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

November 18, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L115 - Thu 18 Nov 1976 / Jeu 18 nov 1976

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

GREAT LAKES MEETING

DRIVER LICENCE CLASSIFICATION

BANK ACT REVISIONS

MUNICIPAL NOMINATION PAPERS

BILINGUAL DRIVERS’ LICENCES

EMPLOYMENT ON INDIAN RESERVES

RENT INCREASES

CANCER AND ASBESTOS

LACK OF COURT FACILITIES

NUCLEAR REFINERY SITE

VIKING HOMES

GUIDELINES FOR JUDGES

APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE COMMISSIONS

MIAMI-CAREY WORKERS

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

SOLICITOR-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS

POINT OF ORDER

POINTS OF ORDER

POINTS OF PRIVILEGE

REPORTS

POINT OF ORDER

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT (CONTINUED)

FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege please.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, you may recall last Monday afternoon in the private members’ hour, you were in the chair and I asked you if I might table some papers which were correspondence from constituents in the riding of Durham East concerning the regional government in Durham; I asked if I could put those on the desk of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough). The Treasurer was not here from 5 o’clock until 6 o’clock that day.

Tuesday I was in my seat two minutes after the House opened and the papers which were tabled and placed on the Treasurer’s desk appeared back on my desk. Now it is obvious to me Mr. Speaker, that the papers were not looked at, read, or any attention paid to them. I wonder if you could give me some guidance as to how one gets the Treasurer to listen to the people of the province.

Mr. B. Newman: Come on, that’s a pretty cheap shot.

Mr. Speaker: I have no idea how the papers got back onto your desk, so there is really nothing I can do about that.

Statements by the ministry.

GREAT LAKES MEETING

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the Speaker’s gallery this afternoon of the members of the interstate legislative committee on Lake Erie and extend to them a warm welcome on behalf of the government as they gather in Toronto for a two-day meeting to consider solutions to the problems of the Great Lakes.

This non-partisan committee, members from the Lake Erie states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York, consists of a chairman and representatives from both the Senate and House environmental committees, and from the Speakers’ offices of these states. I have shared many constructive moments with the committee in their past legislative workshop, and recall the deliberations we had a few years ago in preparation for the Great Lakes agreement.

At the meeting in Toronto the committee will specifically consider the problem of toxic substances in the lakes and improvements in the control of detergents, as well as the future direction for the Great Lakes agreement which will be renegotiated over the next few months.

I commend the work of the committee to the attention of this House and ask all members to welcome our visitors today.

DRIVER LICENCE CLASSIFICATION

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, during the past year my ministry has been preparing a programme of classified driver licensing to enable Ontario to join with other Canadian provinces in a programme which is aimed at matching a driver’s skills and responsibilities with the kind of vehicle driven; for example cars, motorcycles, buses, or heavy commercial trucks and trailers. Today I wish to announce that regulations regarding the classification of drivers’ licences will become effective February 1, 1977.

With these new regulations, every driver, no matter what type of vehicle he or she drives, will have a driver’s licence relating to a specific class, and he or she will be permitted to operate only the vehicles indicated in that class.

The chauffeur’s licence classification will be discontinued. Being paid to drive will no longer be a factor in the new licensing system; instead, all drivers will be categorized, depending on the characteristics of the vehicle driven.

I am tabling a list of the 10 classifications in detail. However, as a

summary of what is contained in the list I would like to say that: For example, drivers of cars or light trucks up to 18,000 pounds will be in class G; motorcyclists will be in class M; and there will be a class R licence to permit the learner to obtain motorcycle experience on the road under restricted conditions during daylight hours.

Let me point out here that the drivers of cars, light trucks and motorcycles need take no action to obtain their new licences. When their present licences expire, or must be replaced for some reason, these drivers will receive a new type of licence automatically.

In other categories, presently-licensed school bus drivers must convert to a class B or class E licence, which in the new system applies to large or small school buses. However, since these school bus drivers are now currently identified in the ministry’s computer system, they will be sent a special letter advising them how to obtain their new licence. It will be necessary for those who haven’t already done so to take a defensive driving course.

For drivers of heavier vehicles, such as commercial buses and trucks, or tractor-trailers, the new programme will call for reclassification. Drivers of such heavy commercial vehicles are subject to a great deal more physical, mental and emotional strain than are, for instance, car drivers. Thus each operator will have to meet higher health and vision standards. They also will have to file periodic medical reports to confirm that they are continuing to meet such standards.

In essence, this means that if a driver holds a class A, B, C, E or F licence, he or she must provide a satisfactory medical report every three years to age 65 and annually thereafter. Drivers will be notified in advance of the specific date at which their next medical examination is due.

You will note that class D drivers, although required to file a medical report initially with their application, are not included in the cyclical basis. I would also like to draw to your attention the fact that medical reports may be required at any time from any driver for driver control purposes.

At this time, my ministry is finalizing pamphlets explaining the new licensing system in detail. These will soon be available at all MTC vehicle licensing and driver examination offices. They will also be sent to companies operating fleets of trucks and buses.

While the programme becomes effective February 1, 1977, it is fully understood by my ministry that conversion to the new programme will not happen overnight. The new regulations provide for a one-year conversion for those who wish to upgrade their licences on the basis of their driving experience. But I urge all truck and bus drivers and companies to take action now to obtain replacement licences.

For the benefit of non-commercial drivers, let me stress that ordinary motorists, motorcyclists and drivers of light trucks that weigh no more than 18,000 pounds need take no action.

This means that while the new driver’s licence classification programme will include every Ontario person who operates any kind of a motor vehicle, only about 200,000 of the province’s four million drivers need take any action to be reclassified.

BANK ACT REVISIONS

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the revision of The Bank Act and Ontario’s views on the white paper, I have written to the federal Minister of Finance today and sent him our views, which I will table, and I thought it would be wise to put the letter on the record:

“The enclosed paper outlines Ontario’s major concerns regarding the recently published federal white paper on The Bank Act. Let me say first that the general theme favouring an increase in competition in the financial system is certainly welcome. Nevertheless, we have reservations about several of the specific proposals because of their implications for competition, in some cases, and jurisdictional problems in others. However, it was disturbing to note that some serious problems were not addressed by the white paper.

“Ontario believes that the present diversity in Canada’s financial network contributes to an atmosphere of competition that would be lacking if all institutions are encouraged to seek full bank status. Furthermore, we are concerned by the encroachment on provincial jurisdiction which such a move implies.

“Because of its effect on areas of divided jurisdiction, we are anxious that the provincial government be fully involved in the development of the electronic payments system. In this connection, we are concerned by the high degree of discretionary authority wielded by the federal government in the operation of the Canadian Payments Association. This is certain to augment the atmosphere of unease and uncertainty which already plagues our economic environment.

