which will be conducted by the assessment division of his ministry this fall?

Mr. Laughren: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I have never made the statement that we wouldn’t be able to do that. All I have said is we couldn’t do it for this year --

Mr. Laughren: You came pretty close.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: -- simply because the forms are already at the printing presses. The request for that came too late to the ministry. I am prepared to say now we can get that information next year. There was a misunderstanding with that particular group.

Mr. McClellan: It is a new idea.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: They understood we only enumerated every two years, which is, of course, wrong.

Ms. Gigantes: But there’s only an election every two years.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: We do an enumeration every year. We are prepared to get them a list next year.

Mr. Charlton: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that in addition to the information which the enumerators in his ministry collect for input into the computer, they are already collecting additional information which is dealt with manually by the assessment division? Does he not feel that in light of that fact, and the fact market value reassessment has been postponed again, and in fact the staff in the assessment division may have a slight breather, he could ask the enumerators to ask one additional question when they are at the doors this fall and have his assessment staff take two or three weeks to compile those lists manually?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: As the member very well knows, the people who do the enumerating are temporary people. They are not civil servants as such and I think it would be a very difficult situation to ask each one of them to ask that particular question as they are enumerating.

Mr. Foulds: Just give them a second sheet of paper with questions typed on it.

Mr. Breaugh: Just because you can’t walk and talk at the same time doesn’t mean they can’t.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: The other thing is, because of the changes in the Municipal Act this year, there is less time to do tie enumeration than there has been in previous years, as the member also knows. I am not prepared to ask people who work on a part-time basis to obtain information that is not contained on the forms.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Gaunt: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. The Environmental Assessment Board report on the Nanticoke waste disposal site made the observation that, “There should be appropriate precautions and criteria established by the Ministry of the Environment for site selection, design, operation and security of any facility for the reception, treatment and containment or disposal of such materials.” Does the minister agree with that statement? If so, are such criteria being developed and when will they be in place?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The criteria that the honourable member is mentioning I think could be subject to various opinions from any given number of experts. They are very difficult to develop. We are looking at it.

I think it would be valuable, if anybody is contemplating a facility such as the one in question, prior to that, to talk with the people in our ministry. Of course it still is subject then to the hearing and the opinion of the members of that board.

Mr. S. Smith: It didn’t help in Nanticoke.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: What is happening to liquid industrial waste for which there are no other alternatives, particularly in view of the fact there have only been five loads delivered to the Beare Road site since April, all by the one company? Secondly, why isn’t the ministry giving approval to Canadian Waste Technology Incorporated?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I didn’t get the last part.

Mr. Gaunt: Why isn’t approval being given to that company, because they do have a new technology which is apparently working?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think the member said “why isn’t?”

Hon. B. Stephenson: Is not.

Mr. Gaunt: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McCague: To the best of my knowledge the company has not asked for approval for its process. I think you are referring to a letter they wrote to me a couple of days ago in which they claim they can treat all liquid industrial waste in the province. I think that is subject somewhat to other opinions. They have not asked for approval, to my knowledge. There are people in the same solidification business who have asked for approval, and I am sure the honourable member is well aware of that.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, in view of the crisis situation that is developing in the liquid industrial waste field and the need to develop these complicated criteria he is mentioning, would he consider recommending setting up a select committee to meet over the summer perhaps, to develop these criteria and to develop a policy for disposing of liquid industrial waste in developing criteria?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Set up another select committee.

Mr. Breithaupt: Excellent idea.

[3:15]

Mr. Ruston: We can’t get a quorum together for what we’ve got.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It’s called strange encounters of the fourth kind.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The suggestion the honourable member makes is one that was suggested to her as well as, I’m sure, the Liberal critic and myself, by Pollution Probe. They have a very nice letter in which they suggest that there should be a select committee.

I would have no personal objection to it. However, I think if the member would check with the members of her own caucus and if the member for Huron-Bruce were to check with the members of his caucus and we were to do the same here, I am of the understanding that there is absolutely no time this summer or into the fall for a select committee to sit on this matter. Furthermore, if the Liberal Party critic agrees with this letter from Canadian Waste Technology Incorporated, I don’t think there would be any necessity for a committee.

REPORTS

STANDING STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE

Mr. Williams from the standing statutory instruments committee presented the committee’s first report.

Mr. Williams: I would ask that under provisional standing order 6 this report be placed on the order paper for consideration by the Legislature at a later date. Copies of the report have been placed in all members’ boxes.

In presenting this report, I would point out to the House that this is the 10th committee of the House appointed pursuant to the Regulations Act to examine regulations of a legislative nature made under authority delegated by the House. Yet, this is the first substantive report to be made on the subject.

This report will provide all members of the Legislature with the first real opportunity to give consideration to a broad field of law that has received virtually no attention in recent time. This lack of attention is undoubtedly due to the fact that the regulatory process and all procedures thereunder have been working well in Ontario. However, as a committee, we think there is still room for making improvements within the system.

Mr. S. Smith: Is this a speech or a report?

Mr. Williams: We will address ourselves to these matters in detail when the report is before the House.

Mr. Foulds: Is this speech necessary?

Mr. Williams: In the meantime, I wish to thank the members and staff of the committee in their dedication to the task.

An hon. member: It must have been tough.

Mr. Williams: In particular, I would recognize our legal counsel, Lachlan MacTavish, QC, without whose professional assistance, sage advice and commitment this report would not have been able to be presented to the Legislature this afternoon.

