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

October 14, 1980

31st Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L088 - Tue 14 Oct 1980 / Mar 14 oct 1980

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PLANT CLOSURES AND TERMINATION ENTITLEMENTS

NEW HEALTH PROGRAMS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PLANT CLOSURES AND TERMINATION ENTITLEMENTS

BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES DISPUTE

PLANT CLOSURES AND TERMINATION ENTITLEMENTS

DAY CARE

HOSPITAL BEDS

WAGES IN SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

WINTER BREAK

AMBULANCE SERVICES

DISPUTE AT AMR CENTRES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

ONTARIO HYDRO ADVERTISING

DISPUTE AT AMR CENTRES

TRANSPORTATION OF PHYSICALLY DISABLED

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

ALGERIAN EARTHQUAKE

MOTION

COMMITTEE TRAVEL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHIROPODY AMENDMENT ACT

JURIES AMENDMENT ACT

DOG OWNERS’ LIABILITY ACT

CITY OF GLOUCESTER ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PLANT CLOSURES AND TERMINATION ENTITLEMENTS

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement concerning the government’s position on the important and complex issue of plant closures and layoffs, an issue that has received considerable public attention in recent weeks and has been the subject of much intensive study within the government.

May I begin by saying that in outlining these proposals I do not intend to get into a statistical battle with my friends opposite. I could point out that some of their figures relating to the number of closures and the number of employees permanently affected do not give an accurate picture of the nature and extent of the problem. I could also point out that in relative and aggregate terms, the problems facing Ontario workers in October 1980 are not dramatically different from those in previous years.

However, I do not want to be in the false position of attempting to justify human hardship on the basis of quantitative or statistical analysis. Whatever set of figures one may use, the fact remains many persons in Ontario have had their employment terminated in recent months as a result of full or partial plant closures and we have an obligation to devise practical, equitable and affordable ways of alleviating the resulting human hardship.

I think it was recognized in last week’s debate that these are concerns that transcend partisan considerations and should be given the highest priority by this Legislature. At the same time, we must avoid sending out false signals to our citizens, to potential investors and to our trading partners. As the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has indicated, Ontario has a vigorous and resilient industrial base. We are rich in resources, both natural and human, and we have every reason for confidence in the future.

We must continue to project the confidence and buoyancy that those undeniable facts justify, otherwise we run the risk of undermining the confidence that others have in us and upon which our prosperity depends.

Having said that, we would be ignoring reality if we failed to acknowledge that Ontario, along with most other western industrialized jurisdictions, is experiencing the adverse effects of a recession as well as certain structural economic changes of a longer-term significance.

To respond to the labour adjustment problems caused by these factors, the government is proposing a five-point program.

My colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) will shortly be introducing amendments to the Pension Benefits Act to address certain immediate problems highlighted by recent events. For example, we believe that when a plant closes, long-service employees within a few years of early retirement should not be deprived of the opportunity to receive a pension when they reach early retirement age, even though their pension plan has been terminated.

We also believe that upon termination of a pension plan, employees should have certain options in relation to their statute-vested rights, including the option, under appropriate circumstances, to transfer their statute-vested benefits to the plan of their new employer. We also believe there is need for a centrally administered fund to guarantee pension rights under the statute in those instances where terminating plans are not fully funded.

The amendments to the Pension Benefits Act that will be proposed will focus on problems associated with early cessation of plans. As members know, the royal commission on pensions is completing what will be the most exhaustive and intensive study of pensions ever undertaken in Canada, and it is expected that the commission will report by the end of this year. The amendments I have described will provide protection for employees until the government has had an opportunity to consider the recommendations of the royal commission’s comprehensive report regarding this critical and complex subject

The second matter relates to termination entitlement. Ontario now has termination notice provisions that provide protection for Ontario workers comparable to or better than that provided in most North American and European jurisdictions. Although our Employment Standards Act provides for notice, or pay in lieu thereof, there is not statutory provision for severance pay as such in the event of a plant closure. Many collective bargaining agreements contain severance pay provisions, and severance pay schemes are not uncommon in the unorganized sector.

However, legislated severance pay is extremely rare in North America. We are not opposed to severance pay as a matter of principle. However, there are certain practical ramifications regarding any severance pay proposal which require careful analysis.

For example, how should severance pay requirements relate to existing statutory obligations to provide pay in lieu of notice? Is severance pay to be in addition to pay in lieu of notice or should one be set off against the other, in whole or in part? If severance pay entitlement is to be related to seniority, should minimum service requirements be established before entitlement arises? Should there be a ceiling on entitlement? How, if at all, should severance pay relate to unemployment insurance entitlement?

Should severance pay apply to partial as well as complete closures and if so, how should partial closure be defined? Should businesses employing fewer than a certain number of employees be exempt from severance pay requirements?

Mr. McClellan: We can ask the questions. Give us the answers.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: We are concerned about small business and that is what this particular point I am raising is all about. The members on that side may not be, but we are.

Should any statutory scheme for severance pay apply to managerial as well as non-managerial employees? How should statutory severance pay affect severance entitlement negotiated under a collective agreement? What validity is there in the contention that severance pay could operate as a disincentive to re-employment?

2:10 p.m.

I hope it is apparent from these questions that the severance pay issue is a complex one, that the design features of any statutory severance pay plan must be carefully considered, and that the ramifications of a legislative initiative in this area are important for employees and employers alike. In considering the matter, I want to avoid simplistic, quick-fix solutions and, in addition, I want to make sure I have the benefit of the best advice available from both labour and management.

That necessary consultative process has already begun. As well, there has been an indication from some members that severance pay, as well as the related question of the adequacy of existing termination notice requirements and perhaps some other matters having to do with plant closures, should be considered by a committee of the Legislature. I have no objection to this and indeed it might assist in addressing some of the difficult questions I have posed regarding severance pay in particular.

The third proposal deals with fringe benefits. Under the existing provisions of the Employment Standards Act, pay in lieu of notice in the event of termination does not encompass fringe benefits. In several recent plant closures, employees lost pension benefits and medical coverage to which they otherwise would have been entitled. The problem is particularly acute where an employee would have qualified for an early retirement pension had he been permitted to work out the notice period. A similar hardship occurs where, by virtue of immediate termination, an employee is prevented from attaining service requirements for the vesting of pension benefits.

To rectify this situation, I will be proposing amendments to the Employment Standards Act to provide that employees shall be paid the fringe benefit payments to which they otherwise would have been entitled as part of pay in lieu of notice. In addition, the amendments will deem employees to have worked the notice period for the purpose of computing their entitlement to service-related benefits other than pensions. Pension benefits will be similarly protected by amendments to the Pension Benefits Act.

The fourth proposal involves a further amendment to the Employment Standards Act. As members know, manpower adjustment committees are now established on a voluntary basis with the Ministry of Labour co-sponsoring the committees with Canada Employment and Immigration. The costs of the committees are shared by the two governments and the employer. The committees have had considerable success in assisting displaced employees in finding alternative employment. However, in the past, some employers have refused to participate in those committees.

Accordingly, I will be introducing an amendment to the Employment Standards Act that will give the Minister of Labour specific authority to require employers to participate in and contribute to the funding of manpower adjustment committees.

The fifth proposal complements the one to which I have just referred. Manpower adjustment committees deal primarily with the narrow but important question of immediate placement of workers in alternative employment. There are a number of other issues which arise when notice of a plant closure is received and various ministries of government have capabilities which, under appropriate arrangements, can be quickly mobilized and effectively utilized.

Within the next several weeks, I will be announcing the details of a new co-ordinated interministerial response mechanism for dealing with plant closures and layoffs. A senior adviser/co-ordinator with extensive experience in business and industrial relations will be appointed to act on my behalf. He will organize and direct regional interministerial field task teams composed of representatives from the ministries of Labour, Industry and Tourism, Education, Community and Social Services, and Intergovernmental Affairs. The process I envisage will have three phases.

First, on receipt of information concerning an impending closure, the co-ordinator will make immediate contact with management and with the employees or their representatives to obtain all pertinent information in order to assess the possibility of maintaining the operation.

Second, if the closure decision stands, the co-ordinator, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour mediation staff, will attempt to resolve any disagreements respecting termination rights and benefits arising from the closure.

Finally, the co-ordinator will be responsible for the deployment of the regional interministerial team. That team, equipped to provide career counselling, skill assessment, information on available training programs and related matters, will work in a supportive and complementary role with the manpower adjustment committee.

An important input to the team’s work will be the assistance of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism in determining the region’s economic prospects and mid- and long-term alternative employment opportunities. At the same time, the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, as a member of the team, will be evaluating the impact of the closure on the financial ramifications for the affected municipality. Where appropriate, recommendations will be developed for assistance. The Ministry of Community and Social Services representative on the team will respond to special needs related to social assistance and rehabilitation.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to refer to the important issue of skills training. Although this issue does not directly relate to plant closures, I think most members would agree that in the long term we cannot ensure continued growth or the investment needed to fuel our industrial sector unless a better job is done in training skilled workers. The manpower commission, which was appointed a year ago, has concluded that the industrial sector in Ontario has fallen short in meeting its responsibilities in this area. Unless effective action is taken, critical skills shortages will continue to grow.

Therefore, in the near future, during this session, I shall be announcing initiatives in this area as well.

I believe the proposals I have outlined today address the essential concerns in the community in a humane and responsible manner. It is my sincere hope they can be implemented with the least possible delay.

NEW HEALTH PROGRAMS

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline for the honourable members my ministry’s plans for the introduction of legislation during the next few months.

As the honourable members are aware, my ministry has been developing several initiatives to strengthen the public health sector of the health care system. Prevention, through public health programs, is of vital importance in slowing the rapidly increasing costs of health care in our province.

To provide local public health units with the tools to improve the quality of public health programs, we have been following a three-part strategy.

First, we have taken the lead in setting up a voluntary system of accreditation for public health units. A field trial will be conducted in three public health units this fall as a step towards this important goal.

The second part of our strategy is to strengthen public health research and development. Last year, $1 million was set aside for this purpose.

The third element of our public health strategy is to complete development of a core package of public health services, a core group of services that will be common to all health units and departments across the province.