“The proposals to scrutinize the operations of foreign affiliates operating in Canada more closely are consistent with Ontario’s views. We are concerned, however, that formal recognition be accompanied by some explicit encouragement to obtain reciprocal arrangements in other jurisdictions.

“The white paper did not address the question of increasing competitiveness in the market for short-term government bills and notes by expanding the range of securities suitable for recognition as secondary reserves. We did, of course, raise the matter in an earlier submission, and it has received the support of the other provinces and the Economic Council of Canada. My staff has examined the issue in some detail and have some positive suggestions on how the problems might be overcome. I think that a meeting of officials to discuss this issue would be useful.

“The coming decade will be a challenging one for Canadians. In order to remain competitive in the international marketplace, we will have to be productive and innovative. If Canadian banking legislation is to contribute to meeting these challenges, it too will have to be innovative and flexible. The current economic environment does not call for a major change in Canada’s financial structure, with all of the uncertainty and apprehension that would entail.

I am concerned, however, that the immense requirements of financing our industrial development in the decade ahead will put additional strains on capital allocations and I would hope that we will be able to respond quickly to new circumstances as they arise.”

MUNICIPAL NOMINATION PAPERS

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, while I’m on my feet, the other day I was asked for an opinion as to the filing of nomination papers on Remembrance Day. The answer is a little long and perhaps I might give it now.

Certain doubts have arisen as to the validity of nomination papers filed on Remembrance Day mainly because

section 34(1), states that a person may be nominated as a candidate for an office by filing in the offices of the clerk during the normal office hours of the clerk within the period in which nominations may be filed, a nomination paper in prescribed form.

Certain solicitors are of the opinion that because municipal offices are not normally open on Remembrance Day, a nomination filed on that day would not be filed during the normal office hours of the clerk and therefore would not be valid. Further doubt has arisen because Remembrance Day is a holiday and there is some doubt that

an act done on a holiday can have legal effect.

Normal office hours mean 8 to 4:30, or 9 to 5, and so on, without reference to any particular day, and therefore if the municipal offices were normally open between 8:30 and 5 o’clock and the municipal clerk received nomination papers between those hours on Remembrance Day the nominations would be validly filed. Furthermore, the common law rule preventing legal acts from being done on a holiday is probably applicable only to Sundays.

[2:15]

Some municipal lawyers are divided in their opinion on the question. We have been advising municipalities to consult their own solicitors. Several candidates who filed on Remembrance Day and subsequently consulted the ministry were advised, to remove all doubts, that they probably should withdraw their papers and refile. All candidates, if they were concerned about the problem, could have reflied and we believe most did refile their papers on the Friday or Monday following Remembrance Day.

The question really can only be decided in the courts, and any statement of opinion made by myself could only serve to add to the present difference of opinion and would not solve it.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

BILINGUAL DRIVERS’ LICENCES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Can I try to elicit from him a further expansion of his statement on the issuing of licences by asking whether it is, in fact, true that he has been replying to letters sent to him in the last month or two with the announcement that he intends to have all licences in Ontario, new or renewed, issued bilingually as of January 1, 1977?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe that was the tone of my reply. When I have received inquiries relating to the matter of bilingual drivers’ licences, I believe I have stated that the new classified driver’s licence system would be implemented in the near future and when the new classified licences were printed they would be bilingual in form.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, well, well. It took us five years to get it.

Mr. Lewis: The minister stated that in his letter to these people?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t the minister, particularly in the present atmosphere, announce this formally as a useful demonstration of what might be done generally?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I will then now, officially and formally --

Mr. Lewis: Congratulations. You are too much.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, well, well.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will officially and formally announce to the House now that with the issuance of the new classified drivers’ licences the form of the licence will be bilingual.

An hon. member: Separate now?

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: I would like first of all, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the minister about this and ask him whether in view of that change of policy -- God bless him -- he might consider when he suspends a person’s licence the notices might be bilingual so he might know that his bilingual licence is suspended?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you worried about your own?

Mr. Roy: No, not now.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I assure the hon. member that when I have the opportunity to suspend his licence, I will send him a notice in bilingual form if I have to write it myself.

Mr. Roy: That’s not going to help you.

Mr. R. S. Smith: In that case, you will never receive it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I can’t recite by memory the different forms that will be reprinted when new programme changes take place. We do have a number of this type of form relating to vehicle and personal licensing matters that will be switched over on a gradual basis, when new supplies are ordered or a programme is changed to the bilingual form.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, my personal translator, the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller), says he cannot follow that; so I’m afraid I’ll have to wait until Hansard is printed. I’ll get the Ministry of Government Services to translate it for me, and I will give a reply to the hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, out of courtesy to the Minister of Health, who may be a better minister than he is a translator --

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary?

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister say whether, in co-operation with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), he will see that notices of violation sent to motorists under The Highway Traffic Act are also available in French?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will leave that matter up to the Attorney General.

Mr. Lewis: I would just like to congratulate René Lévesque for having stimulated so much in such a short period of time, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: it is quite obvious you two have a lot in common.

Mr. MacDonald: Apparently so do you and Joe Clark.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: With his millionaire stockbrokers? You’ll be comfortable, my friend.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EMPLOYMENT ON INDIAN RESERVES

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Monsieur l’Orateur, j’aimerais dire au chef du Parti NDP que le sujet est a l’étude.

Mr. Lewis: Mais oui, Monsieur le Ministre. Je suis le chef du Parti NDP -- but why doesn’t the minister answer my question? He can’t duck it that way. Therefore, I will ask the Premier, if I may redirect my question.

Mr. Breithaupt: You are safe there!

Hon. Mr. Davis: It will be convoluted in either form.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Firstly, Mr. Speaker, I’m intrigued at the idea of the Leader of the Opposition that he has accepted some ideas from the head of Reed Paper -- probably the only one that he’s accepted. I would suggest that as it relates to this particular issue, if he would direct the question to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Irvine), he will be brought up to date as to the present situation.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I will be glad to ask each of the ministers, one at a time.

May I ask the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development -- I’ll be more specific -- exactly how he intends to make use of the explicit offer from the president of the Reed Paper company to provide sums of money, either by way of financial compensation or financial support, for any undertaking or programme which the government initiates to help or assist the native people of Whitedog and Grassy Narrows?

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister intend to meet Mr. Billingsley? Is he going to meet him in his offices? They are very nice offices; I commend them to the minister. If he is going to meet him, will the minister be taking with him specific projects in mind? Can the minister share with the House the specific proposals the government will be making on a cost-sharing basis with the Reed Paper company?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t intend to meet in Mr. Billingsley’s office. I expect it will be either in my office or in the office of the Minister of Natural Resources. I would think that would be the more proper place. As to what proposals we will be discussing, I’m not at this time at liberty to say.