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. McCaffrey from the standing general government committee presented the committee’s report.

Mr. McCaffrey: I’d like to take this opportunity on behalf of all members of the committee to express our thanks and gratitude to our consultants, Lionel D. Feldman, who is with us in the gallery today, Mr. Henry Sears, Katherine A. Graham and Peter Mclnnis of the consulting firm Lionel D. Feldman Consulting Limited, who worked so diligently during the public hearings and who wrote this report.

On behalf of all members of the committee I would also like to thank Stephen Fram and Scott McAuley of the Ministry of the Attorney General for their valuable contribution.

The committee received full co-operation from the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the rent review board, and the appeal board. We are also appreciative of the assistance extended to the committee during its deliberations by our clerk, Mrs. Fran Nokes, and her assistants, Frances Davidson, Donna Cantar and Barbara Michalak.

In arriving at our recommendations the committee conducted some 50 hours of public hearings in Toronto, London, Ottawa, Sudbury and Thunder Bay, at which close to 100 briefs and presentations were made, and we reviewed together more than 150 letters. In addition, two nongovernmental experts were invited to make presentations before the committee. The committee wishes to formally thank all those who devoted time and effort to make their views known, in particular those landlords and tenants who took time off from work to make their presentations, during the day and evening hours in some cases.

The majority of briefs and letters concerning rent review came from individual tenants, tenant organizations, individual landlords and landlord organizations. The tenants almost uniformly argued for continuing the current rent review program indefinitely, with major modifications which would strengthen the controls and improve the administrative process. On the other hand, landlords’ submissions almost uniformly argued for termination of the rent review program.

However, many landlords indicated, either in their written briefs or under questioning, a willingness to move from their preferred position of termination to an acceptance of a further extension of rent review or controls provided certain conditions are met. In essence, that was the balance that his committee tried to arrive at. Whether we were successful will be discussed by others and determined in this Legislature at another time.

Mr. S. Smith: You were successful.

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing social development committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 19,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee has carefully examined the following applications for private acts and finds the notices, as published in each case, sufficient:

County of Lennox and Addington;

Poly Aire International Limited.

MOTIONS

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that standing order 62 be suspended for the consideration of Bill Pr29,

An Act to revive Poly Aire International Limited, so that the standing justice committee may consider this bill at its meeting tomorrow.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing procedural affairs committee be authorized to sit concurrently with the House next week to consider the matter of the privileges of the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell).

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. F. S. Miller moved first reading of Bill 123,

An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act.

Motion agreed to.

POLY AIRE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ACT

Mr. Leluk moved first reading of Bill Pr29,

An Act to revive Poly Aire International Limited.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, might I just take a minute for the information of the House while we are here.

This evening it was our plan to do second reading of Bill 103, which is

An Act to revise the Condominium Act. For the information of the members, it is generally hoped that we might still proceed with that at 8 o’clock. Following that bill’s getting second reading, we plan to go into committee of the whole to complete Bill 83. So for tonight we have for consideration Bill 103 and Bill 83 in committee with the understanding that divisions called for with respect to Bill 88 would be stacked and that there would be a vote at 10:15.

I thought the members should know that before they went to some other responsibilities. This would mean that for tomorrow morning we would do Bills 110, 111 and 121 for second reading and committee work if necessary. Then we would go into committee of the whole to do Bills 91, 85 and 96.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. McClellan, on behalf of Mr. Breaugh, moved second reading of Bill 65,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, could I ask you to remind me when I have used 15 minutes, so that I may reserve at least five minutes for a wrap-up?

I am very pleased to have the honour to introduce and debate Bill 65,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. I would like to take a couple of minutes to explain -- I hope clearly -- to the members exactly what this bill does. I think there has been some deliberate misinterpretation of what it does. I would like people to understand what the bill does so that they can at least vote for or against it on the basis of what it does and not on the basis of what other people say it does.

What that amendment to the Labour Relations Act states is, first, if a group of workers who are members of a certified bargaining unit go on strike, the bill will prevent anyone except, one, management or supervisory staff, and, two, anyone except people agreed to jointly by the union and by management, from doing the jobs that are normally done by the striking workers. That’s the first thing the bill does.

It prevents people from going into a plant, factory or workplace that has been struck and taking the place of the workers who are out on strike unless they are members of management or supervisory staff or unless management and union mutually agree to allow them to do the work of the workers who are on strike.

The second thing the bill does is establish unequivocally and clearly who may cross a legal picket line. The bill sets down five classes of people who may cross a picket line.

I will review them quickly: 1. people who are management or supervisory staff; 2. people who are members of a bargaining unit at the plant who are not on strike and are not doing jobs that are normally done by the striking workers; 3. non-union employees who are not doing jobs that are normally done by the striking workers; 4. persons who need to have access to the plant for the purpose of doing emergency repairs or providing emergency services; 5. anybody whom management and the bargaining unit on strike agree should be allowed to cross the picket line.

[3:30]

Those five categories of people would be allowed to cross a picket line during a legal strike. Anybody else who crossed the picket line would be subject to the laws of trespass. Under subsection 4 of the bill, it becomes the duty of the police officer to ensure that only persons authorized by the bill cross a legal picket line.