For several months now, we have been consulting with public health officials all over Ontario to develop this package of core programs. They will be embedded in a new Health Protection Act, which I plan to introduce next spring to replace the existing Public Health Act. A white paper covering these programs will be released this fall for comment by our public health units and others in the health system.

The core programs are being looked at under six broad categories. These include immunization, preventive dentistry, environmental sanitation, family health, home accident prevention and nutrition.

My ministry has also been working on new legislation to strengthen the provisions covering the operation of X-ray equipment. Earlier this year, the advisory committee on radiology submitted its report to me and I announced at that time that I accepted, in principle, the committee’s recommendations. The proposed Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act will include these recommendations and will replace legislation covered now in part by the existing Public Health Act.

The honourable members will recall that the committee’s recommendations included the establishment of a healing arts radiation protection agency to oversee and to co-ordinate an X-ray safety program for Ontario. The report also recommended that new legislation be introduced requiring a safety code for all X-ray facilities and equipment, as well as registration of all facilities. It recommended that mandatory peer-review programs be established for all groups of operators.

The committee’s report has been widely circulated and comments have been received from major interest groups as well as individual practitioners. Although a few specific concerns were expressed -- primarily relating to consultation on the composition of the proposed healing arts radiation protection agency and to the costs of implementing the program -- all agreed with the principles set forth in the report and with the thrust of the recommendations. We are making final changes to accommodate such concerns, and I expect to introduce this legislation within the next few weeks.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, later today I will introduce amendments to the Chiropody Act that will provide the legislative framework for developing improved foot care services for the people of Ontario. The need for more foot care services has been emphasized, and a chiropody model recommended, by the Ontario Council of Health Report on Health Care for the Aged, the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens and the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto.

As the honourable members will recall, last March I announced our intention to develop an enhanced foot care program based on the salaried chiropody model while, at the same time, preserving the ability of this province’s podiatrists, who are registered under the existing Chiropody Act, to provide foot care on a fee-for-service basis.

2:20 p.m.

In my statement to this House last March, I outlined the steps we proposed to take, in conjunction with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, in setting up courses to train chiropodists in Ontario. I am pleased to advise the honourable members today that the first courses are to begin in the fall of 1981 and that they will be the result of a joint effort by George Brown College and the Toronto Institute of Medical Technology.

In fact, a team from my ministry, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and these institutions will shortly be visiting the United Kingdom. Their objective will be to obtain the co-operation of schools of chiropody there in developing a program for Ontario, based on the British model, which involves a three-year program. The Ontario program will probably also be of three years duration, depending on how we adapt the British curriculum to our system.

However, we do not intend to wait until the first chiropodists graduate from the community college course. As a pilot project, six registered nurses will be given an intensive six-month course in chiropody at Toronto General Hospital beginning in January 1981. We will be paying the cost of the course, and the nurses’ salaries will be jointly covered by my ministry and their current employers.

After completion of the course, it is planned that these registered nurses will teach registered nursing assistants the principles of foot care hygiene in courses of three to four weeks’ duration, beginning later in 1981. After assessment of this pilot project, we hope to be able to make this program available province-wide. These moves would provide an expansion of foot care services on the chiropody model within about one year’s time with, of course, further expansion as graduates of the community college course become available in 1983 or 1984.

Two amendments to the act are proposed. The first will increase the lay membership of the board of regents appointed under the Chiropody Act. The second amendment will give the Lieutenant Governor in Council the authority to make regulations under the act in line with the authority already established under the Health Disciplines Act.

A regulation will be proposed to recognize chiropodists registered in the United Kingdom so that such practitioners may be recruited to teach and to work in our hospitals. A further regulation will recognize eventual graduates of the Ontario program.

I am confident that the steps we are taking will greatly enhance the level of foot care for our citizens over the next few years. These proposed changes in legislation demonstrate our intention to continue to make the alterations in our health care system necessary to ensure that Ontarians receive health services at least equal to those anywhere else in the world.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PLANT CLOSURES AND TERMINATION ENTITLEMENTS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Labour: Why has the minister come in with this inadequate statement after a full summer to ponder the matter, a statement in which he has proposed only a few small changes in pension falling far short of genuine portability, a committee and a co-ordinator?

Could the minister specifically say why he will not take the step to legislate severance pay in Ontario when his own negotiators were quite prepared to negotiate severance pay during the Houdaille occupation? Why should it be necessary for plants to be occupied by workers to get the Ministry of Labour to help the workers obtain severance pay? Why can’t it be part of a law of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition may consider that the proposals I have made today are not important but I have to tell him I think they are responsible and appropriate.

The honourable member has said, “Why don’t the amendments with regard to the Pension Benefits Act propose true portability?” He knows very well that until the pension program in general is overhauled so that all pensions are of the same kind and funding is at standard levels, portability is not always possible.

The proposal the minister will bring in not only will involve transfer of pension rights to new employers’ plans where it is appropriate, but will also give the option of converting the funds into a noncommutable annuity which is indeed the best true portability that can be achieved pending full review of the legislation. So I think it is quite inaccurate and inappropriate to suggest that it is not true portability. It is within the context of the existing legislation.

The overall issues will be addressed once the Haley report is in. The honourable member knows that quite well. I do not agree with him that the remaining points are tiny ones. They are points that I, personally, have noted when in discussions with companies and trade unions during closures. Sure, our mediators have been able to negotiate severance pay, but I say to the honourable member, and I am sure he must have thought of this himself, it is strange that he and I may attach such importance to severance -- and I do as a matter of fact -- yet when we look at the statistics we find only 28.4 per cent of negotiated contracts have severance provisions in them.

I think it is fair to say that in the 1970s there were those who didn’t agree that severance pay should be paramount or foremost in the minds of negotiators. I am simply saying to the honourable members and the House that there are a lot of problems related to severance pay that should be discussed in a committee. I know the honourable member has asked for a committee, one that would go much further and would explore employee-employer relations, which I think is a strange thing to be saying in a province where I think we have a remarkably stable labour relations climate and one that is the envy of most provinces and most countries.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the committee we have asked for has to deal with a means of determining how plant closures can best be justified to the community, and since it does appear that the minister has suggested there be a certain co-ordinator who would, according to the information in the statement, get all pertinent information, do I take it that the coordinator will have the right to subpoena the books of the company that is closing down to see whether the company is genuinely profitable or unprofitable, and whether there have been transfers out of the company of machinery or other lines which would make the company seem unprofitable?

I take it the coordinator will have the right to have the books of that company opened and examined. If not, what is the use of having a co-ordinator and what means of justification will the community have?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think when the honourable member sits down and thinks about it, he will agree that the role of a co-ordinator, and the type of person I am talking about and referred to in the statement, will serve a very valuable role and will provide a great deal of background information to the problem of plant closures.

I know the honourable member is very interested and anxious to have mandatory justification. He is anxious that individuals, partners and corporations, be they Canadians or foreigners, should be told on occasion, “You can’t shut down.” He would take away the right to close down, whether it be from an individual, a partner or a corporation. I understand that is what the honourable member is driving at, but I have to tell him that isn’t the law in any province or state that I know of in North America and I doubt it would be considered acceptable to most members of this House.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Before the minister allows the problem of plant shutdowns to be smothered in 19 pages of words, which he has tried to do today, can I ask him specifically whether the companies will be made to justify their shutdowns to the workers and to the communities concerned, or will they be able to walk away from a community as Houdaille did in Oshawa or as Tung-Sol did in Bramalea without a word of explanation about why they were leaving the community and abandoning their responsibilities to communities where they had operated for years?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the member chose to attack what I have said today, and the volume and quality of it, when that really should not have been the issue, and I resent it. If the honourable member wants to get down to the real issues, the matters I raised, I think we are offering tangible, appropriate and important contributions to the problem facing this province today with regard to plant shutdowns.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How does the minister justify putting on page 15 that this co-ordinator will make immediate contact with management and so on to obtain all pertinent information in order to assess the possibility of maintaining the operation? What kind of pertinent information will he obtain if he can’t have a look at the books of the company to see whether the reason the company is being closed is a justifiable reason or not?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear what sort of request we will be placing in the hands of a co-ordinator. It will be to do just what it says here, “to request and require all pertinent information in order to assess the possibility of maintaining the operation.” It is pretty clear.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the committee the minister is going to appoint, is that going to be a select committee? Is that committee going to have the power to look into shutdowns in Ontario to determine what is causing people to move away and leave people high and dry, or is it just going to look at severance pay? In other words, is this committee going to look at the reasons plants are bailing out?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, House leaders will be negotiating the nature and the terms of reference of the committee, but I have said quite clearly that I would be pleased if the committee reviewed not only severance pay but termination provisions and other matters related to plant closures.

2:30 p.m.

BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES DISPUTE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a separate question on another matter to the Minister of Labour: Is the minister familiar with the fact that there is a strike going on at Browning-Ferris Industries at the so-called recycling plant in the Downsview area in Toronto? Is he aware that after certification, the union is seeking its first contract and that the company has insisted on a very broad management rights clause and given no grievance procedure with the exception of termination or suspension? They can do anything else they like to the union member, with no grievance procedure whatsoever.

Under those circumstances, and given the fact that that particular company is operating on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment in very close proximity to the ministry, so that the ministry has to approve any of its major expenditures and so on, how can the minister justify being associated with a company that plainly is attempting either to make it impossible to get a first contract or to provide a first contract which, in effect, will be void and missing any of the usual protections we can expect in 1980?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not have information about that particular plant available to me at the moment. I may say that to suggest any collective agreement could be without a grievance process is quite incredible, since by legislation there has to be -- and by Bill 25 there has to be -- an alternative available to people, regardless of the grievance procedure that may be agreed to by the two parties.

I cannot accept it when the Leader of the Opposition says an agreement has been negotiated without it. Failure to agree to such a thing clearly is an unfair labour practice and it is a matter the board could deal with. Should that be the case, I am sure one of the parties will bring such an application.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The grievance procedure suggested by the company exists only in the case of termination or suspension. It does not apply to any reclassification of work, change in working conditions, transfer and other such matters.

In the presence of a very broad management rights clause, it is obvious there should be some change in that regard. I am asking the minister if he would look into it, especially in view of the fact that Browning-Ferris Industries is basically working very closely with and on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment in this regard. Surely the government should show some leadership and inform Browning-Ferris Industries that this is not Texas. It is Ontario and the year is 1980.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to review the negotiations at Browning-Ferris Industries. I may say the government does act responsibly in dealing with negotiations in this province. I do not know anybody who looks at it objectively who would say otherwise.