RENT INCREASES

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Can the minister make a public guarantee which is somehow authenticated in law that any leases entered into at any time, let us say, between now and July 31, 1977, for a period less than a year will, in fact, have binding application for a full year at a rent increase of whatever is determined, eight per cent or less?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is asking for a legal opinion, of course, I can’t give it to him. I have stated here and have stated outside this House the government’s commitment to that effect. The intention of the government in bringing in the amendments last spring is quite clear; it was accepted by all parties that our intention was clear and we are making a firm commitment to that effect.

As to what will be done officially, of course, I can only repeat the words in the Star today, “no decision has been made.”

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since the legislation dies on July 31, 1977, how can the minister possibly make a commitment to prevent additional rent increases applied in August, September or October, when there is no legislative authority governing those rent increases?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would assume, without any powers of prognostication, that all parties in this House would support the commitment, and if it was felt necessary to bring in legislation that it would receive such support.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Assuming we all do then support the commitment, would the minister amend the legislation to make it clear that any arrangement between landlord and tenant entered into between now and the termination date, July 31, 1977, will be in effect for 12 consecutive months from the date of implementation? Would he make it clear now and leave that law by itself on the statute books for that period of time?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’m not in a position to commit the government to bringing in legislation today or tomorrow. I have made a commitment on behalf of the government, and I’m sure that all members of this Legislature would support that commitment in the event that legislation is necessary.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Given the rather tattered credibility of the government on matters relating to the protection of tenants, will the minister come back to this House within a week with a legal opinion from his own officials or from the Attorney General’s department as to whether or not there is effectively any protection for tenants on short leases after August 1, 1977?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, no, I don’t believe I would present a legal opinion to the Legislature. We have made a commitment, and on behalf of the tenants of this province I, as minister, have said that that is the effect of our legislation, and if it’s not the effect of our legislation we will make it quite clear in due course that we intend to protect them in that way.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary from the member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Does the minister not recognize the need for clarification at this time, when the activities of the owners of these buildings indicate there is no such commitment? What, in fact, does the minister say his commitment is, because I don’t understand it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the need for clarification may very well be there. However, a commitment has been made publicly and in this Legislature, and if the landlords have not read that then I assume they should start reading Hansard as required reading.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a best seller.

Mr. Breithaupt: The collected sayings of Syd Handleman.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The commitment has been made. We cannot foretell what may happen here six months from now, and this is what the hon. member is asking me to do. At this time, under the present Act there is no possibility of a rent increase taking place other than as provided for in the Act.

An hon. member: What a stupid statement.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: What may happen in August is a matter for the future and a matter for clarification in the future.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, that was a final supplementary. The Leader of the Opposition has one more question I believe.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: No. Order, please. I said that was a final supplementary.

CANCER AND ASBESTOS

Mr. Lewis: To the Minister of Labour: Has the minister determined whether there has been any study undertaken officially through the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour or the Workmen’s Compensation Board into the relationship between cancer of the larynx and asbestos in the period since April, 1975, when it was recommended by Dr. Ritchie?

[2:30]

Hon. B. Stephenson: I know that the Ministry of Labour has not undertaken such research. I am not as yet sure whether any has been initiated by the Ministry of Health and I am talking to the Workmen’s Compensation Board at this time. As I said in the Legislature the other day, I felt the study was probably outside of government and that I was endeavouring to find the source of the information which I had received, which I am still endeavouring to do.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, had it never been brought to the minister’s attention formally through the group to which the report was submitted that any such specific study was anywhere launched?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The report which Dr. Ritchie tabled for the Workmen’s Compensation Board was directed specifically to an examination of problems of malignancy of the lung and gastrointestinal tract. One of the gratuitous or tangential remarks that he made in his study --

Mr. Lewis: Gratuitous or tangential!

Mr. Breithaupt: It is hardly gratuitous.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- was that there should be further research in this area. At the time that the board looked at this study they were concerned with cancer of the lung as a result of asbestos exposure and cancer of the gastrointestinal tract. That is the direction which they have followed to this date.

I’m sure there will be further examinations of that report, now that some of the situations which were in question have been clarified. At this point in time, there are other researchers in other areas of this country and of the North American continent who are pursuing this research. That is what I am attempting to establish.

Mr. Lewis: Did you refer to the city of Toronto when you replied?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, I did.

LACK OF COURT FACILITIES

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Premier. in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), regarding the lack of justice facilities in the Ottawa area: While we don’t begrudge Brampton riding its new courthouse, how can the Premier be the head of a government that tolerates the situation in Ottawa where the Chief Justice of the High Court has held courts, I think it was last week, in the basement of the Holiday Inn? Surely the Premier recognizes the problem there. What is he prepared to do to make the system of justice operate throughout Ontario equally for everyone?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would just like to seize this occasion to point out that the additions to the courthouse facilities in the region of Peel, which were constructed basically by the former county of Peel, will serve not only the great riding of the city of Brampton, but also Mississauga North, Mississauga South, Mississauga East and portions of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel.

Mr. S. Smith: And Ottawa West, if they are willing to travel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: While it is geographically in the middle of that community, it does serve more than the one.

Mr. Roy: Just answer the question.

Mr. S. Smith: They even have one in Kitchener.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In case the member is not familiar with the geography of the region of Peel, I thought I should explain this to him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As it relates to the availability of court facilities in the great community of Ottawa, perhaps the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) will be here later to answer specifically.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Are you looking for votes back home?

Hon. Mr. Davis: In the meantime, perhaps the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. MacBeth) might have some insight that would be helpful.

Mr. Breithaupt: Don’t count on it.

Mr. Roy: We don’t want to trouble him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m just saying they might be helpful to the member for Hamilton West. I’m trying to be as helpful as I can.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I used to practise law in places worse than that.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the Premier aware that in addition to having to use the basement of the Holiday Inn, there are now lawyers in Ottawa advising their clients not to bother even trying small claims court, despite the fact that court specifically exists for the ordinary citizen to get a

summary redress of some grievance, because of the 18-month delay which now afflicts that particular court in the Ottawa area? Surely a system of justice must operate for everyone in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it’s quite obvious the member for Hamilton West knows the system of justice operates equally for everyone in the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is also true that new physical plant is not necessarily related to the quality of justice that is provided.

Mr. S. Smith: There is an 18-month delay.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could reminisce here today and remind the member for Hamilton West, who was not resident in the great province of Ontario when I used to practise law --

Mr. Breithaupt: That long ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that I have appeared for accused people in facilities that were perhaps not as adequate as the basement of a Holiday Inn.

Mr. Eakins: Was there wiring in the basement?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ve been in them and the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) has. Is the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) the one who’s advising his clients not to appear? I don’t know. Anyway, I will try to find out for the leader and get this information for him.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: In view of the fact the Attorney General keeps saying that he recognizes the facilities are deficient, and keeps talking to the cabinet and the Premier but can’t get any further money, how can the Premier tolerate the situation that has been explained by my leader in Ottawa; and secondly, a situation existing now in the Supreme Court whereby deserted wives have to go on welfare because it takes four weeks to get an appointment for an interim order, even in family court or in Supreme Court?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Are you against Holiday Inns?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Ottawa East is suggesting that in many areas, not just in the administration of justice but in other areas of physical plant, we can with justification invest further moneys on behalf of the taxpayer, I’m quite prepared to acknowledge it.