It is useful to understand what the existing rights in law are of people who are legally on strike, and attempting to picket the struck workplace. I have done some research on the subject and it is very interesting to discover that there are no provisions in the Labour Relations Act governing the right of workers to picket. As a matter of fact, the legal right of striking workers to run a peaceful picket line is enshrined in a kind of backhanded way in the Criminal Code, curiously enough, under the

section that deals with sabotage and the

section that deals with interference.

In both of those sections there is a specific exemption. The sabotage

section reads as follows: “No person does a prohibited act” -- that is commit sabotage -- “by reason that he attends at or near or approaches the dwellings, house or place for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information.”

We are in the ludicrous position of standing in 1978 with one of the basic human rights enshrined in law only by way of exemption to sabotage or to interference. Fortunately, the courts have defined and have enshrined through convention that striking workers have the right to picket for the purposes of providing information and communication. As I have said, that is the only right in law that striking workers have in 1978.

The question is how is this right upheld? The Fleck strike, which has been on now for three months, has shown very clearly that this right is not upheld at all in this province. Even the backhanded enshrinement of the right to picket through the sections of the Criminal Code that I cited seems not to be understood either by the Ministry of Labour or by the Ministry of the Solicitor General or by senior officials of the Ontario Provincial Police.

How is this right upheld in Ontario in 1978? On April 10 at the Fleck plant there were 520 officers of the Ontario Provincial Police on the picket line. On April 11 there were 523 officers of the Ontario Provincial Police at the Fleck picket line. On April 12 there were 517 OPP officers. On April 13 there were 516 OPP officers at the Fleck plant. What were they doing there? They were not there to uphold the right of the 75 courageous women who were on strike at the Fleck plant to run a picket line, an informational, communicative picket line.

They were not there to do that at all because of a combination of two things. First, the law does not seem to be sufficiently clear to guarantee to striking workers the right to a picket line. Second, the OPP has failed to understand, as has government, what their responsibilities are respecting workers in this province. What the 500-plus OPP officers were doing there was providing an escort service to strikebreakers. In fact, what the 500 OPP officers were doing was preventing the 75 striking women from communicating at all with the strikebreakers going into the strikebound Fleck plant.

The time has come simply to modernize our labour relations law. That’s what this bill attempts to do. In a labour dispute in this province, there are at least four parties to an industrial dispute. There is management, there is the bargaining unit that is on strike, there are the strikebreakers, and there is the Ontario Provincial Police.

Under the present law, they are all entangled in the labour dispute, because the law is sufficiently unclear and sufficiently inadequate that it does not specify a proper role for the police and it does not bar strikebreakers from coming in and taking the jobs of workers who are not on a legal strike. It puts the police in the absolutely impossible position of having to provide an escort service for strikebreakers. It therefore puts the police in the position of having to support management as against the workers in an industrial dispute.

We believe that the role of police during a strike very simply ought to be twofold: to protect property and to keep the peace. That’s precisely what these amendments would achieve. No longer would the police be required to provide an escort service for strikebreakers. No longer would the police be in the impossible and ludicrous and unfair and unjust position, because of inadequacies of the law, of having to side with management in an industrial dispute. Their role would be clear and simple: to protect property and to keep the peace.

This is not entirely novel legislation. A version of this legislation has been enacted in Quebec. It was enacted because that province was experiencing labour problems similar to the kinds of problems we are experiencing here in Ontario at the Fleck plant, or some time ago during the strike at Sandra Instant Coffee Company Limited in Ajax.

The time has come to give working people in this province the rights in law which are universally recognized as natural rights. It is very much to be hoped that there will be sufficient members on all sides of the House who will realize and accept the principle that it is wrong for laws to force the police to take sides in an industrial dispute and it is wrong for laws to make it possible for strikebreakers to take the jobs of workers who are out on a legitimate, legal strike.

I will reserve whatever time I have left, Mr. Speaker, for some concluding remarks after the rest of the debate.

Mr. Acting Speaker: You have eight minutes left. Do you wish to reserve all eight minutes?

Mr. McClellan: Yes, thank you.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I should state that I really cannot support this bill. I object strongly to the central concept of Bill 65, which is the fact that struck employers may not realistically attempt to continue to function during a strike.

It should be pointed out that the Labour Relations Act in this province is predicated upon a balance between the rights and responsibilities of organized labour and the rights and responsibilities of management. The Labour Relations Act gives labour and management the right to exercise what has to be construed as approximately equal economic sanctions, the strike on one hand and the lockout on the other.

There are those who may argue that the strike is less effective as an economic sanction than the lockout. I’m not really sure that that is so, but I think it should be noted that the strike effort is, in effect, an extremely effective, economic sanction. It’s been used effectively by unions to achieve their objectives in the collective bargaining process.

I think one only has to look at the importance which trade unions place upon the strike as an economic sanction to understand just how vital this is to their role in collective bargaining. They certainly object very strenuously when any mention is made of any infringement upon that right and, certainly, there is major objection if any suggestion of the removal of that right is made.

But it should be noted, I think, that neither the strike nor the lockout is a totally effective economic sanction. At present, a struck employer may, under the act, reassign management personnel or, indeed, the employer may engage temporary employees in order to continue the operations. Conversely an employee who is locked out or who is on strike may seek employment elsewhere in order to continue to obtain an income during the strike or the lockout.

Bill 65, as it’s presently written, would upset this balance totally. It would, in effect, totally shut down a struck plant. It would prevent the employer from hiring any temporary help of any kind and, I think, thereby intensify the effect of the union’s economic sanction. However, it would not provide the employer with any additional power to exercise economic sanction over its locked out employees. It does not prevent the locked out employee from getting a job elsewhere during a lockout.