PLANT CLOSURES AND TERMINATION ENTITLEMENTS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour arising out of his statement to the House a few minutes ago. The statement says the government is not opposed to severance pay as a matter of principle, but fails to say whether the government is in favour of severance pay as a matter of principle and, therefore, undertakes to bring in legislation to provide for severance pay in Ontario.

Is the government in favour of severance pay as a matter of principle when workers are laid off or plants are shut down? Will the Minister of Labour undertake on behalf of the government that there will be legislation to provide that protection of severance pay to workers affected by shutdowns?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement says what the government means. As a matter of principle, we are not opposed to severance pay. Clearly, in negotiations severance pay is an issue -- not in all negotiations.

I do not think the leader of the New Democratic Party would want me to deprive the committee that will probably come to be out of the negotiations that are taking place, of the opportunity of reviewing the problems and the questions I have raised. I am sure it will have others to raise.

At this stage I would have to say the government is not prepared to make that commitment.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour refuses to make a commitment and then he turns around to blame trade unionists for not having negotiated severance pay in the contracts they negotiated over the course of the last 10 years. Given that two thirds of the workers in Ontario are not in organized work situations, can the minister explain how those workers could have negotiated severance pay over the course of the last 10 years?

Given that some other workers who have unions do not have the bargaining power to get that kind of provision, and therefore do not have it either, why does the minister insist on blaming workers, when most of the workers affected were not in a position to negotiate severance pay? Why can we not have the commitment in principle now that the government this session will bring in legislation to provide for severance pay for workers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let me reiterate that I am not criticizing workers. I agree with Doug Fraser when he says it is difficult to put severance on the table when there are other matters and money up front to be dealt with and negotiated for. I am just saying that is a fact of life.

I have clearly enunciated the government’s position in my statement and in my previous answer to the member. We are not opposed to severance as a matter of principle. We look forward to my personal discussions with labour and management over the issue, and to the deliberations of the committee on the issues before us.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, given what we would all agree is considerable urgency in this matter, and given the rather unclear answer to the question put to the minister by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), could he use his influence with the members here on my left and the House leaders to see that we proceed with this committee debate? We will be giving up our time for the Ministry of Labour estimates which are due to come forward within the next week. This is so that we can get this on the rails right away rather than leaving it in a sort of limbo as he is suggesting.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: In a word, Mr. Speaker, if the third party would agree to that, the answer is yes.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister tell the House whether any of the changes he is proposing will be retroactive and whether they will apply to the 185 workers in my riding being laid off at the end of November?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well the difficulties there are with retroactive legislation. Where does one draw the line? What is the new plateau? I cannot give him that commitment.

But with regard to the Cornwall closure he is talking about, I am still investigating that. Today I have asked my staff to have the management come to see me next week and I expect I will be talking to members of the union shortly as well.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact that by Ontario’s own statistics 46,000 workers have been permanently or indefinitely laid off in Ontario over the course of the last 12 or 13 months, when will the minister undertake to bring in the limited amount of legislation that has been promised here? When will he undertake to bring in severance pay legislation which those workers need to be protected and which they cannot wait for until next year or the year after that?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Once again we have different figures being used. I do not want to get into the position of having to criticize the leader of the third party for the figures he chooses, but he knows very well those are not the figures this ministry accepts. This year, up to the end of September, on indefinite layoffs there are some 16,807. We all know these are related to the auto industry. Permanent layoffs as a result of complete closures are 7,390; partial closures, 1,233. These figures are not vastly different from those of other years. So let us not get the thing out of perspective.

What we are really talking about this year is an increase in the number of indefinite layoffs related to the auto industry, and we all have great hopes that is starting to turn around.

Mr. Cassidy: I will not comment on the layoff of 600 Chrysler workers that was announced this weekend and which the minister has not included in his figures.

DAY CARE

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question of the Minister of Community and Social Services arising out of the inaccuracies that he used in the Legislature last week when talking about day care in Ottawa. Will the minister acknowledge that he made charges about provincial subsidies being given to high-income families in relation to day care in Ottawa-Carleton last spring, and those charges were proved to be without substance in the spring just as they are without substance now? Will the minister acknowledge his error?

Will he start to concentrate on the need for day care, which amounts to more than 1,000 people on the waiting list in Ottawa and thousands more in Metropolitan Toronto? Will he promise action rather than words and misleading comments in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity the leader of the third party has provided me with to reaffirm the accuracy of both my statements last spring and my more recent ones. I would point out to the honourable member that following the time of my drawing this to the attention of the Legislature in an exchange with him last spring; I was invited to go on one of the Ottawa morning radio programs with a member of the social services committee for Ottawa-Carleton. During the course of that discussion on the radio program he said, “I acknowledge that the minister is accurate.

I acknowledge that we did not realize this prior to this time. We do not know how many high-income families are being subsidized as a result of our ceilings but we will look into it.”

2:40 p.m.

I will further point out to the honourable member that I understand there is a report being presented to the Ottawa-Carleton council this afternoon, in a meeting as a result of a request from the council, which I suggest will confirm the accuracy of what I have just said. I expect to be in receipt of such report tomorrow.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: Last spring I understand the minister alleged that Maureen McTeer was receiving a subsidy from provincial sources and then the minister had to withdraw that because her child was not in a day care centre that uses provincial subsidies. The minister said on Friday, “The municipality is channelling provincial money into subsidies to families which can well afford to pay their own way.”

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister not aware there is not a penny of provincial subsidy going to any full-fee parent in a municipal day care centre -- and these were the people the minister was referring to -- and does the minister not agree that when he makes unfounded allegations of this nature it tends to bring down the image of day care, when his responsibility as minister responsible for day care in Ontario should be to ensure that day care is universally accessible right across the province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member’s understanding of a subsidy and my understanding of a subsidy may be two different things. I am not sure, but I would ask him how he would describe this: If in fact the per diem cost to provide day care for a child in one of the municipal centres is $17 or $18 a day but the maximum the municipality will permit a full paying parent to pay is $12.50, what would he call the difference between $12.50 and $18? Is that not a subsidy? In my opinion that is a subsidy.

Let me give another example and this is referring to a specific centre in the member’s municipality: If the full per diem cost is $31 a day for infant day care -- the average, I think he will find in this afternoon’s report, is even higher than that but let’s take the $31 example -- but the ceiling the municipality has established is $17, that $14 difference I would call a subsidy. I don’t know what the member would call it, but it is $14 of provincial and municipal money on 80-20 cost sharing which is flowed to that centre in order to assist.

Ms. Gigantes: No, it is not

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, it is.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister confirm this cost sharing matter? Is it true that of the $171,000 his ministry has promised in Ottawa-Carleton the provincial government is cost sharing only the first $50,000 and the rest is federal money? If that is not true, would he please give us the accurate figures?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the arrangement made with Ottawa-Carleton is precisely the same as was made with Metropolitan Toronto under similar circumstances. It is true that in the case of Ottawa-Carleton we did agree to cost share the first $51,000 or $52,000 on an 80-20 basis because of the circumstances under which that portion of their overrun arose.

Because of the fact that the balance related to additional spaces that appeared as a result of their own administrative difficulties which had arisen, we agreed to cost share it on a 50-50 basis. I would point out that it was made clear both to Metropolitan Toronto and to Ottawa-Carleton that it would not be solely federal money that was passed through, but we are working out the cost sharing so that the provincial portion of that subsidy is also passed through.

Nevertheless, out of the total, the municipality will be required to contribute 50 per cent in both cases. It does not contribute to a growth in their base, but allows them to work out of an administratively difficult situation they will find themselves in by the end of this fiscal year.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the minister if he would tell the House that of the 3,400 spaces in Ottawa-Carleton day care centres the per diem is greater than $30 for only 44 infants, and of those 44 infants, only 13 have parents who don’t qualify for a subsidy according to his regulations -- 13 of 3,400 or approximately 0.004 per cent. Would he like to acknowledge those facts and withdraw his unwarranted attack on the priorities assigned to day care services in Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that off the top of my head. Perhaps the member has an advance copy of the report that was being presented to the council today. I don’t happen to have, although I do have figures that would indicate, for example, in the one centre everyone is subsidized, regardless of what he or she is able to pay, by a minimum of $14. I think the member will find, when she sees a copy of the report that is being presented today by the social services department in Ottawa, that perhaps her figures are inaccurate.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware of the comments made by the chief of staff at the Greater Niagara General Hospital that bed shortage is so acute at his hospital that physicians fear for the quality of patient care? Is he aware that in our local paper, Friday last, there were such comments as: “Will someone have to die before action is taken?” and “Patients are being held on stretchers in the emergency department because there are no available active treatment beds to put them in”?

Such comments made by the chief of staff certainly are of grave concern to me, and I wonder how the minister might react to the comments made in our local paper.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge neither the hospital nor the chief of staff has drawn those concerns to my attention. I would be prepared, though, to send in a team to do an analysis of the bed utilization, to analyse the elective admissions and that sort of thing, to see if we can help them. I cannot recall that either the hospital or the health council has recommended additional beds in that area. If there is something we can do, first, to analyse how the existing beds are being utilized and, second, to address the longer-term problem, we will be glad to do so.

Mr. Kerrio: In view of the concern expressed by Dr. Nicholas Pohran, chief of staff, and in view of the fact that there are more beds to be closed in December, I wonder if the minister would delay the proposal to close additional beds in December until such an investigation is made and possibly keep those beds open.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am not aware of any intention to close beds in December. To my knowledge, nobody in the ministry has indicated that. We have not ordered any bed closures for several years now; so I will check into that. If the honourable member would send the details to me, it would be helpful. I think, as in many other communities, we have to look first of all at how the existing beds are being utilized, because quite often we find that either the length of stay is inappropriate or perhaps people are being admitted for things that could be done on an outpatient basis and, thus, free those beds.