Mr. Eakins: Stick-handling.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am also prepared to state to the member for Ottawa East that we are establishing priorities. We are restraining capital expenditures in the economic interest of all the public of the province of Ontario. Those are the rather difficult choices we have to make which I totally understand the opposition people have not the capacity to do.

Mr. S. Smith: Except in Brampton.

Mr. Breithaupt: After five years.

Mr. Roy: What about Minaki Lodge?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’ll have another supplementary; the member for Carleton East. This is the final one.

Ms. Gigantes: I’d like to ask the Premier if, when he is doing his balance of accounts on the business of investing in the court system in Ottawa, he might take into consideration the hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage created at the Ottawa Carleton Regional Detention Centre by prisoners who have to wait from seven to 12 months for an appearance in court; and the request that is to come from the township of Gloucester --

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s a question.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I think the question has been asked.

Ms. Gigantes: -- for an additional $100,000 to supplement police services to that regional detention centre?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ll try -- as I understand it the hon. member is saying do I take into account, in balancing something or other, the damage done at the detention centre because certain people who are there do not get as speedy a trial as she would suggest?

Mr. Roy: Or the welfare payments to wives.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will bring that to the attention of the Attorney General.

Mr. Roy: Hold the court in Minaki Lodge.

Mrs. Campbell: As everybody suggests.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

NUCLEAR REFINERY SITE

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: Regarding the selection of a site for the proposed nuclear refinery of Eldorado Nuclear, has the Treasurer taken some role with regard to attempting, under the general development agreement, under the DREE arrangement, to arrange with the federal government for the location of this particular refinery in northern Ontario where the economy desperately needs this type of boost?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that question should be redirected to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member wish to redirect the question?

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll redirect to the Provincial Secretary.

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. minister hear the question?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think I heard enough of the question to answer --

Mr. Roy: To give a non-answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- as far as I’m concerned. Maybe it won’t answer all the concerns of the hon. member. In any event --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- several colleagues and I have met with the federal government or various ministers who are concerned about this project. We have met with the Crown corporation, Eldorado, at various times. We have discussed the feasibility of Eldorado locating either in eastern Ontario or in northern Ontario. I have recently received from the ministry responsible a study which was conducted on behalf of the federal government to determine what the financial impact would be to the Crown corporation if it was located either in northern Ontario or in eastern Ontario.

The decision as to whether or not the Crown corporation will go in eastern or northern Ontario is clearly a federal government decision. If the federal government want to tell the Crown corporation they should go to the north -- and they have every right to do so -- then let them get off their rear ends and say so.

Mr. Peterson: Sort of like the Pickering airport, eh?

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, is the minister prepared to assure this House that this government is prepared to request of the federal government that efforts be made to locate this particular plant in either Burwash, Spragge or some other suitable northern site; and, in fact, is his ministry prepared to co-operate with the DREE programme to request -- he knows very well the province must initiate -- to request a DREE grant to enable that particular federal project to be located in northern Ontario? Let’s have a clear answer to this.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think the hon. member doesn’t understand the complexities of the problem.

Mr. S. Smith: Come on, you know the situation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: First of all, I have had discussions with Mr. Lessard and Mr. Gillespie --

Mr. Mancini: Tell us what you are going to do.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and Mr. Lessard has not indicated at all that he was willing to proceed with this particular area being designated as a DREE area; I refer to either Spragge or Burwash, Spragge in particular.

Mr. R. S. Smith: What else does he say about the DREE programme?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think the hon. member would be wise to contact his friends, if he has any in Ottawa, to determine what the actual cost is --

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, I have done so and they tell me you are not pushing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- as it relates to Spragge being developed and what the cost is in relation to the Port Granby-Port Hope area. I don’t think the Ontario government can tell a federal Crown corporation where to go, even though we may want to.

Mr. Roy: You told the tenants where to go a few years ago.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Durham East (Mr. Moffatt) only.

Mr. Moffatt: In the minister’s response, it seems to me, the only criterion he alluded to was one of economic consideration. I would like to ask the minister if that is the sole criterion which this government is considering as legitimizing or not the Port Granby choice of site by Eldorado Nuclear?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Obviously not. There are at least two things one must consider. The economic development is certainly a prime consideration. There is also another consideration that has been considered in the Newcastle area and the Port Granby site which is being proposed for development: The site will be for a building plus a disposal area, and it is my understanding that the local council has said it will approve the site only on condition there is a disposal site and a new building constructed on the other part of the lands, which I believe the Crown corporation now have bought.

Therefore, there are two areas: First you have to worry about the waste or the residue; and secondly the economy.

An hon. member: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, I think we should get on. The hon. member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: On the same topic, if I might -- and so my friend will have a chance for a supplementary -- on the same topic, and I direct this to the Premier: During the exchange of interjections, when I said the government was not pushing for a DREE grant to enable the refinery to be located not in Port Hope but in northern Ontario, the Premier said I was wrong. Would he therefore detail for this House precisely what the government has done to enter into a DREE agreement for this particular federal project and precisely what it is prepared to do now to push the federal government, despite the so-called economic feasibility, to have this refinery located in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think we have demonstrated, as a government, we are very anxious to have proper development in northern Ontario, a view not shared by some of our friends. Surely the leader of the Liberal Party is not saying to us that the government of the province of Ontario should be shelling out a lot of Ontario taxpayers’ money for an area where the federal government should have total responsibility. It is a federal Crown agency involved in a national programme.

I would say with respect that while obviously we would be delighted to have it located somewhere in the province of Ontario -- we are very interested in the north, we are also interested in the east, and I am sure the members opposite are as well.

Mr. Roy: It doesn’t show.

Hon. Mr. Davis: At the same time I must say to the leader of the Liberal Party that we are very interested, for this occasion at least, in Ottawa’s assuming its proper financial responsibilities. This question of applying for a DREE programme to accommodate a federal Crown corporation, surely is one on which he should be urging us to say to Ottawa, “You fellows need to locate this; for heaven’s sake, for once pay the bills for it.”

Interjections.

[2:45]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the Premier not prepared to accept that this would be a very proper use of provincial tax dollars, to use the DREE programme for precisely what it is meant for --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are getting caught again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: -- which is to locate industry, public or private -- there is nothing spectacular about private versus public industry -- where it belongs in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It would be quite appropriate if the decision of the federal government was to say to Eldorado: “Yes, the North Shore is the place for it.” We would accept that with enthusiasm. I am saying to the leader of the Liberal Party this is a federal Crown agency; for heaven’s sake let him stop bailing his friends out. Let them assume their proper responsibilities.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You are bankrupt over there.