Mr. Speaker, I think the passage of Bill 65 would create an imbalance in labour management relations in this province which, I fear, could seriously damage the collective bargaining process as we know it in Ontario. For example, the bill would abolish the right of those persons who do not support a strike to continue working. This, of course, flies in the face of the democratic principles upon which the Labour Relations Act in this province is founded.

From the organizing stage to the certification stage, each employee in each workplace is given the opportunity to exercise his or her democratic right to self-determination. I think one must question whether that right should be totally abrogated during the strike or lockout situation. Yet such abrogation is implicit within Bill 65.

A union member would lose the right to decide whether or not he or she wants to support the strike or to continue working during a strike. The bill would require all members of the collective bargaining unit to refuse to do work. Regardless of personal choice, that would be imposed upon them. I’m sure such an infringement upon democratic principles must be unacceptable in this jurisdiction.

Under

section 64 of the Labour Relations Act of Ontario, an employer must reinstate a striking employee within six months of the commencement of a legal strike upon the request of the employee.

Mr. Foulds: You know how well that worked in the Port Arthur clinic strike, don’t you?

Mr. Breaugh: Then why don’t you do it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: And this

section also states, and I’d like to quote this: “The employer, in offering terms of employment, shall not discriminate against the employee by reason of his exercising or having exercised any right under the Labour Relations Act, such as the right to strike.” This section, I think, incorporates the principles I mentioned earlier, the concept of balance and the concept of free choice.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, and you know how that is enforced, too, don’t you?

Hon. B. Stephenson: If Bill 65 were to be passed, the right to seek reinstatement, I think, would be nullified. An employee, even when reinstated, would not be permitted by this bill to do any struck work. I find such a concept unacceptable.

[3:45]

Having raised those specific objections to the bill, I’d like to make a general observation. The institution of collective bargaining is complex and delicate, but vital to the economy of this province. I don’t think it can be, nor do I think it should be restructured without a great deal of thorough and thoughtful analysis. It cannot be changed piecemeal, as Bill 65 attempts to do, because if that is done, I think we run the risk of very severe long-term consequences.

I recognize the concern which I think has prompted this bill, the concern about collective bargaining and the process of collective bargaining. I would agree that as it is presently structured within this province and defined within The Labour Relations Act it is not perfect. However, I think it is important to state, and to remind the members of the House, that more than 90 per cent of all collective agreements in this province are renewed without resort to either strike or lockout.

Mr. Foulds: What about first agreements?

Hon. B. Stephenson: But if we look at the structure of collective bargaining and amend the Labour Relations Act in ways which will indeed improve that vital process, I think we have to do it thoughtfully and carefully.

Mr. Lupusella: When are you going to do that?

Mr. Foulds: You promised that that would be reviewed two years ago.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think I should also remind the members of this House that over the last several months there has been an improvement in the labour-management climate in this province. I think it is partly due to the increased initiative in the areas of --

Mr. McClellan: Where have you been?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- preventive mediation by the Ministry of Labour and certainly in the areas of new initiatives and the quality of working life.

Mr. Foulds: Justify that statement.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There is no doubt in my mind that the collective bargaining process and the act which in fact guides it require further improvements, but the principles embodied in Bill 65 I don’t think will assist us in that improvement. In fact, I believe deeply that they will do just the reverse.

Mr. Foulds: How?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Therefore, as I stated at the beginning, I truly cannot support this bill.

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the comments that were made by both the NDP member and the minister. I might remind the members of this Legislature and the member who brought in the bill, that a bill similar in some respects was introduced in the third session of the 30th Legislature of Ontario in 1976 by the then critic for the Ontario Liberal Party, Mr. Bullbrook. There is quite a difference in the bill he introduced and that bill brought forward today.

His explanatory note read, “The bill prohibits the use of professional strikebreakers,” and I feel, as do some of the members of this party, that the explanatory note of Bill 65 is not the same at all. It was my understanding when Mr. Bullbrook introduced this bill that what he was trying to do was remove or get rid of the definition of the professional strikebreaker as someone who came or was hired by a particular company to come into a picket line and could possibly use force to break up that picket line.

It is my understanding that that bill, dealing strictly with professional strikebreakers, would have been supported by this party. We do not see this bill here as dealing with professional strikebreakers.

Mr. Foulds: No, just amateur strikebreakers.

Mr. O’Neil: We see it as excluding replacement employees. We also see some problems in the definition of the legal picket line in the bill. We think it is vague and could lead to unusual results.

Mr. Breaugh: How about the principle of the bill?

Mr. O’Neil: Suppose the Teamsters are on a legal strike against a transport company. The Teamsters could set up a picket line outside the premises of any non-union employer, for example Eatons, and the employer would be prevented from hiring any new staff to cross that picket line. If the member doesn’t agree with that, I would like his comments.

Mr. Breaugh: It is not a legal picket line.

Mr. McClellan: That is not a legal picket line.

Mr. O’Neil: That is why I said that the definition of a legal picket line is vague and I think it should have been expanded before this bill was written.

Mr. Foulds: Eatons probably should be unionized.

Mr. O’Neil: The labour relations experts estimate that only two or three per cent of all employers hire new employees during a strike and we feel an argument might be made that this practice should be re-examined. It might also be suggested that this bill will reduce the violence that has been sometimes associated with labour disputes. The province of Quebec, as mentioned by the second previous speaker, introduced similar amendments to its labour code. However, there are currently a number of strikes in Quebec which have been characterized by violence, most notably the Commonwealth Plywood plant in Ste. Therese.