Mr. Haggerty: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister indicated he was going to send in a field of experts to look into this particular area. Would he include the extended care services and the chronic care services in all of the Niagara Peninsula, for which facilities there is a desperate need?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will check on the date, but I believe that the Niagara Region District Health Council has a review under way. I am not quite sure at this point where it stands on extended care and chronic needs for the future. I would remind the member that in the last 18 months we did approve a significant addition of chronic beds at Welland County General Hospital. In other areas where the studies have been completed and the needs have been verified, we have been regularly adding chronic beds and nursing home beds.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he is approving the growing practice of leaving patients on stretchers overnight. The occasion in Niagara Falls is part of a pattern that is showing up across the province now of an increased incidence of patients being left on stretchers in corridors overnight. Is it the position of his ministry that this is an acceptable type of care?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is certainly preferable to turning away somebody who, it is felt, needs at least supervision or perhaps admission for testing. By and large, where the needs studies are being completed we are able to move to relieve pressures. But that is certainly preferable to turning people away.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, in the agreements undertaken by the ministry in the Niagara Peninsula and elsewhere, where chronic beds are designed and new structures are built to receive chronic beds to replace active treatment beds, and the hospitals agree with the ministry to have new X-ray equipment, new emergency equipment and holding beds put in, how can the minister justify going forward with one step, the step that he likes, which is putting in the chronic beds, and then postponing the alterations to the hospital under consideration, as in the instance of the Willett Hospital in the Niagara Peninsula near Paris?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The honourable member is stretching it a bit to say the Willett Hospital is in the Niagara Peninsula but, if the Speaker didn’t notice, I won’t notice.

Mr. Speaker: He said the Niagara Peninsula and elsewhere.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The honourable member will appreciate that, especially when we are dealing with a broad area like Brant county, involving five institutions all told, it is not possible to do everything at once. In the case of that county, St. Joseph’s Hospital agreed to close out its emergency which moved over to the Brantford General Hospital. That is well under way. The Brant Sanatorium agreed to give up some beds and move them over. In the case of the Willett --

Mr. Nixon: It gets the short end again.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with respect, as I recall the agreement -- which I do not have here, but I will undertake to look at it; it is a number of months old now -- it was agreed that this would be staged. In fact, what we have budgeted in terms of capital -- this was in the agreement; I could be mistaken, and I will check this -- what we have budgeted is $200,000 this year $225,000 next year and $975,000 in 1982-83, to give effect to the phasing or the staging of what was agreed upon.

WAGES IN SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour with respect to the level of wages paid to handicapped workers in sheltered workshops.

Each and every handicapped worker in a sheltered workshop is exempt from the minimum wage by virtue of a director’s permit issued under

section 24 of the Employment Standards Act. Was the minister aware when he issued

section 24 director’s permits to workshops employing clients of the Ministry of Community and Social Services that wages in those workshops are as low as six cents an hour; that the top wage, according to a survey we did of 18 workshops, was $1 an hour; and that the average wage was well under 50 cents an hour? Was the minister aware of these facts when he approved those director’s permits?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if I may just refer to the

section of the Employment Standards Act that deals with the matter raised by the member,

section 24 states: “For the purpose of enabling a handicapped person to be gainfully employed, the director may, upon the application of the handicapped person or his employer and with the consent of the handicapped person, his parent or guardian, authorize the employment of such handicapped person to perform such work as is authorized at a wage lower than the minimum wage prescribed under the act.” I am sure the member knows the history of this relates to whether the wage is really something other than a wage, whether there is a therapeutic component to it that makes it valuable.

Having said all that, let me be clear that I have recognized that the whole issue of wage permits for the handicapped is one that has to be reviewed. At present there is a handicapped employment program study, in co-operation with the employment standards branch and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, to review the whole matter of wage permits to sheltered workshops.

Mr. McClellan: I am tempted to ask the question again since the minister did not answer it. It was very simple: Was the minister aware of these wage levels? I will ask, though, a supplementary: Is he aware of a case, which I will keep anonymous, submitted to him on August 27 by the advocacy resource centre for the handicapped? It has to do with a handicapped worker who was working in a sheltered workshop for 50 cents an hour over a 75.5-week period without the authority of a director’s permit under

section 24. Can he tell me whether this is atypical and can he tell me what action his ministry has taken on this particular case?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am not aware of the particular case. If the member wishes to give the details to me in confidence, I will be pleased to treat it as such and review it.

WINTER BREAK

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong) asked a question on Friday morning. Apparently the content of his question and my response to it has raised some anxiety in the community of such import that we have had many calls from travel agents, parents, school children and teachers worrying about whether the 1981 school break was going to be moved. You will recall that the honourable member suggested that the timing of the school break on March 23 did nothing to support the ski industry in Ontario.

You will also recall that I suggested he might pray a little for snow, because I thought that was probably of much more import to the ski industry than the timing of the school break.

None the less, I have to tell you that the regulation, which was established in 1973, provides some flexibility. It does say there will be a winter break of five consecutive days commencing on the Monday next following the Friday preceding March 21, or five consecutive days exclusive of Saturday and Sunday that are within -- I did not write this -- the period from the first school day in January to the last school day in June and are designated school holidays in lieu thereof by the board that operates the school.

Generally, the March break has been the March break; the winter break has occurred in March. In 1976-77, it was March 21-25; in 1977-78, March 20-24; in 1978-79, March 19-23; in 1979-80, March 17-21; and this year, 1980-81, it will be March 23-27, 1981.

Several years’ plans have been developed by the ministry, but the flexibility remains with each school board. Each school board can change the March break if it so wishes, and a number of school boards have already done that to their peril, because they received the weight of the ire of parents, travel agents and others about the moving of the school break, which provided for lack of convenience when the school board next adjacent had its school break at the traditional time.

The one thing honourable members should know is that in 1981-82 it is suggested that the school break will be March 22-26, 1982.

Since that is already established in the minds of boards, teachers, students, travel agents and others, I doubt that it would be reasonable to suggest that we might change it for either 1981 or 1982, but we are looking very critically at the school year, at the length of the school day, at a number of factors related to school attendance, including the March break, and it is my anticipation that within the next 12 months we shall have some important modifications to make to those regulations. We will most certainly keep in mind the plight of the ski industry in Ontario when that is done.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I am wondering if the minister has given or will be giving consideration to the possible option, to benefit not only travelling but also the better use of recreational facilities within Ontario, of encouraging school boards in adjacent communities, ensuring hopefully that they would co-operate, to have perhaps three weeks of opportunities in which to have the various school break times. This would allow some flexibility for travel. I would think travel agents might be a lot happier if they could book people on flights and such like, rather than having things clogged up. Is that a possibility or is it not practical?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That flexibility is already there. Adjacent school boards can make that decision together if they wish; there is no doubt about that, and that is permitted.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware that the employees of the Chatham and district ambulance service have indicated they are prepared to go on strike later this week? Does the ministry have any contingency plans to provide emergency ambulance service to Chatham, Wallaceburg and areas of Kent county if they decide to withdraw their services?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there is a problem between the union and the employer that is alleged may result in a work cessation. I am also aware that work is continuing to try to bring the parties to an agreement before the end of the week. In the event that is not successful, yes, planning is under way to develop a contingency plan to provide emergency services. I would caution the honourable member that, in the event it came to that, routine transfers would not be looked after by the ambulance service that would operate during such a work stoppage.

3 p.m.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate more particularly what the contingency plans might be in the event of this “work cessation,” so that the essential services spoken of would be available to the people in the honourable member’s area?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can, closer to the date. They are being prepared now. In the two or three other instances where we have had difficulties in the past, we have been able to look after true emergencies through the use of management and supervisory personnel and the calling-in of adjacent services for emergencies.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that there is agreement between the union and the operator? The problem is that the ministry itself seized the books last year and they cannot get a clear line on what their funding patterns will be for this year. Is the minister not, in essence, causing the strike on Friday of this week?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is not the problem. First of all, the Ministry of Health did not seize the books. The books were seized as part of an investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police and the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Mr. Breaugh: And who asked for that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Is the honourable member saying that, in those cases where our auditors believe there is something untoward, we should not pursue it? Is that what he is saying? Really, Mr. Speaker, sometimes it goes beyond the pale.

Second, I am told that what is at issue is a clause proposed in the agreement. That is where the difficulty is; not over the books.

DISPUTE AT AMR CENTRES

Mr. Bradley: I am very pleased to be here to ask this question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the obstacles that are placed before those of us who have to travel in from the Niagara Peninsula along the Queen Elizabeth Way.

My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services in regard to a strike that exists at the present time both in Hamilton and St. Catharines involving those who work with the mentally retarded. Is the minister contemplating any immediate action to alleviate the strike situation by providing additional funding to both Participation House and the St. Catharines Association for the Mentally Retarded? With that they could pay the workers who are on strike in both those cases -- one case a lockout; the other a strike -- an adequate and decent wage.

Management and the employees’ associations in both cases say the only answer to the question lies with the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable member that both of those organizations have been advised as to the allocation of funds that is available to them this year. I recognize also that there are times when the pressures of difficult negotiations such as this make it tempting to suggest the problem could easily be resolved by a third party stepping in to do something. I feel the only way these disputes are going to be resolved is through the collective bargaining process.

With respect to the broader concern of levels of funding, we are in the process of reviewing generally across the province, on an agency-by-agency basis, the budgets of some of those agencies that are funded, one might say, at the lower end of the spectrum. Whatever assistance we may offer to some, the decision ultimately is the decision of the agency that is the employer to arrive through the collective bargaining process at a level of remuneration that is acceptable to the employees and that the employer can afford to pay. That is as much as I can say at this point.

The next question is, am I prepared to intervene in some other way? No, I am not prepared to intervene in the collective bargaining process.

Mr. McClellan: You did at Peace Bridge.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, I did not.

Mr. Bradley: Is the minister aware of the report prepared by Woods Gordon for the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded on job evaluation and pay determination? It reveals that the current pay practice of the association is about 34 per cent behind the pay practice in government-operated facilities and, on average, about 20 per cent behind the pay practice of similar service organizations, and that as an interim step it recommends the adoption of a pay curve 20 per cent above the current association pay practice? Is the minister aware of this particular report? Has he seen it, and will he comment upon the contents of it if he has?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I was aware that the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded had commissioned such a report, but I myself have not had an opportunity to read it. I presume that if it is now available to the honourable member the ministry has now received a copy, which I have been awaiting for some time. I would be quite willing to comment on it after I have had an opportunity to review it.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. When the minister was in Sudbury recently he had a good deal to say about air ambulance service in northern Ontario. Can he indicate why the Ontario health insurance plan has refused to pay ambulance service for a young man in my riding who suffered an eye injury for which he underwent emergency surgery in Sudbury and was then sent to St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto for further surgery because they could not do anything for him in Sudbury? He was on a stretcher when they brought him down by Air Canada and he had to pay for two seats because OHIP is refusing to pay. Could the minister tell me why?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if it was ordered by a physician and he was in need of supervision during transport, I do not understand why, but if the member will send me the name, the date and so forth, I will find out.