Mr. S. Smith: Contribute to it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If they gave you a blank cheque you would give away the whole store.

Mr. S. Smith: Contribute to it. Decentralize.

Mr. Ruston: You are further in debt than Darcy was.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Are you not aware that you are on display here this afternoon, as you are every afternoon?

Mr. Breithaupt: We don’t mind.

Mr. S. Smith: Look at the Treasurer when you say that.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, could the Premier assure the House and the residents of the north that if such a project does locate in northern Ontario the proper environmental safeguards will take place and perhaps the waste could be shipped to the south?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Now you have lost the south.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker I begin to sense some reconsideration of previous positions as they relate to development in the north. I would assure the member for Thunder Bay that like every project which has environmental impact --

Mr. Lewis: A uranium refinery.

Mr. Reid: The heat is getting to them.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- we will demonstrate the same concerns in the north as we do in the south -- which is the foremost concern to be found anywhere on this continent, that’s right.

Interjections.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are in trouble.

Mr. Reid: That scares me more than anything else you have said.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Far greater than Manitoba, Saskatchewan or British Columbia.

VIKING HOMES

Mr. S. Smith: I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: In light of the strong criticisms by a labour referee regarding the Marshall Children’s Foundation operating Viking Homes, in which he said: “The Foundation showed complete disregard and contempt for the legislative intent and purpose of The Employment Standards Act,” how is it that the minister continues to operate and accept under his ministry a series of group homes which he deals with? They are improperly inspected and labour standards and other standards are disregarded. When is he actually going to move to clean up the whole group home situation in the province of Ontario under his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the leader of the third party, my ministry does not operate these group homes.

Mr. S. Smith: You deal with them.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Can the minister assure this House of two things? Can the minister assure this House that we’re finally going to get our hands on the interministerial study he has been looking at for the last eight months detailing all aspects of group home care in this province? Secondly, can he give us some assurance that he will not deal with and will not fund, directly or indirectly through his ministry, any group homes which are not thoroughly inspected and which do not totally meet the employment standards of this province?

An hon. member: That’s a fair question.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, I think the member is referring --

Mr. Good: Send it in a plain brown envelope.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- to the interministerial report dealing with residential care which is currently being discussed and considered by the policy field. If he wishes to question that further I would ask him to direct his question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development because that report is under her aegis.

Mr. R. S. Smith: You had it first.

Mr. S. Smith: Are you keeping it as a souvenir?

Mr. R. S. Smith: She says she doesn’t have it.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: With regard to the group homes of which the member speaks, they are utilized by various agencies. We don’t deal with those directly, although of course we fund the municipalities that may use those particular homes.

Mrs. Campbell: Sure, but you don’t care how they are run.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Can the minister assure us he is going to insist on inspection for all group homes that are funded directly or indirectly, including those that have only a few residents therein? And can he assure us that he will refuse to deal with any organizations that do not accept and obey the labour standards, the physical standards and all other standards of his ministry and of the Ministry of Labour in this province?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It goes without question that the --

Mr. Mancini: Why didn’t you say that before?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Well absolutely; certainly the group homes have to meet the standards, whether they be health standards, fire standards or labour standards.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions from the member for Hamilton West? The member for Carleton East then.

GUIDELINES FOR JUDGES

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Justice: I wonder if he is familiar with the phenomenon known as the male menopause?

[Laughter]

Mr. Speaker: It’s a question of urgent public importance I am sure.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am not sure whether I have yet passed through it or I am right in the middle of it, but I think it’s rather the latter.

[Laughter]

Mr. Breithaupt: Wait until you hear the supplementary!

An hon. member: It is your second childhood you are in.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll have the supplementary now then please.

Ms. Gigantes: I hardly know how to pose this part of the question, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder if the minister, in spite of the fact of his current condition, might consider developing with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) some guidelines that provincial court judges could use when they are dealing with testimony which may be unreliable because male witnesses are passing through the phenomenon of the male menopause?

Mr. Breithaupt: Did you check the judges too?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it sounds like a reasonable suggestion.

APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE COMMISSIONS

Mr. Conway: A question of the Solicitor General: Is it the policy of his department where vacancies in police commissions occur to solicit the advice of local municipal councils with respect to replacing those absentees?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: As far as appointments to police commissions across the province are concerned, they are made, as you know sir, by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Those are done, generally, on the advice or the recommendation of the Solicitor General, and I receive, as such, a great deal of input from various sources, sometimes from local councils, sometimes from local members and sometimes from concerned citizens.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Can the minister tell me why then, in the case of the town of Deep River, where there was an absentee and where the local municipal council was approached by the Ontario Police Commission, I believe, for a specific recommendation; and

whereas they supplied the name of a very reputable person, that particular recommendation was totally ignored and the particular council was not at all taken into confidence on the matter, which they had been led to believe they would in fact be?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am not sure who led them to believe their recommendation would automatically be accepted. I doubt if anybody did that, sir; that is not the way it’s worked. As I have said, they are made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and there is no guarantee when we seek information as to recommendations that that information will be acted upon by the cabinet, sir.

Mr. Conway: Why would the minister bother at all to approach this particular council, as in this particular instance, and simply ignore them in the final results? They feel particularly left out in this process.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, we seek our information from many sources and don’t limit ourselves to one recommendation.

MIAMI-CAREY WORKERS

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Labour: Is the ministry willing to intervene with Miami-Carey, a multi-national corporation, to get it to give the right of first refusal on jobs in their new Barrie plant to its Rexdale workers who are losing their jobs as a result of transferring the plant to Barrie?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I gather this company, for economic reasons, is consolidating its plant in a new site and I am aware that it is following all of the requirements of The Employment Standards Act in the terminations which are being carried out. I am also aware they have approached the employment adjustment service of the Ministry of Labour with a view to establishing a joint manpower placement committee with our ministry and with the Manpower department of the federal government. It is my understanding that at least some of the employees in the present plant will transfer to Barrie.

I do not know at this time how many, but that I shall attempt to ascertain and inform this House.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that the plant in fact did have enough property to expand in Rexdale but it sold this property? Is the minister prepared to amend the labour legislation to give successor rights to unions in cases like this where a plant is, in fact, transferred in its entirety from one location to another?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, The Labour Relations Act of this province is under constant review and this is one of the areas which we are examining.

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Could the minister tell us whether Browndale Ontario provides family court with psychological assessments on children, some of whom are ending up in Viking House, an organization with financial and other ties with Browndale, and whether they derive an income from this work?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would need to look into that matter. I sought information on it a week or so ago and I can’t recall it clearly enough to give her an answer. It may be an indication of my age.

Mrs. Campbell: I won’t take that as having no validity, Mr. Speaker. When the minister is investigating this for an answer to me, would he also check, for his own purposes and for the purposes of reporting to the House, who is doing the assessments as suggested, and whether or not these are done by students who are approaching their Ph.D. in education and not trained psychologists?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I know there are some students involved and I know this is being done as part of a training programme, but I understand it is always under the supervision of a qualified person and no charge for the student’s work is involved.

Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor General has the answer to a question asked previously.

SOLICITOR-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have now had an opportunity to inquire into the matter raised by the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) on Monday last. The member expressed concern that the Ontario Provincial Police intercepted a private communication of one Donald Turner in April of this year, without having obtained the necessary court authorization.

I have determined that the Ontario Provincial Police did intercept a private communication of Donald Turner in April of 1976, and that they did so with proper authority. An authorization to intercept private communications of Donald Turner was issued by a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario on April 8, 1976. This authorization was valid from April 12, 1976, until May 11, 1976. I have personally examined the court authorization and I am satisfied that the interception in question was lawful.

I would also point out that Mr. Turner was served with notice of July 27, 1976, that he had been the object of an interception pursuant to an authorization issued under the provisions of the Criminal Code.

The member for Ottawa East expressed a second concern; namely, that a communication between a solicitor and his client may be intercepted. I agree with him, as a matter of general policy, that the interception of communications between a solicitor and his client is undesirable. There may, however --

Mr. Roy: Undesirable?

Mr. Singer: Undesirable?

Mr. Speaker: Order; order, please.

Mr. Singer: Order? That is ridiculous.

Mr. Sargent: He didn’t write that speech.

Mr. S. Smith: Pretty mild, eh?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: If there’s any question, I said undesirable, Mr. Speaker.

There may, however, be occasions when it is justified, and this will be determined by a judge under the interception provisions of The Criminal Code. The judge determines what interceptions will be permitted when he gives the authorization. Furthermore, when it is proposed to introduce an intercepted communication in evidence at a trial, the trial judge determines whether it is properly admissible. Thus, the subject of the interception is protected by judicial review of the matter at two stages.

The Criminal Code contains stringent rules regarding the disclosure and use of intercepted communications and also requires that the authorization itself be kept confidential. I am, therefore, limited in what I may disclose to this House.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: First of all, if the Solicitor General has an authorization why is he not producing the authorization? Secondly, isn’t it a fact that that authorization doesn’t say specifically that you can intercept a communication between Turner and his solicitor? Thirdly, how can he, as the senior law officer of the Crown, not take a position and not support the police in this case when they trample on a basic right of a solicitor and his client, that is for a client to communicate in private assuming the confidentiality between a solicitor and client conversation?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I believe the question is why would I not table the authorization or produce it. The answer is simply I am prohibited by the Criminal Code from doing so.

Mr. Roy: You are not, you know you’re not.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That statement is just as irresponsible as the ones the member made on Monday last.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are not going to debate law in the House.

Mr. Singer: You don’t have to debate the law. Just read the section.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. Roy: I’ve been accused of being irresponsible. I’d like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I’ve heard such words used in both directions across the floor on many occasions. Do you have a point of order?

Mr. Roy: Yes.

Section 178 of the Criminal Code states: “All documents relating to an application made pursuant to

section 178(12) and

section 178(13) are confidential and with the exception of the authorization . . .”; and that’s what I’m talking about, the order of authorization. Produce it!

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I could carry on this debate as long as the hon. member wishes me to do so. I happen to have the Code in front of me as well, and I might tell you, Mr. Speaker, he didn’t read the whole section.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: I will read the full section. On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just a moment: In the first place, the time for the oral question period has expired. This is getting into a debate and I am in no position to rule on a legal matter.

An hon. member: This is not a debate.

Mr. S. Smith: It is a major issue.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: Remember Bill 99? It is the same thing.

Mr. Speaker: I can’t hear what you’re saying.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just a moment, please. I have just mentioned that this is developing into a debate, one member having a difference of opinion with another member. I am in no position rule one way or the other, nor should I be. If you have a point of order, that’s different.

Mr. Roy: I have a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr. Roy: My point of order, basically, Mr. Speaker, is that the Solicitor General, the law officer of the Crown, the Provincial Secretary for Justice -- he doesn’t deserve to have that title really --

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: -- says he’s prohibited from producing this order. I’m saying that the courts have ruled already that the order is a public document, and the

section of the Code says this. I say he’s misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

An hon. member: Withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa East knows he may not make that charge; so I ask him, first of all, to withdraw it then I have a ruling to make.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: I am not withdrawing the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You must not make a statement like that and the hon. member knows it. I will await his statement now withdrawing his remark. Then I have a ruling to make.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, can I add a word to the point of order?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order. We will deal with this matter before the House right now.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I may say this to you, out of all respect for the Chair and the office you hold, this is one statement I’m not withdrawing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. It is with regret I must name the hon. member and ask him to withdraw for the rest of the day.

Mr. Roy: I appeal your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: There’s no appeal to that. No, there’s no appeal.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You already said --

Mr. S. Smith: We can appeal.

Interjections.

[Mr. Roy was escorted from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I just point out one other thing? According to our rules of procedure it’s quite clear that if any member is dissatisfied with the answer to a question, he has the right to raise the matter --

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you give him a hearing then?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. And to bring it to the attention of the Speaker before 4 p.m. in writing, which has been done already in the case of another --

Mr. Singer: Nonsense.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: Next Tuesday night?

Mr. Speaker: It can be debated on the following Tuesday in the normal way. When there’s a difference of opinion --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

This is the way this sort of matter should be handled and not put everybody in an embarrassing position such as this.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I’ll recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

POINTS OF ORDER

Mr. Lewis: I presume there will be many points of order. Mr. Speaker, on a point of order and expressing a matter of some personal frustration. In your view of these exchanges, when a member rises on a point of order as the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) did, to read something into the record which is then challenged, when he rises on the point of order again, would it not be appropriate to allow him on that occasion to read the entire

section into the record so that those of us who participate in these matters in the House could understand what was at issue rather than cutting members off abruptly and leading to the kind of frustration which requires the naming of a member?

Mr. Breithaupt: I should like to speak to that point of order as well, Mr. Speaker, particularly because of the comments made by the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) which could have led certain members to believe that the failure to read the complete

section necessarily negated the point of view of the member for Ottawa East.

Hon. Mr. Davis: His point of view, exactly.

Mr. Singer: Then why didn’t the Solicitor General read it?

Mr. Breithaupt: If a certain

section of the Criminal Code or any other item is quoted --

Mr. Singer: He deliberately implied he wouldn’t follow through.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- either partially or because certain other items are added to that

section --

Mr. Singer: Why didn’t you name him for imputing motives?

An hon. member: Why don’t you name him?

Mr. Breithaupt: -- the happier result for the benefit of the House, must be that the

section is quoted and the matter can hopefully be resolved with common understanding of the initial point made by one member in a question or a minister in reply.

If that is attended to, we might be able to resolve these difficulties without allegations or insinuations being passed back and forth across the floor of this House due to incomplete information, which I might say may well be incomplete on both sides of the House on occasion.