As mentioned by the minister, it is also our fear that some of the smaller employers could be forced to shut down operations during a labour dispute, which could result in them being forced out of business. I don’t think that any of the parties would like to see this happen. We are certainly interested in getting rid of labour disputes, but we also have to make sure jobs are retained, that jobs aren’t lost across this province. We feel that possibly this bill would be the cause of some of those problems.

The concept of performing the work of an employee who is exercising a legal right to strike is vague and could give a rise to disputes. How would the labour board decide if a given piece of work was included in the definition or was excluded from it? The minister mentioned a few other examples. I would like to quote from one of the editorials in one of the large papers which quotes the Quebec law.

Mr. Foulds: Name it.

Mr. O’Neil: I think it was in the Star of last year.

Mr. Foulds: How can you quote it if you don’t know where it is from?

Mr. O’Neil: The editorial talked about the bill that was put through in the Quebec legislature. The editorial said: “Quebec’s plan to amend the province’s labour code and outlaw strikebreakers threatens to undermine a basic principle of collective bargaining, the right of a company to try to continue to operate when its employees strike.”

Interjection.

An hon. member: Are you the labour critic here?

Mr. O’Neil: I would invite the comments of members on this when they get up to speak, because they have a chance to refute some of these things that were said. I would like some of the answers on some of these things which we have looked into. Another thing the editorial refers to is the assumption that the union is always right in its demands and is, therefore, justified in shutting down a business if its demands aren’t met. But, as the editorial says, experience shows this is not always so.

As I say, we had some worries about the wording of this particular bill and the effects that it might have on destroying of jobs in both larger and smaller unions and businesses. We also are not happy to see some of the problems that have happened throughout the province, one being the strike at the Fleck plant. The intention of the bill is not to allow the employer to hire additional help to come in to take on temporarily some of these jobs that the strikers have left.

We also wonder whether it was the member’s intention in the bill that members from larger unions from across the province can’t be brought to a picket line during a strike, and whether the definition of picket line would exclude people from other parts of the province taking

part in those strikes.

There are several things at the Fleck plant which have inflamed the situation there. It could be said that the police have inflamed it. It could also be said that groups coming in from all over the province or other parts of the province have also inflamed it. We don’t feel that the definition of a strikebreaker is covered enough. I would invite and like to hear comments of members to my left and from across the House on some of these matters. As I say, we are looking at the bill and we have some worries about it.

Mr. Breaugh: I am a little concerned that people are addressing themselves to clause-by-clause issues as opposed to the principle. I still am not sure whether the Liberal Party labour critic is in support of the principle of the bill or not?

Mr. O’Neil: I am in support of professional strikebreakers --

Mr. Breaugh: Let the Hansard show that the Liberal labour critic just indicated that he is in support of professional strikebreakers.

Mr. O’Neil: I am sorry. I am against professional strikebreakers, as I mentioned in my remarks on the bill.

Mr. Breaugh: That’s one of the fastest turnarounds we have had.

Interjection.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Lupusella: Keep him under control, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breaugh: Let me attempt to deal very succinctly, if I can, with the principle of this legislation, recognizing that I am seeking the wisdom of the House in proposing that it would go to a committee stage later on where the opportunity to debate it clause by clause would be provided. The principle is a relatively simple one, namely, that in this day and age and in this province the status of the trade union movement is recognized as such that it is no longer fighting for recognition. One of the few concessions we have managed to get from the Minister of Labour (B.

Stephenson) lately is that she is now recognizing the validity of people getting together into a bargaining unit, that people have a right to do that.

Mr. Germa: She does it reluctantly.

Mr. Breaugh: Perhaps with some reluctance --

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, it wasn’t. For two years I have been asking that the validity of unions as part of our social structure be recognized.

Mr. Breaugh: -- but she did say that, and that is certainly to her credit. I want to address myself, though, to the principle of the bill, which basically is that in this day and age it is no longer appropriate to apply the use of force on a picket line.

Where a picket line is legally recognized -- and that is contained within the bill -- and where the bargaining unit is legally recognized -- and that is also contained there, so there are those two provisos -- the use of force is no longer a proper exercise, certainly not on the part of the police officers -- whom we all support; we all appreciate they have a difficult job. As the Solicitor General (Mr.

Kerr) said in this House of the Fleck Manufacturing Company strike: “They are doing a job they don’t want to do and that they don’t like.” Frankly, I think even the Solicitor General is beginning to recognize it is basically not their proper role.

The principle of the bill, very simply, is to remove that use of force -- and in particular to remove from police officers the job they don’t want to do and one that they don’t do particularly well, that is to provide access to a legally struck plant.

What I find particularly irritating is that basic police decision which must be made at every picket line almost every day in the course of a strike where strikebreakers are used; that is some superintendent or sergeant deciding: “Can we provide access to that plant now? Do I have enough personnel on hand; do I have enough equipment on hand to move strikebreakers through a picket line?” That surely has to be a soul-searching moment for him.

The difficulty, too, is that whether they want to or not; whether they are there to do this or not, the police are seen to be the aggressors in the instance. They are not keeping the peace; that’s quite clear. They are not acting in a passive or defensive role; that’s clear. They have to take, usually, a bus full of strikebreakers -- in the vernacular they are scabs -- through a legal picket line. A distasteful job at best, one that can’t be done with much dignity or grace.