Mr. Martel: In view of the fact that the doctor sent only the mother along on the Air Canada flight, could the minister indicate if that is going to be the reason by this young man, who was by himself, should not receive OHIP coverage to pay for those two seats on Air Canada?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Essentially, the criterion is that if the individual requires medical or nursing supervision in transit, then we pay it. If the member gives me the name, the date and so forth, I will check into it. I may say that the issue is not one exclusively of the north. One can say the same about land ambulances: if it is required, we pay; if it is an inappropriate use, we do not.

ONTARIO HYDRO ADVERTISING

Mr. J. Reed: A question for the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker: Why is Ontario Hydro allowed to continue to mislead the public with the current advertising campaign which tells us we have very little hydraulic electric power resources left to develop in this province, then goes on to indicate that nuclear power is the only practical option when, in fact, Ontario Hydro’s own report number 213201, dated December 31, 1977, states clearly that we have some 12,000 megawatts of undeveloped hydraulic power in this province?

Why was this report not submitted to the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning instead of a document called Generation Non-Nuclear, which displays only about one third of the hydraulic potential of this report 213201?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there are two or three observations on the part of the honourable member that perhaps I should address. Number one, I think it is a very unfortunate use of language to suggest that a crown corporation as reputable as Ontario Hydro would be misleading the public. Under the circumstances, if the member would send me the advertisement in question, I would be very happy to take a look at it.

As the member knows, as he looks at the projections and the policy paper which I tabled a year ago, the expansion of the hydraulic resources is referred to, it is part of the package of Ontario producing from within its own boundaries more of its own total energy needs, and indeed the member comes back fresh from the presentation today of two very important papers at the electricity conference which shows that perhaps it is a balance we require, which seems to confirm the Ontario position with respect to this matter.

3:10 p.m.

Also, the member is perhaps being carried away with the recent

article in Maclean’s magazine about the report in question. It would be a matter of admission for the royal commissioner himself that he may not have recognized the report to which the member makes reference by its identification in numbers. Substantially the same material is part of the report to which the member does make reference. On the cover it talked about generation. On being reminded of that, my understanding is that the commissioner then acknowledged he did have that information.

Mr. J. Reed: Certainly the Minister of Energy would recognize that the comment made by the former chairman of the royal commission indicates that this document was never delivered and that there was never any indication made to the royal commission that there was that kind of potential. Is the minister not aware that when he talks about Hydro’s hydraulic development program it has now been deferred by four years and its budget has been cut from a paltry $2.4 million to a nothing $1.6 million? That represents half of Ontario Hydro’s advertising budget.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would repeat again that it is my understanding that when attention was drawn to the second document to which the honourable member makes reference the commissioner then acknowledged the fact that he did have the information. What he was referring to, I am told, as the member grasps for the gospel according to Maclean’s, was that he did not recognize the document as it was referred to by the questioner during the interview, but he did have a substantial amount of the information contained in the numbered report in the other report.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Just so we have the gospel according to the Minister of Energy, is the minister suggesting that the royal commissioner was wrong or inaccurate in saying that he did not have the information, or is the minister suggesting that the royal commissioner had the information but simply did not realize the significance of it? What is the import of the second possibility?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, I did not say either of those things. I am suggesting, that on the information I have, following the release of the issue of Maclean’s magazine in question, it was drawn to his attention that substantially the same information contained in the particular document which the interviewer had was contained in a report which was then identified and shown as being one of the exhibits.

In fairness to the commissioner, although I have not talked to the commissioner about this -- this is from information I have -- I am assuming he was referring to a report referred to as whatever it was, and he did not recognize that, but having had it drawn to his attention that this material to which reference was made was with respect to the resource, hydroelectric power, in fact the commission did have access to that information.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Dr. Porter said he was “shocked to the core” to find out there are 12,900 megawatts of undeveloped hydro power available, as indicated in that report. Irrespective of whether he did not have the report or he had it but did not notice the report, he is still shocked to hear the information. Is the minister shocked to find out there are 12,900 megawatts of undeveloped hydro power available? If he is not shocked by it, why does his much-vaunted statement of Friday call for only 2,000 new megawatts of hydraulic development when there are 12,900 megawatts available?

Hon. Mr. Welch: In a short answer, I am not shocked at the potential with respect to further hydraulic development.

Mr. S. Smith: Why just 2,000 megawatts then? It is only one third the cost of nuclear power.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Take a minute and look through Hansard. The Leader of the Opposition’s own colleague has continued to remind us of the contents of these reports long before this afternoon’s question period. We are talking in terms of the 2,000 megawatts in the report because they were immediately available and it seemed they could be encompassed. After all, the member would not want to ignore all the steps that have to be taken with respect to environmental hearings and assessments.

He pretends to be the great environmentalist in the House: I want to assure him we share some concern about that and recognize that option.

DISPUTE AT AMR CENTRES

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Regarding the lockout situation of Participation House in Hamilton, the minister has repeatedly said he is not prepared to interfere as a third party in the collective bargaining process. Is he prepared to tell this House today, or to look at the books of the board of Participation House and report back to this House, that there is enough money in that situation to allow free collective bargaining to go on, or is the present deadlock position of the offer that the Participation House board has made to the employees as far as they can go because there is no money?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the position to give any assurance to the House on the specifics of what the books of Participation House would contain at this point, nor at this point am I prepared to give the undertaking to have a look at their books.

Mr. McClellan: The minister stepped in at Peace Bridge.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member keeps referring to Peace Bridge. I did not step into the Peace Bridge situation at all.

Mr. McClellan: The minister tried to close them down after they settled.

Hon. Mr. Norton: They concluded their negotiations and were ready to close down because they did not have any money. They then decided to reopen their negotiations on their own and to roll back the settlement rather than close down. I did not intervene in that situation. I did not intervene at all.

Mr. Isaacs: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not realize that the offer of eight per cent that has been made to employees in that lockout situation is exactly the figure that was provided for an increase by his ministry to Participation House? If indeed it is all the money that Participation House has, then the minister is the invisible man at the bargaining table, because he controls the purse strings and it is up to him either to ensure that they have the money to solve the problem now or to give it to them so that Participation House can get back in business and the people back in their home as quickly as possible.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think the honourable member reflects some lack of understanding of institutional budgets.

Mr. McClellan: We know that.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Listen, the member held that position before while I stood here on this side of the House and said similar things and took abuse. He discovered in his own community only a short time ago that there was --

Mr. Wildman: You are answering the member for Wentworth, not the member for Bellwoods.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, I am talking about the person who asked the question and referred to his community. He subsequently learned that I was correct and) he was not. I am not going to start talking about percentages in this House as they relate to that particular negotiation. I will not say things in this House or outside this House which I know are likely to prejudice the free collective bargaining process that ought to be under way at the present time.

TRANSPORTATION OF PHYSICALLY DISABLED

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Why does he allow to persist in his ministry a policy that dictates and discriminates against the blind, a policy that denies access by the blind to special buses in urban communities designed to assist the handicapped, including the mobility buses in York region and the Wheel-Trans in Metro? It is a policy that excludes the blind from the definition of the physically handicapped and renders them ineligible for user certificates.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I stand to be corrected, but I believe the honourable member is about 100 per cent wrong in his assumption about the policy. First of all, the ministry’s funding policy with the municipalities on the handicapped transit system leaves the establishment of the criteria for those to be served totally up to the municipalities.

Mr. Stong: Would the minister inform himself of a current case in Richmond Hill. I believe the person’s name is Raymond Jackson. He has gone to all lengths with the ministry to obtain a certificate and has been denied such a certificate by the officials to use the bus that is available for the blind.

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, our ministry does not issue certificates such as that. It is the local municipality that issues them. Our policy does not cover that.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Last spring a number of questions were put to the minister about putting some concrete action behind the race relations component of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

What steps is the minister willing to take at this time to provide adequate resources to the race relations commission, especially as the commissioner, Dr. Ubale, was quoted in the Toronto Star some days ago as saying that he does not have the financial resources necessary to do what he has to do?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the House before in response to that question, an extensive consultation process to review the functioning of the Ontario Human Rights Commission was carried out. The results of that report were made available to the ministry last summer. I have taken representation to management board to increase by a considerable amount the staff and funding, particularly of the race relations division, and I hope to be making an announcement very shortly.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is the minister concerned? That is kind of an open-ended question, I know, and I know he is the minister concerned, but is he concerned that Dr. Ubale himself, according to that

article in the Star, no longer seems to have the support of large elements of the visible minorities, even though that word is now supposedly not to be used in Toronto? Does the minister think that stems from the lack of resources that have been provided to Dr. Ubale, or does he think Dr. Ubale is the wrong person for the job and should be replaced?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Of course, that is like asking, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” I am sure the honourable member knew that before he asked the question. First of all, I think Dr. Ubale is a very capable, able man who -- maybe not in the member’s style, but I think in the appropriate style -- has dealt very quietly and very diligently with a lot of serious racial problems, and he is to be congratulated for it. Obviously, I think there is a need to improve the staff capacity at his disposal or I would not have initiated the consultation process by an outside consultant. That process is completed.

I am endeavouring now to obtain more funds and more personnel for several areas of the human rights commission.

ALGERIAN EARTHQUAKE

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier. Could he inform this House if he has appraised himself of the news reports over the weekend which have shown the public the devastation that has been caused by the earthquake in Algeria and whether the Ontario government proposes to send food, medical supplies and clothing to the victims of this earthquake?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the House share a tremendous concern with respect to the welfare of those who have been the victims. To answer the question very quickly, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) is assessing the whole situation, gathering some information for the consideration of my colleagues and no doubt will have something to say about this on Thursday.