The Chair would be much better served if that matter were allowed to be completed; then the House could proceed in a much more orderly fashion.

Mr. Speaker: I think both hon. members who spoke have a good point, but I would point out again it was developing into a debate which is not the order. However, I shall take that under advisement wherever possible. I’m sure we should --

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member not know the Speaker is still speaking?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Singer: If you want to name me, go ahead.

Mr. Speaker: All right, the hon. member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Singer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A part of the rules of this House says it is improper for a member to impute motives of another member. What happened here this afternoon was that the Solicitor General implied that my colleague from Ottawa East was misleading the House --

Some hon. members: No, no.

Mr. Singer: The implication was clear because he didn’t read the whole of the

section of the Code. He said --

Interjections.

Mr. Singer: He said, Mr. Speaker, that he had the --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Singer: --

section of the Code in front of him. He was asked by several hon. members to read it. He refused to and you did not call him to order for imputing motives.

[Applause]

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

I’m sure the hon. Solicitor General did not accuse the hon. member of misleading the House.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order, he called him irresponsible.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No! Order please.

Very unfortunately that seems to be an accusation that goes back and forth across this floor far too often anyway.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Are you there to protect the members?

Mr. S. Smith: It is the most fundamental point.

Mr. Lewis: Would it be too much to ask, Mr. Speaker, to beg your indulgence and that of the House to ask the Solicitor General to read that

section of the Criminal Code, just for one moment now?

Mr. Breithaupt: We would listen with rapt attention.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Somewhere along the line I might have an opportunity to reply to what’s been going on. I might say that I didn’t reply earlier --

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, you were on your feet, tell him to sit down.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. May I just have the floor? When there’s a difference of opinion as to what the

section says and means and so on, I think the proper way to handle it is, as I suggested, that the hon. member would notify the Chair that he is not satisfied with the answer and next Tuesday night present it in a formal way and read whatever five minutes allows at that time --

Mr. Reid: The dice are loaded one way in this deal.

Mr. Speaker: -- because I’m not in a position to rule as to what the Act says or what its

interpretation is at this time.

Mr. Sargent: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: First of all we have the point of order over here. Is there a point of order?

Mr. Sargent: The Chair has obviously goofed very badly here, and if you want to do justice, bring the member back in the House and have the thing ironed out right now.

Mr. Speaker: No, this is not the place. But thank you very much for the advice.

The hon. Solicitor General with a point of privilege.

POINTS OF PRIVILEGE

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The privilege, sir, that I wish to mention is simply this: That when I said that they didn’t read the whole section, I was quite prepared to read the entire

section --

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you? He should be here.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The reason I didn’t read it, sir, is because there were interjections from the other side at that time --

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- you rose to your feet, sir, and I sat down.

Mr. Lewis: Please read it now for God’s sake. I beg of you, read it! I want to know what it says.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order please. On with the business of the House.

Petitions?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. Why are we so maniacally inflexible in this place? Will you not allow the Solicitor General to satisfy curiosity by reading the one crummy little

section of the Code which has caused this whole -- please read it.

An hon. member: Not without Albert.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Lewis: What is it, holy writ?

Mr. Speaker: Not even mine.

Presenting reports.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Great example for the school kids.

Mr. Lewis: Are you prepared to lead us?

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The House leader of the government party interjected that we are setting a poor example for the school children.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: You are absolutely disgusting.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You know nothing about it.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Let me say this to that, because it says something about things here. Let me say something about this --

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: -- I feel that that particular interjection impugns my own reputation; and on a point of privilege let me say this: The confidentiality of a correspondence between a client and a lawyer is the fundamental upon which the system of justice in this province is based --

[Applause]

Mr. S. Smith: -- and if that is going to be refused and if the breach of that is to be termed merely undesirable, if that term is to be used and if my colleague from Ottawa East, who was attempting to bring the attention of the House to this --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: In the wrong way.

Mr. S. Smith: -- is to have his motivation impugned by the Solicitor General, then surely justice demands that he be returned to this room and that we be able to hear the entire matter settled once and for all.

[Applause]

Mr. Speaker: Order please. That matter has already been dealt with. I recognize the member for Sudbury.

Mr. Lewis: What about the school children?

[3:15]

REPORTS

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

Your committee recommends that it be empowered to consider expenditures for the year 1975-76 under The Ontario Home Buyers Grant Act, 1975.

Mr. Breaugh, in the absence of Mr. Lawlor, from the standing administration of justice committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Justice policy field be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977:

Justice Policy Field

Justice policy programme .................. $459,000

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. Deans: On a point of order -- I wonder if I might ask if the Premier (Mr. Davis) would listen for a moment as he is walking out the door: On Wednesday last the Premier indicated that he would make a statement some time this week with regard to the situation as it affects public health nurses in the province of Ontario. I don’t know why I believe so, but I understand the Premier may not be here tomorrow, and I wonder why we wouldn’t have had that statement by this time.

Mr. Speaker: I’m afraid I can’t be of any assistance to the hon. member, but it will be brought to his attention, I am sure.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. di Santo moved first reading of Bill 163,

An Act to amend The Construction Safety Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to prevent accidents, and the amendments would require compulsory employer safety training, compulsory worker safety training and immediate inquests into all fatal accidents in the construction industry.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 139,

An Act respecting Employees’ Health and Safety.

Mr. Samis: Now that the storm has temporarily abated, I suppose my remarks will seem very anti-climactic after the theatrics of what has just preceded this. But I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I have resisted the temptation and the pressure from the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Burr) to begin my remarks in the mother language of the two official languages of our country. I have been able to resist that pressure -- not tomorrow in the question period, though.

When we concluded the debate on Tuesday evening, I was referring to some of my concerns about

section 9, which dealt specifically with people in non-unionized industries, plants, businesses and operations who had some sense of insecurity about their employment. Although the procedures are fairly clear in the proposed Act, I still have some concern about the time lag and the fact that many people may be scared or intimidated to pursue the matter, even though they are completely in the right.

In that regard, whatever the final form of this bill, I would hope the minister would ensure us that she will take all steps to make sure that all the employees and employers of Ontario are made extremely, and thoroughly aware of all the provision of this legislation. Even if it is good legislation, I have a fear that sometimes people won’t pursue it, if they don’t know what their rights are.

What comes to mind is a piece of legislation we had here last year, The Business Practices Act, which represented a considerable event in the whole field of protecting consumer rights. My guess is that if we were to go out of this chamber this afternoon we would find that 99 out of 100 citizens would have never heard of the Act, would have no idea what it is, and would not have any idea what rights they have guaranteed by that Act. Yet it was a very important piece of legislation.

I would hope that the Minister of Labour would do something to make sure that this bill doesn’t end up in that category, because it’s too important to just pass a piece of legislation and then expect people to read about it.