In particular, the initial instance for the drafting of this legislation was a strike at Sandra Instant Coffee Company Limited in Ajax. Even though that dispute has not been settled fully yet it is still apropos, and perhaps more so with the strike at Fleck where again we see the classic case of a small bargaining group attempting to get what they think are their legal bargaining rights, an exercise in what they think is a legal right to strike, and yet having the massive power of the police in this province directed against them to break that strike.

The minister talked about the economic sanctions and the differences between a strike and a lockout. I didn’t hear her say that when a company locks the employees out the employees should have the democratic right to go to work and to receive a pay cheque. I didn’t hear her say that; that certainly would be a needed balance that would have to be put into it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I said they have the right to work elsewhere.

Mr. Breaugh: What is the use of providing employees in Ontario with the right, in a legal sense, to get together in a bargaining unit, the right to have a legal strike and pretending they have an economic sanction, when you turn the full force of our police against them? That’s certainly unrealistic in this day and age.

Interjection.

Mr. Breaugh: There is a measure -- and I am quite prepared to admit it -- of infringement of democratic rights on people who might previously have been employees in that plant, there is no getting around that; but there is also no getting around the fact that if you join a bargaining unit and they negotiate a set of wage packages for you, you get them; whether you walk the picket line or not you are represented by those people.

In the process of certification -- and we might talk on some other occasion about whether that’s fair or not -- a majority of those employees in that plant said: “Yes, we want to belong to this bargaining unit.” Before employees who do not support the strike to the secondary location they go on a strike, the majority of those people say: “Yes, we want to go on strike.”

We can argue individual cases as to whether that was fair or properly conducted, or whatever you want, but you can’t get away from the democratic process at work there. They voted, the majority of them, to join the bargaining unit in the first instance. Secondly, they voted, a majority of them, to go on strike. True, in any democracy sometimes we lose a bit of our rights. That’s what a democracy is all about; a democracy exercises the right of the majority opinion. We don’t get away from that, we should never apologize for that; it is the best system of which we know to function in.

So there is some infringement of democratic rights, for sure.

Mr. Ruston: That’s not correct.

Mr. Breaugh: There’s also some infringement of democratic rights, though, when human beings who work very hard for a living, who negotiate a contract and find themselves in a position they don’t want to be in in the first instance, and that is on a legal strike.

You can’t find me a trade unionist in this province who doesn’t spend most of his or her time making sure the people they represent don’t go on strike. The purpose of sitting through all that negotiation is not to get your people out on the picket line; it is to get a settlement. That’s the purpose of the entire exercise.

[4:00]

There aren’t people in this province who go around saying, “We want to have a strike.” There are people who get to that point in the series of negotiations where they say: “We don’t have any alternative. The last thing we have got is to withdraw our services as a unit.” And that’s the way it goes.

There are a number of related issues in all of this, not the least of which is -- and I don’t want to overemphasize this, but it has certainly got to be a factor -- when you take an example like the Fleck plant, where we have now spent better than $1 million from the public purse to provide police protection, police access to a plant. At some point in time there has got to be a limit to that price tag.

Stop to think about this: If we handed that $1 million to the company -- which I suppose this government would be quite prepared to do -- and said, “Go settle your labour dispute with that $1 million,” perhaps that would be a preferable option. If we gave to the employees their share of that $1 million of police costs, they would probably say: “That’s a good enough bribe for me. We’ll go back to work now.”

At some point in time we have to make that distinction; public cost must enter into the picture and, as of now, it does not.

The management of any company on a strike is given access to a rather substantial amount of protection, which they warrant, and of interference, which I don’t think they warrant.

That public cost is getting to be a rather substantial total, which has got to be a consideration as we move through this type of legislation.

There are those who might say this bill expresses a bias on the part of a worker. I wouldn’t back away from that at all. If anything, I would be saying they have been robbed of their rights for long enough that it wouldn’t be a bad idea to put a little bias into legislation these days that would support the stance of the worker. In theory and in practice it would not do that.

In theory and practice the bill does two basic things. It says you can’t, as an employer, hire strikebreakers. Whether you want to call them scabs, strikebreakers, amateur strikebreakers, or professional strikebreakers, they all accomplish the same purpose: they take the job of someone who is legally on strike. The bill does do that, and I do not back away from that at all.

The second thing the bill says is that in the instance of a legal picket line -- and for the first time in our history it gives some reasonable definition of what a legal picket line is -- the job of a police officer is to keep the peace. He does not have to mount up with riot gear on and escort a busful of strikebreakers through a legal picket line. He simply keeps the peace. That seems to me to be a job our police are well equipped to do and could handle without question.

If we see some awkwardness in the way the police forces of Ontario, both the provincial force and local forces, face this kind of situation, it is because it is not only distasteful, but also one which they cannot do without being seen to be taking sides in the issue. They don’t want to do that. Frankly, every time they escort a busful of strikebreakers through a legal picket line, whether they intend to or not, they are taking sides in the issue. They don’t like that role. They don’t do it particularly well, and I am suggesting this legislation would put a stop to that and provide some measure of evenness in it.