MOTION

COMMITTEE TRAVEL

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the standing committee on the administration of justice be authorized to travel tomorrow to Scarborough and Etobicoke to visit projects of the Ontario Housing Corporation.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHIROPODY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved first reading of Bill 167,

An Act to amend the Chiropody Act.

Motion agreed to.

JURIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Pope, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved first reading of Bill 168,

An Act to amend the Juries Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move first reading of the Juries Amendment Act, 1980. The bill removes the disqualification of blind persons and persons 70 years of age or older to serve on juries. The bill removes the statutory ineligibility of the clergy to serve on juries but provides that all persons whose religious practice or beliefs conflict with jury service may be excused from service by a judge.

The bill permits jury service to be defended or excused where said service would result in serious hardship to others.

Finally, the bill provides protection for the employment of persons who are summoned for jury duty.

DOG OWNERS’ LIABILITY ACT

Hon. Mr. Pope, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved first reading of Bill 169,

An Act to provide for Liability for Injuries caused by Dogs.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move first reading of a bill entitled the Dog Owners’ Liability Act, 1980. This bill would alter the sue liability of the owner of a dog that bites or attacks any person. The bill would make the owner strictly liable for damages resulting from an attack by his or her dog. The liability would not depend on negligence and the common-law principle of scienter, requiring foreknowledge of the dog’s vicious propensity, is removed.

The owner’s liability would be reduced by the extent to which the victim’s own fault or negligence caused the attack, and the owner would be entitled to contribution and indemnity from any other person at fault.

The bill would also replace the existing Vicious Dogs Act, which provides a procedure by which the destruction of a dog that has bitten a person may be ordered. That procedure is retained, but guidelines are set out for the court to consider in determination whether destruction of the dog is necessary for the protection of the public.

CITY OF GLOUCESTER ACT

Hon. Mr. Pope, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved first reading of Bill 170,

An Act to erect the Township of Gloucester into a City Municipality.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, this bill will erect the present township of Gloucester to city status on January 1, 1981. It has been brought forward in response to a request from the township council and reflects the fact that Gloucester is now extensively urbanized, with a population of almost 70,000.

I would like to point out that the legislation will not affect the November 1980 municipal election process, nor will it alter Gloucester’s representation on the Ottawa-Carleton regional council.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 174, 236, 238, 240 to 247, 249 to 255, standing on the Notice Paper. (See appendix, page 3377.)

3:30 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 85,

An Act to revise the Limited Partnerships Act;

Bill 136,

An Act to amend the Land Titles Act;

Bill 137,

An Act to amend the Registry Act;

Bill 138,

An Act to revise the Boundaries Act.

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 59,

An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, if you and the House would have patience with me, I will just gather my notes together here. I must say I was unable to be here last week, owing to external difficulties, for the lively and informative debate that took place on this crucial piece of legislation that is before the House.

I want to assure the members of the House that we will not be voting against this bill on second reading. How can one oppose this bill in principle when the bill has no principle? It is, as the ministry is, cautious, afraid to enunciate principle, hesitant defensive, like its minister, an old pro who has seen better days.

The bill contains several matters of substance but none of principle, and that seems to me to be a really important tragedy, because the bill lacks three important things that any Game and Fish Act and any bill that purports to amend the Game and Fish Act in this province should have.

First of all, there is no statement in the bill or in the original act of why it is necessary to regulate game and fish in the province. In other words, there is no statement of why we have a Game and Fish Act. Secondly, there is no legislative recognition in this bill or in its original act that there needs to be management of our wildlife resources. Even more important it lacks any legislative recognition that there needs to be a genuine conservation of our wildlife resources, and that seems to me to be a serious failure on the part of this government, on the part of this particular minister and on the part of the parliamentary assistant.

Thirdly, it is interesting to see a government that prides itself on the user-pay principle and has trumpeted that principle around the province increasingly over the last four or five years to justify various charges that it levies on the public as taxes, direct or in-direct. It is interesting, for example, to see that the government defends OHIP fees on the user-pay principle but does not have the guts to introduce a fee for resident fishing licences in the province, even though that is supported by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

Interestingly, when the Ontario association wrote to the minister indicating that the NDP supported this principle of a modest fee for fishing licences provided that revenue was channelled into the regeneration of fishing stock, which is of utmost importance in this province in this day and age, the minister wrote back to the association asking it for proof of this, even though I, on behalf of my party, had made that statement during the debate on his estimates. He must have been nodding at the time. He must have missed it.

All they did was quote the page in Hansard where it occurred, which goes to show that the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters knows more about what is going on in the province and in the Legislature in terms of the Game and Fish Act than does the minister.

There is no recognition in this bill that there needs to be an integration of the way in which we manage Ontario’s crown lands for whatever purposes, whether for the purpose of game and fish or for the purpose of forestry. It fails to recognize, as does any government piece of legislation, that there must be integrated use of our forests and of our crown lands. The ministry has by default said that the most important uses of crown lands in this province are forestry and mining.

Because those two giants within the ministry have without public debate received priority, there has been harm to and neglect of the game, the fish and the wildlife trapping aspects in use in the forests. There has not been a recognition by this government in public terms, that to the people who use the forests, either commercially or for recreation purposes for the exploitation of game and fish, that that is equally important in human terms for the individuals or for the peoples involved.

In other words, there has been an increasing feeling by trappers, hunters and fishermen that their uses of Ontario’s crown lands take very much a back seat to the two giant concerns of the ministry: forestry and mining. And, let me say, the miners have some concerns about their place in the sun these days as well, since the amalgamation of the ministries into the huge colossus known as the Ministry of Natural Resources.

A major concern I have about this piece of legislation, to which I would like to speak on this second reading of the bill, is that this legislation allows, as does the original act, far too much to be done by regulation. For that reason, I will be introducing amendments to the act that at least force the publication of those regulations four months in advance of their coming into effect.

The reason for that is very simple. It seems to me to be entirely reasonable for the hunters of this province and the people who sell licences and so on to know by May what the regulations are going to be for the coming fall. That has not always been the case. I would like to see that principle embodied in the legislation. Similarly, it is fair to say in the area of fishing that the fishermen should know what the spring regulations are going to be by the end of December or January.

I recognize that in a field as complex as management of our game and fish -- and it is a complex field -- the ministry itself must have some flexibility in terms of the regions and in terms of specific regulations for different species in different regions of the province. I recognize the importance and the necessity, therefore, for there being power so that the ministry can amend certain procedures for certain regions by regulation rather than having to bring a bill in every time it is necessary.

That is all the more reason why the act itself should embody in it a statement of principles so that the regulations cannot then contravene those principles because no regulation can contravene the spirit or intention of

an act. At the present time, because there is no statement of principle in the act, it is all too easy for the spirit and intention of the act to be subverted by a government that is insensitive to the Legislature in printing and approving of regulations.

3:40 p.m.

I have a second major concern that I want to put as calmly as I can but, if I may say so, with as much anger as I can. To the best of my knowledge after talking to spokesmen for both Treaty No. 3 and Treaty No. 9, nobody in the ministry thought to get in touch with Treaty No. 3 and Treaty No. 9 to discuss with them either the impact the amendments currently before the House would have on them or to discuss with them any amendment they would like to seek to the act.

I think that is a serious neglect of responsibility on the part of the minister and his officials because, if any people in this province are affected by the procedures for hunting, fishing and trapping, it is the people of Treaty No. 3 and Treaty No. 9.

Frankly, I am absolutely appalled by the harassment that the officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources have undertaken against the native peoples of the northern part of this province. It was my understanding from the treaties that were signed that the native peoples of the northern part of this province would have the right -- and they certainly understand that they have the right -- to hunt, trap and fish as they did traditionally.

This ministry has continuously insisted they get the licences required under this act and, more than that, I think that in certain parts of this province ministry officials have gone out of their way to institute proceedings against members of native bands when it was not necessary.

I believe that if this province wanted to establish a modicum of goodwill with the native peoples of this province, it should once and for all amend

section 35 of the original act. Unfortunately, this bill does not do that. It does not come to grips with

section 35 of the act. It is my contention that the native peoples of this province should be exempt from the provisions of

section 35 of the original act so that they would have without question the traditional right to hunt, fish and trap in their treaty areas.

That is one of those ironies we see time and time again in this Legislature. The peoples who are to a large extent dependent upon hunting, fishing and trapping more than any other people of this province are not consulted before the bill comes in. I know the bill has been standing on the Order Paper for a long time, but it seems to me that a ministry and a government with any sensitivity, with any sense of what is going on in the province and with any sense of justice, would have made the initial step to consult the spokesmen and the bands of Treaty No. 3 and Treaty No. 9 so that their concerns were taken into account in this legislation. That was not done.

It typifies the lack of leadership and the lack of courage this government has shown time and time again. In a minor way so does the reluctance of the minister to bring in a fee for residential fishing show a lack of courage on the part of this government.

This bill amends a certain number of sections in the act. One of the more interesting sections of the bill that I will be speaking to in more detail when we come to it, is

section 9. That is the

section that now allows the minister to grant licences for fox hunts, wolf hunts and coyote hunts, which I gather were unlicensed before. Because they were not specifically prohibited, they were legal, even though not licensed.

Very cleverly in that

section the ministry has proposed two different sets of amendments to the act and for two different sections of the original act. I wonder whether that is even in order. Certainly when we get to committee for the whole House, I think we should look at that.

In one part of that

section of the bill we allow licences for fox hunts, wolf hunts and coyote hunts. In a different part are the sections that have to do with the amendments to trapping that were pioneered by my friend and colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip).

I suspect that somewhere in the ministry somebody is chuckling away and saying: “Ha, ha, let’s see how the NDP deals with this

section of the bill. We’ve jammed the two together and those Socialist hordes might be opposed to fox hunts and in favour of humane trapping. We’ll get them in a cleft stick by jamming them together in the same section.” We are going to divide the subsections when we come to that

section of the bill so that we can state clearly our position on each.

The other

section of the bill I found intriguing and that I will be speaking to is a

section that now allows the minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Council to -- I cannot think of the right word -- nominate or officially declare what is and what is not an amphibian in the province. I have in the back of my mind this vision of the Lieutenant Governor in Council sitting in a room determining what is and what is not an amphibian. It sort of boggles the mind.