In closing, I go back to the basic point. I think it is inappropriate in this day and age that the battle should be a street fight. In my view that is precisely what is happening in a number of labour disputes. The police officers look down the line and say, “Can we make it through that line this morning?” If they can, through they go. If they can’t, they simply call the management of the plant and say: “We’re sorry, we can’t give you access this morning. Try later on in the morning, try earlier in the morning, or don’t try at all.” That strikes me as being a ridiculous situation for us to be in, in this day and age --

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Breaugh: -- and I would urge the members to set aside their bias on this particular type of legislation and support the principle of this bill.

Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, certain aspects of picketing and the strikebreaker issue are dealt with in other jurisdictions but, with the exception of Quebec, no province has a comprehensive prohibition on the use of replacements.

British Columbia legislation prohibits the hiring of professional strikebreakers as has been referred to by the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil), and regulates the where, when and how of picketing.

Manitoba prohibits an employer from disciplining an employee who refuses to perform the work of a striking fellow employee.

Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia prohibit the supply of employees during a strike or lookout in the construction industry in which an accredited employer organization is involved. Ontario contains a similar provision,

section 119. The Quebec provision,

section 97(

a) of the Labour Code, is the only one similar to that in the proposed bill. It has been in force for only a few months and Quebec officials indicate that it is much too early to assess the effects of the recent amendment.

I would like to deal with clause 1(

b) of

section 59(a). There are three requirements for a legal picket line: It must be composed of members of the certified bargaining unit; they must be moving; and they must be carrying signs.

I assume that if any one of those conditions has been breached -- for example, if the line is not moving -- it would not constitute a legal picket line. Neither the moving requirement nor the sign requirement are significant and I wonder why these prohibitions are necessary. It should be noted that this definition is more restrictive than the present law.

It excludes from participation in the picketing all persons who are not members of the bargaining unit. This group would include not only third parties but also, in many cases, the union officials who have responsibility for conducting the strike. Third parties and union officials who are not members of the bargaining unit are currently allowed to participate in picketing.

Since bargaining rights need not be based upon certification, it is presumably not intended to restrict legal picketing to members of a certified union.

The reference to legal picketing raises the inference that all other forms of picketing are illegal. Picketing which meets the definition of 59(a) 1(

b) will still be presumed to be illegal if it involves a common law tort or a violation of another

section of the act.

I would like to deal with

section 59(a)(ii). The principal problem with this

section is in defining the work of a struck employee. The term “the work” is used in that section. This term must be more specific, both in economic and geographic terms. For example, is this

section triggered if an employer chooses to produce the product at a second location and to supply his customers from that location? In a sense, the work of the striking employees is now being done elsewhere by other employees who may or may not themselves be organized. Is the

section intended to cover this situation?

Mr. Cassidy: Did Bette Stephenson’s ministry write this for you?

Mr. Pope: If not, larger multiple plant operations will have a decided advantage over smaller single plant operations and there remains the possibility of picketing activity at the secondary location. If it is intended that a secondary location of the same employer should be covered by the prohibition, there is an incentive to expand or locate secondary industry outride of Ontario.

It is also unclear whether the bill applies to an ally of the struck employer who performs the work ordinarily done by the employees of the struck employer and thereby assists him to continue to supply his customers.

I’d like to deal next with

section 59(3), which deals with the definition of work premises. If “work premises” means where work ordinarily done by striking employees is done, it admits to the same geographic ambiguity referred to previously. It is not clear whether access is restricted to secondary locations of the employer or to the premises of an ally if struck work is being performed there. It is also not clear whether there is any prohibition against hiring new employees at a secondary location to perform struck work; or transferring managerial employees, non-union employees, or bargaining unit employees.

All of these possibilities have occurred from time to time under the present law. If they are not covered by the proposed bill there will remain the potential for particularly bitter forms of picketing and confrontation. Alternatively, if secondary and ally situations are covered by the present law, then it will raise difficult questions of definition and its ramifications are consequently impossible to foresee.

It should be noted that the bill implies that legal picketing can only occur at work premises and not elsewhere. Even if one assumes that the restrictions on access apply only to primary location of the struck employer,

section 59(a)(iii) seems to be drafted much more narrowly than is necessary. By implication, access is forbidden to members of the bargaining unit who do not support the strike and are prepared to continue work and perform work of their striking fellow employees.

The bill also forbids entry to the premises unless a person is a member of a certified bargaining unit --

Mr. Warner: This is close enough to clause by clause that we might as well give it third reading.

Mr. Pope: -- that is not on strike and is not engaged in performing struck work; thus it would appear that even persons who are not performing duties of striking employees could not enter the plant unless they were also members of certified bargaining units. For example, a delivery could be made to the plant if the carrier was unionized but not otherwise. There appears to be no logical reason for this distinction.

Mr. Grande: Why don’t you send us a copy?

Mr. Pope: I would next like to deal with subsection 3(c) --

Mr. McClellan: I think you should publish this as an article. Send this to the Law Journal, they will publish it.

Mr. Pope: -- which deals with the position of members of the bargaining unit who do not support the strike. The position of the members of the bargaining unit who do not support the strike is unclear and depends upon the meaning of the term “non-union employee” used in

section 59a(3)(c).

Mr. Grande: Don’t support it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: You know you won’t read a law book.

Mr. McClellan: I’d like to think you’re right.

Mr. Pope: This term could mean non-member of the bargaining unit, non-union member of the bargaining unit, or member of the bargaining unit who does not support the strike. Whatever the meaning ascribed to the term “non-union employee,” it is clear that such persons cannot perform the work of any employee who is on strike, no matter how many employees there may be who do not support the strike.