Then there is the latter

section in the act that allows amphibian hunts, just like wolf, coyote and fox hunts.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It opens up the possibility of persecutions. Scary.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, and maybe reptiles as well.

Without getting into any personality conflicts about who should or should not be nominated as an amphibian or a reptile, I think that gives enormous power to the minister.

Mr. Wildman: There have been quite a few amphibians and reptiles nominated over there.

Mr. Foulds: I am not sure that is the kind of power I want to give to a partisan minister. The present minister is such a gentle and humane fellow that I know he would not abuse that power. But I hesitate to think what would happen if the present parliamentary assistant became the minister.

I can see the poor member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) being named in a dispatch from the Lieutenant Governor in Council under the

section dealing with amphibians, reptiles, et cetera. I can see there might be some personal justification for that, but I think it would be an abuse of the minister’s power. I really hesitate to give those sweeping powers to any minister.

Mr. Speaker, as you have concluded, we rise not to oppose this bill on second reading. We have some serious reservations about its lack of direction, its lads of initiative and its lack of principle in management of wildlife and of setting that principle in legislative terms.

3:50 p.m.

We have very serious concerns that the traditional rights of native peoples have not been enshrined in this piece of legislation. We have a continued concern that the minister may once again abuse his power through regulation because of the sweeping nature assigned to him both in the original act and through this bill.

We, therefore, will be having some amendments proposed by my colleagues and myself when we get to this in committee of the whole House. We will not proceed beyond committee of the whole House stage -- in other words, we do not want to proceed to any third reading of the bill -- before next week.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on the bill. I have always been intrigued by the Game and Fish Act, not because I know anything about hunting or fishing, but because of the immense authority in a widely diffused number of areas granted to the minister under the act and the possibilities of even an unconscious sense of tyranny or harassment being used by the minister and those of his officers acting under his authority in carrying out the provisions of the Game and Fish Act.

The very detailed nature of the act and the very specificity that is present in the amending bill before us, dealing in minute detail with a large number of matters, are evidence to me of the kind of concern which my colleagues and I share about the bill

There are no questions of good faith involved or bribery or corruption involved. There are simply questions that a large number of people are dependent upon the whim, if I may say so, of the minister on the question of licensing and authority to act and protection against the kind of harassment which, if not carefully watched by this assembly, could become a matter of very serious concern in the northernmost parts of the province, let alone in southern Ontario.

So it is in that sense I venture to say through the parliamentary assistant to the minister that there are certain sections of the bill which I frankly do not understand. Perhaps in committee we will have an opportunity to deal with them. One particular one is the repeal of

section 16 and the re-enactment of

section 16 with respect to the forfeiture of property to the crown. I think there are immense inconsistencies in that section. When we come to committee, I think we will have to deal with them.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that is the

section that gives an officer, who reasonably believes that certain offences have been committed, authority without a warrant to seize vehicles and other property and equipment. It then elaborates a code and a circumstance under which that property is either forfeited to the crown or returned to the person from whom it was taken. Then it is all confused by a reference later on to the question of ownership. Of course, on many occasions the person from whom the equipment or the vehicle is taken is not necessarily at the time of the seizure the owner of the vehicle or of the equipment or of the goods that are subject to the seizure.

It does seem to me that hidden away in that code is an opportunity for the crown to forfeit valuable equipment without necessarily having a clear recourse to the person from whom it is taken to recover it in any orderly way, even though that person may not be the owner of the vehicle or the equipment.

The other miscellaneous sections throughout the act are matters of much detail within the ambit of the whole bill. But of course the matter which I raised with my colleague and which my colleague has raised here, and which my other colleagues have raised, is the extent and degree and the way in which the ministry, in going through this bill and deciding on these amendments, has taken into account the views and concerns of the native peoples and the native organizations representing them in the province at the time the bill is being dealt with.

My colleague well knows that when the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) dares to deal with the business community, we only see the bills after they have been through a whole series of negotiations and discussions and the views sought and, in a very pleading way, solicited from the business community so that when the bills come into the Legislature they will not be subject to us tampering with them.

I would like to think that perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) would have the same sensitivity and the same concern, in a much more worthy sense, to talk to and deal with all of the native peoples’ organizations during the process of the development of this kind of bill. My friend the parliamentary assistant well knows that in any amendment to the Business Corporations Act of this province, a multitude of amendments would be thoroughly canvassed and discussed with those who are involved in the community. I have some very real concern that that has not been done in this case.

There is another aspect of it, and here I am quite prepared to have the parliamentary assistant tell me that it is my lack of knowledge rather than any serious concern that I am expressing, and in that case, of course, he can tell me what the position is. I would like to know whether the Ministry of Natural Resources has in document form of any kind -- a memorandum, a booklet -- any kind of statement that clearly and unequivocally sets out the present status in Ontario of the Game and Fish Act with respect to the rights and obligations of the native communities in the field of hunting and fishing.

I find the whole of that question has become so enshrouded in mystery and has become so technical that it is almost as if it defies any sense of saying that in some way there is a residual protected right of the native communities to hunt and fish in the provinces.

Some years ago, when the Polar Bear Provincial Park was constructed, it was quite obvious and set aside. It was quite obvious that there had not been any thoroughgoing discussion or negotiation with the native peoples in that area about the setting aside of that park. That doesn’t mean there were not some contacts, of course there were some contacts. I am talking about the need for a thoroughgoing participation by those persons who have certain residual rights at least, if not peremptory rights and rights of priority in hunting and fishing matters in this province and whether the ministry at this time is at least sensitive to those needs.

There are a number of matters, when the bill goes into committee of the whole House, about which, as my colleague has said, members of this party who are much more knowledgeable about hunting and fishing than I am will be able to comment, but I did want to speak briefly to my basic concern about the bill.

4 p.m.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of this House for taking the interest they have in this very important piece of legislation. We have had 15 or 16 members speak on this bill and by and large most of them have responded in a manner in which we feel they want to support this bill.

It is really heartening for the minister and for me. In his absence, I want to thank the members of the House for the interest they have shown and, of course, for myself and the people in that branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources for the kind of response Bill 59 has stimulated in the House.

The members who spoke have obviously given the bill a good deal of thought in most instances and have given it their general support. They have thoughtfully added their concerns -- and this is the way it should be; we are happy to have them -- and a few have suggested change. For these things we certainly are grateful.

The discussion of the motion has been so thorough that I feel that in a few minutes, in a short response, I can alleviate many of the concerns that might otherwise resurface in committee of the whole House.

On the control of hunting, which quite a number of the members who spoke on this bill mentioned, I remember the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) referring to no specific

section of the bill that he was aware of and he belaboured the government for managing the hunter rather than the wildlife resource. In fact, our immediate problem for both deer and moose in many areas of the province is to reduce the legal harvest immediately so that the herds may rebuild. This was obviously much better by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), and I feel he made a considerable contribution to the debate. He rightly observed that protection of the herds from decimation is needed now and went on to state that we must manage both hunters and wildlife.

The components of our deer and moose management policies consist not only of control of harvest but also of habitat management, control of certain predators that may be held at an unusually high level by availability of alternative prey, control of illegal hunting and research into other factors such as wildlife diseases.

Something we should keep in mind is that the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which many of the members referred to in their talks, are well aware of the components of our new moose and deer management programs. Indeed, these programs were forged in co-operation with that organization. They now want to be assured that we are not simply going to limit hunters, and I believe we can give them that assurance.

The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) and the member for Niagara Falls seem taken with the abundant big-game populations in Sweden and Pennsylvania and wonder why Ontario cannot achieve a similar happy state, preferably before we begin controlling hunters. I would like to point out that both jurisdictions had to control hunters during the years that these herds were building. Even now, Pennsylvania has limited antlerless deer harvest, much like ours.

We will undoubtedly never have the same number of deer per unit area that Pennsylvania does, because we are situated in a latitude that has more severe winters, winters that tend to kill great numbers of deer every few years and it really decimates the herds in my part of the province.

Our deer live under much different conditions than do the United States deer and are fewer in number generally, but are bigger. I have seen hunters from Pennsylvania in the area south of Algonquin Park and I have asked them why they were hunting there, with the abundance of deer in Pennsylvania. They said: “It’s simple. We want a real deer. We don’t want a scrub deer.” I think it is generally known that the hunters from the United States who come here to hunt our deer have often referred to the Pennsylvania deer as stunted or scrubbed.

The moose in Sweden are also quite different from our moose. They are smaller and eat things that our moose find unpalatable or not nourishing. As a matter of fact, our moose are spoiled. They are spoiled brats, because they are too choosy as to what they will eat. The moose in Sweden are not quite as choosy. They will eat Scotch pine and some of the vegetation that our moose will not touch and therefore I think sometimes that our moose maybe are spoiled because --

Mr. Foulds: Why don’t you go up there and give them a good talking to?

Mr. Yakabuski: We know the Swedish moose do like Scotch pine, or at least they eat it. If our moose would eat some of the other growth that these do, probably we would have many more too. The other thing is that the moose in Sweden are almost like farm animals.

Mr. Wildman: What about the ministry’s policy of only 300-acre clear cuts? What happened to that policy?

Mr. Yakabuski: We will get to that.

In contrast in Ontario, our research is just beginning to show that the absence, presence or abundance of moose may be the result of many subtle factors, such as the presence of traces of salt in the environment. I think that is becoming more widely known all the time

Everyone knows nowadays that wolves eat moose in Ontario. I do not think that statement will enlighten anyone in the House or elsewhere. In some places the wolf is the only mortality factor working on the herd. In Sweden, of course, there are virtually no natural predators remaining. That is one thing we have to consider, that in some areas they have pretty well done away with predators. Certainly it may have helped the herds, but they are endangering certain species perhaps.

I mention these matters in order that honourable members may keep their perspective about big game management in Ontario. We might never reach the big game densities of Pennsylvania and Sweden. Our objective, however, is to increase our moose and deer herds with due consideration to other necessary uses of the land, such as forestry and agriculture, and with due consideration for the conservation of other species that other nations have sacrificed, such as our large predators.

As the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed ) -- and he is not in his seat right now -- so ably stated, and certainly it is worth repeating, we are not here to do battle with nature. We are part of nature, we are nature, and we must take every possible precaution not to destroy it. We feel we can have more deer and more moose without subjecting anything else to extinction, and that is a very important point. The other jurisdictions mentioned have not accomplished this.

The member for Algoma -- and I keep referring to him because his speech was one of the longer ones, but it contained a lot of reasonable material -- has mentioned that the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters feels that the Minister of Natural Resources and his ministry have neglected to respond to its suggestion of party licensing.

I would like to set the record straight. Both the minister and his staff have met with the executive of the federation over that very point and other issues. A response has been given. The trouble is that the federation does not like the response. To date, the federation has been unable to show how the system it proposes will be immediately effective in reducing harvests. Furthermore, we suspect the proposed system would not be as palatable to northern hunters as the one currently being applied. We responded but, as I have mentioned, the response was not what the federation wanted to hear.

4:10 p.m.

The member for Algoma asked what I meant by referring to responses to social change. What was meant is that our society has become more and more concerned with human values as an example of social change value and expressed need. The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) has obviously been sensitive to this particular change and has worked diligently to express it in humane trapping laws which are incorporated in this bill.

Society is also concerned today with the conservation of nongame species, and the government wishes to respond by making provisions for protection of any reptiles and amphibians requiring such protection. I want to assure the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) that, although he may have some concerns about the parliamentary assistant, the parliamentary assistant really would not hurt a tadpole. He may have played with them as a child. As a matter of fact, he has a soft spot in his heart for lizards and some from that family.

Mr. Foulds: Lizards are among my favourite reptiles and amphibians.

Mr. Yakabuski: In this connection, I wish to mention that endangered species are protected under a separate act, the Endangered Species Act. The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) wanted the assurance of the government that such species are adequately protected. They are, but not only in the act under consideration.

The member for Algoma asked for clarification of the

section of the bill dealing with the deputy conservation officers. Previous wording which would have such deputies serve without remuneration would be removed. The new

section would provide a means of extending our enforcement capacity. However, in this day and age, all enforcement personnel should be properly identified, that is, properly uniformed, insured and trained in the basics, at least, of law enforcement.

The new provision allows us to recruit and train an auxiliary or deputy force from the interested public and, furthermore, to train and continue to pay a deputy force recruited from within the ranks of the ministry staff who do not normally deal in law enforcement, such as forest technicians or fire control personnel. It is our intention that trained deputies would work with full-fledged conservation officers, thereby adding a new element of safety to the work of an otherwise lone officer or extending the capability of our conservation officer force.

The member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) and the member for Algoma mentioned specific concerns about the relationship of the Game and Fish Act to native people. The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), our last speaker, also voiced some concerns in that area. Other members mentioned the same thing less specifically than their other concerns.

For those Indian people whose ancestors entered into treaties which guaranteed hunting rights, the Game and Fish Act cannot apply because it is provincial legislation. Only federal legislation can offset such rights and that is why the Fisheries Act of Canada and the Migratory Birds Convention Act of Canada apply.

Mr. Wildman: What about moose and deer?

Mr. Yakabuski: In answer to the member for Algoma, enforcement cannot therefore be consistent among the three acts. I have asked our staff to check on the statement attributed to the member for Algoma which was, “It is the Ministry of Natural Resources’ policy now to prosecute to the full extent of the law and to ask for the maximum penalty in cases concerning hunting in the Treaty No. 3 area.” No one in Fort Frances or the regional office in Kenora can recall such a statement

Mr. Wildman: I can bring in a transcript.

Mr. Yakabuski: I want to assure the member that our research has not turned anything up. In any event, it does not reflect the policy of the ministry, nor does it reflect the attitude of the courts.

I believe I have also answered the concerns expressed by the member for Lakeshore. There would be little use in approaching a treaty organization for consultation on the Fish and Game Act. I think the member for Riverdale voiced the same concern a moment ago. They have told us many times that this act does not apply to them.

The member for Lakeshore asked how the Royal Canadian Mounted Police fit into the picture. They are defined as officers under the act specifically so that they can enforce any of the provisions of this act which might bear directly or indirectly on migratory birds. In using the provisions of the Fish and Game Act, they too are constrained by its scope of application. Co-operative arrangements with the RCMP are almost solely in the area of migratory bird management.

The member for Algoma and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) asked what conditions the government plans to set on people who have, as one member stated, the right to guide. The government abandoned the process of qualifying guides 25 or 26 years ago. Basically, it was found that guiding is a complex, highly skilled service, the basics of which are not readily defined and even less readily articulated by even the most skilled guides. It is a sort of sixth sense. Guide licenses have persisted in areas in which people have insisted on them, but we are still of the view that people will find competent guides through tourist operations or developed acquaintances.

Section 5 of the bill does not pertain to guides. We hold that a guide’s customary duties, for which he is paid, are to provide accommodation, food, direction, equipment and canoe paddles, call geese and direct hunters to areas where game inhabit. A guide’s function is not to hunt, although he may do so if he is carrying a proper hunting licence.

There was some mention of identification badges. The member for Algoma asked why we wanted to exempt people from wearing hunter identification numbers in certain areas. We are not sure whether we do, but it has come to our attention that a good many people in the north especially disagree that it is necessary, and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters is wondering about its application in the south. I can only add that when badges first came on stream, so to speak, there was some resistance, but in many parts of the province today they are widely accepted and many people want them.

There are varying opinions on the badges and whether they should be worn in a conspicuous place on the body.

Mr. Foulds: What is your position?

Mr. Yakabuski: On badges? I think it varies from area to area in the province. Originally, it was requested by people in the south, especially in the farm lands, where hunters could be identified. I think it is completely different in the north, because we are not dealing with farm areas but with vast open spaces where it is a different ball game entirely. Periodic assessments of the feasibility will be made. The new

section gives flexibility in prescribing its use by different areas of the province.

The member for Algoma seemed to touch on almost everything because now we are getting to coloured clothing, wearing brightly coloured clothing during the hunting season or while hunting. Nothing in the present act or in the amendment prescribes the wearing of certain colours while hunting, even though some jurisdictions in North America have made such a law.

Our reasoning is as follows: Not everyone using the forests or fields during hunting season is a hunter. In the member for Algoma’s own example of an unfortunate incident, the person who was killed was an Indian woman who was trapping at the time. I doubt if we could force all such people, the people who are not engaged in hunting, to wear bright orange or whatever during the hunting season. We hold to the concept that hunters must know what they are shooting at, and that shooting at something just because it is not orange or red is the height of irresponsibility.

4:20 p.m.

It is interesting -- and perhaps what I have just said has something to do with it -- that jurisdictions which have compulsory colours for hunters have no fewer hunting accidents than we have. We have chosen instead to educate people, and I think we have gone a long way in that area. I speak mostly for the area I represent, because I think we have made great strides. We have chosen to educate people and to leave the responsibility to them. I think they have responded in a very positive fashion.

Incidentally, we estimate that 80 or 90 per cent of Ontario hunters already wear bright red colours during hunting season.

The member for Algoma pointed out the perhaps undesirable practice of the use of dogs for bear hunting. This is under review at present within the ministry. If changes are necessary, they can be made without modification to the act. There are times, as the member mentioned, when someone might move in from south of the border with a team of dogs and roam almost at large. We share his concern, but we think this can be dealt with by regulations.

A number of members touched on trapping by farmers. The member for Algoma referred to a farmer trapping on his lands in a built-up area and wondered whether the prohibition against using body-gripping or leghold trips applied to him. The answer is that the farmer is exempted; he may trap with any device at his disposal. The aim is to avoid putting impediments in the way of a farmer who must use means familiar to him to defend his property. We must bear in mind that the farmer’s property not only can harbour nuisance animals but also can suffer a great deal of damage from them.

The member for Halton-Burlington stated the philosophy that we should be cautious in restricting the use of traps in near-urban areas. Unnatural buildups of animals occur because of the lack of predation. If the farmer can be encouraged to anticipate such buildups and to consider trapping as part of his harvest, this is the best possible situation. We do not need a huge force of licensed vermin exterminators, as advocated by the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs), if we have the co-operation of farmers.

The member for Wentworth worried about the definition of the farmer. He need not. I would refer him to

section 1(6) of the present Game and Fish Act. We hold that a farmer is a person who is either a settler, as defined in the subsection, or a person who is living upon and tilling his or her own land or land to which he or she is for the time being entitled. This is the common definition that applies to farmers under the Game and Fish Act.

While I am on the

part concerning the hunter and the farmer, I must give full marks to the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. He is not only a friend of the farmer but also a friend of the hunter in the farm areas. He made that quite plain and was quite firm about it in his very worthwhile contribution during the second reading debate on Bill 59.

A member talked too during the debate on the bill on age limitations in trapping. I think it was the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) who asked that an age limitation of 16 years be placed on those members of the farmer’s family who might trap. The member for Halton-Burlington dealt with that in considerable detail, and I think he covered it very well. If members will refer to Hansard, they will see that. It is my personal view that there is nothing magical or indicative about the age of 16. Even the Criminal Code of Canada allows permits to be issued to 12-year-olds for game hunting under certain circumstances. I also feel that this is the age at which learning comes most readily.

I would like to remind the members concerned about this. The person in question still requires the supervision of the farmer. The farmer cannot sell fur without a licence, which means he must ultimately handle all animals trapped and should therefore see whether the animals died under stress.

The member for Halton-Burlington has requested that the responsibility for the child remain with the farmer, the parent and teacher of the offspring. I think that was a good contribution, because not only do many farmers like to take their boys or girls with them when they tend to their traps or whatever but also these young people like to accompany their parents. It is usually their parents, or it may be an uncle, grandfather or whatever. I think it is quite a learning experience. I, for one, certainly would not want to deprive them of the wonderful opportunity of that learning experience which is not available to many young people in the province.

There was considerable concern by people involved with dogs, field trials and training. A number of members, including the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, raised the topic of providing for the training of dogs. I believe the amendment we intend to move in committee will attend to that matter.

The comments of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk regarding the definition of hunting are interesting. Earlier I mentioned his very worthwhile contribution. His concern is that our definition of hunting is inflexible. Perhaps we should try to explain that in some measure, or at some length. His remarks are well considered and we will take them under advisement. However, I believe we have added the flexibility necessary to allow for nonharvest use of wildlife by adding

section 24a, which deals specifically with chasing and which allows for separate licensing for this activity.

We have