Likewise, the restrictions on access to the plant attach regardless of how many employees in fact support the strike. Again, it will be important to determine what “the work of an employee on strike” encompasses, since there may be a qualification on the

section 64 right of the employees to return to work as mentioned above.

Mr. Breaugh: He is reading from a prepared text.

Mr. Haggerty: That’s the worst part of it.

Mr. Pope: I’d also like to refer to subsection 4 of

section 59(a) -- because this is a mess -- and ask how you can reach the conclusion that you’re dissatisfied with the role the police now play? You set out a whole line of tests police officers at a striking plant have to perform in order to determine whether or not someone can gain access to the plant. In fact, the onerous conditions that police now have are made worse, because they have to go through a virtual checklist --

Mr. Ruston: By far, by far.

Mr. Pope: -- in the presence of everyone to determine who can get access and who can’t get access.

Mr. Breaugh: Why don’t you go out and visit the real world for once in your life?

Mr. Pope: In other words, this is a mess.

Mr. Cassidy: How many days have you spent at Fleck Manufacturing?

Mr. Pope: The principles are a mess -- and I’m not through, I’m not through.

Mr. McClellan: You were through before you started.

Mr. Pope: I’d like also to deal with the use of the reference of the Petty Trespass Act.

Mr. Grande: Are you going to make mistakes if you don’t have the right place?

Mr. Pope: In addition, it is simply not clear how the procedures of the Petty Trespass Act and the Ontario

Summary Convictions Act can be applied to this situation.

Mr. McClellan: Did you lose your place in your prepared speech?

Mr. Pope: Normally, a trespass can only occur if a person enters upon lands or premises without the owner’s permission,

whereas here persons potentially liable to trespass will inevitably have the owner’s permission. Who will institute proceedings? Assuming one wished to create an unfair labour practice of this kind, there seems to be no reason why it should not be dealt with in the same manner as with any other unfair labour practice.

Mr. Breaugh: He is doing what Norton does all the time.

Mr. McClellan: Turn the page.

Mr. Pope: I certainly will.

Mr. Breaugh: He turned it back again. He lost his place again. Get them to do it in crayon.

Mr. Pope: The proposed bill seems to envisage a novel means of enforcement by prosecution before a provincial court judge under the Petty Trespass Act. At the present time many contraventions of the act may be brought to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and in addition may, with the consent of the board, be subject to the matter of a criminal prosecution which can lead to the imposition of substantial fines.

Mr. Grande: We know you can read.

Mr. Pope: It is not clear how the new prohibitions would fit into the existing scheme. Neither the board authority nor the current consent to prosecute provisions are mentioned in the bill and the fines in the Petty Trespass Act are much lower than those currently possible for other breaches of the act.

Mr. McClellan: Have you ever seen a picket line?

Mr. Pope: Just before I sit down, I would like to quote from, I think someone in authority, who may have the respect of the third party, although I doubt that they respect anyone.

Mr. Breaugh: You can’t impugn the motives of the members of this House.

Mr. Pope: This is a quote, and I’ll read it: “I want to tell you something else which may be indiscreet of me, but I’ll say it anyway. I don’t agree with some of the people, including senior labour leaders in this province like Cliff Pilkey -- ”

Mr. Grande: See what happens when you talk, you get into trouble.

Mr. Pope: “ -- when they say that non-striking workers should somehow not have access in law. The law stands that you have a right to go on strike. The law also says that those who choose not to go on strike -- ”

Mr. McClellan: He was talking about the law as it is.

Mr. Pope: “ -- have a right to continue working.”

Mr. McClellan: That’s the law.

Mr. Pope: “That seems to me to be a legal and supportable proposition. I’ve never much liked the idea that should be impeded. So with considerable regret, I don’t agree with Mr. Pilkey on all of that.”

Mr. McClellan: He was supporting the law as it is.

Mr. Breaugh: The next thing we how he’s going to read the Thoughts of Chairman Mao.

Mr. Pope: That quote is from May 31, 1978, by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis).

An hon. member: It’s a joke.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes? Yes?

Mr. McClellan: He was telling you exactly what the law is.

Mr. Breaugh: Dynamite speech, but are you for him or against him?

Mr. McClellan: He was telling the police to enforce their own laws.

Mr. Mancini: I would like to address myself to Bill 65, which has been introduced by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), but which had been, I believe, previously introduced by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh); which had previous to that in fact been introduced, almost somewhat in the same manner, by my former colleague, the former member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook). Although I commend the member for Bellwoods for introducing the bill, it’s not that original. Maybe the next time he gets a ballot item he can do a little better.

Mr. Lupusella: Will you support it?

Mr. Cassidy: Will you support it?

[4:15]

Mr. Mancini: Bill 65, I believe, deals with the basic rights of working people in this province. When an area, work site, manufacturing plant, a mine, or these other various work places are on strike, I don’t think it’s very much to ask of anyone to let the strike continue legally and not jeopardize the rights of the working people who are trying to gain a fair and equitable contract. I have many establishments in my riding, some of which have been on strike on some occasions.

Mr. Lupusella: That’s exactly the principle of the bill.

Mr. Grande: You don’t understand the principle of the bill. I am sure about that.

Mr. Mancini: Even my father was one of the striking workers. I don’t think it would have been fair for him or for any of those other workers to have someone else go in and do their work, because if that is the way we are going to handle strikes in this province then the working people have no strength and they have absolutely no protection of their rights at all.

Mr.