I would hope she would send out information kits, people, caravans, films and whatever it may be into the communities in different regions of the province and have people go into the plants and the factories and have special meetings, so that the employees and the employers are made completely aware of their rights, the provisions and all the procedures. I think that’s crucial for the implementation and effectiveness of this bill.

One final point I would like to make again is the whole question of effectiveness which has been brought up by some of my colleagues earlier in the debate. When one takes something, for example, such as minimum wage legislation, many people know about the minimum wage, but how many really know about the provisions behind it and what enforcement there is of something which may be good in itself? If we don’t have sufficient enforcement, then obviously it’s not going to have much value at the local level and at the plant level among the individuals. I would hope that the minister would make adequate provisions for enforcement of all clauses of this legislation.

When this bill goes to committee, I would urge her not to knuckle under to any pressure, not to give in to anybody who argues on the basis of the dollar or the profit or of politics. Don’t water this bill down at all; stand firm. The bill may have some imperfections. The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has already pointed those out. I would hope that the minister would keep an open mind on the amendments being offered by the member for Nickel Belt. I feel that this bill is long, long overdue, but I do recognize it as a step forward.

Mr. Lane: I would like to make a few remarks on second reading of Bill 139, which brings in the recommendations set out by the Ham commission regarding employees’ health and safety. I’m very disappointed about what some of the members have been saying about this bill. I quote the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) who said on November 16, 1976: “I never thought I would be put in a position to accept the crumbs off the table of the minister, but in this instance we have to take these crumbs.”

Mr. Laughren: Some day we will get the table.

Mr. Lane: I say shame to this member. Sudbury people deserve a better member, one who would not be satisfied to accept crumbs. If he thinks that that’s all this bill contains he should have had guts enough to get up and vote against it.

Mr. Laughren: Are you encouraging that or suggesting that?

Mr. Lane: Earlier in his ramblings, he said that his leader and the NDP members from the Sudbury area, and the union officials, had caused the Ham commission to be set up in the first place. I would remind the member that the Ham commission was set up when we had a majority government. If they could cause these things to happen under those conditions, then why should they accept crumbs now that we have a minority government and the NDP are the official opposition?

Mr. Lupusella: Is this on the principle of the bill?

Mr. Samis: What took you so long?

Mr. Wildman: Why weren’t you out fighting for it?

Mr. Lane: Don’t worry, I was. The November 15 issue of the Sudbury Star contained an

article that relates to a speech the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) made to the NDP convention in Saskatchewan last weekend. The article’s headline reads: “Lewis Sees Elliot Lake as a Town of Dead and Dying.” What a terrible image to give to the people of another province about one of the most thriving towns in northern Ontario. Elliot Lake is anything but dead or dying; it is very much alive and well. Once more, I, as a member, and the Elliot Lake people are proud of our town and we object very strongly to this type of a statement.

Mr. Wildman: We are proud of Gus Frobel more than you, John.

Mr. Lane: Members of the opposition are speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this bill. On one hand they are saying they are going to support it; on the other hand they are saying it’s no good. I think they should make up their minds.

Mr. Wildman: We said it was a step forward.

Mr. Lane: Personally, I say the bill goes a long way to implement the recommendations of the Ham commission.

Mr. Mackenzie: Positively radical.

Mr. Lane: I think it is a great step forward and I want to congratulate the minister on the bill. I think it’s very unfair that she must listen to criticisms about herself and her colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) because in my estimation both ministers have done and are doing a commendable job.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to intrude myself into the debate on second reading. I felt this legislation was so vital to labour relations in this province that it should go to committee at the earliest opportunity so that any amendments might be incorporated and so that at long last we might have appropriate legislation in this province.

However, it would seem there are those who are not too anxious to see it proceed quickly to the amendment stage. I would only say I am saddened at this, in view of the fact that it would appear that when our member (Mr. Haggerty) introduced amendments to The Mining Act in November, 1970, dealing with the mandatory appointment of committees of safety, that move was defeated by the combined effort of both the New Democratic Party and the Conservatives on a vote of 72 opposed to 18 in favour. I would have thought that perhaps at this point in time the opposition might have joined with us in our concern to see this legislation go forward.

I want also to speak briefly of my concerns. I had the occasion to meet with this minister and others in a discussion of the problems of lead pollution in the city of Toronto. At that point in time I was deeply concerned at what seemed to be, with respect, a rather incomplete answer to the problem of the employees in these firms and their ability, not because they were not capable, but because they couldn’t get the information upon which to base a decision as to the hazardous conditions in their particular field of occupation.

It was also pointed out at that time that not even the local board of health could get this information, and I think perhaps that may have come as a surprise to the minister herself, although she didn’t express that. I just took it from the general tone of the conversation. Surely it is important that the workers in our industrial plants, be they of whatever kind, at a time when we are moving into an area of increasing use of chemicals of which we do not have adequate knowledge, should at least be accorded every possible opportunity to be able to investigate their circumstances as fully as possible?

I recognize it is not within the principle of this bill to urge upon the minister the obligation of government to carry out adequate research in this field. I feel that as a result of her own experience in the medical field and what I believe to be her concern she would join with us in seeking ways and means to protect the workers to a much greater extent than they are protected under the principle of this bill at this point in time.

[3:30]

We cannot accept in our society that there are people who are working in conditions which are really unknown to them as to the hazard because they have no real measurement devices. I speak with a view to trying to bring forward the concerns which we feel in this particular area and to invite the minister to join with all of us in this House in trying to work out better research facilities in this area. I see she’s is nodding her head and I am delighted she is considering this.

We must have committees which are able to go as far as they can in protecting the workers but we have an obligation in government, it seems to me, to ensure that those committees have access to the fullest information so that they can in turn assist those working in the plant.

I trust we may shortly move to any amendments we have and get this very-long-overdue and much-needed bill enacted.

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, Bill 139, would appear to deal with worker input into matters of health and safety in the work place, matters which for too long have been dealt with exclusively by management to the detriment of workers and the public of this province.

On reading sections 2 and 3, which attempt to ensure worker input, I can see that through the ambiguous wording, there will continue to be management intimidation and coverup.

section 2, for example, the insertion of the word reasonable puts the onus regarding health and safety practices equally on the employee, right where it is now. In many cases, the workers who are confronted by safety hazards and dangerous work practices are junior members of the work force; intimidation and threats are tried and proved methods of keeping these people in line.

I would like to make a point here that most decisions regarding dangerous work practices are made at the worker-foreman level. The corporate board rooms rarely get involved.

A junior employee of limited experience under the terms of this clause is forced to make a decision against all the experience and knowledge of foremen and managers. I suggest the situation is too one-sided. Here is an example from yesterday’s Star to make the point. I am going to quote:

“Miner in wrong place when he was killed.

“Sudbury: Daniel Sirois, a shift boss at Inco Ltd.’s Frood mine, told a coroner’s jury yesterday that he did not know why David Cullen, 35, was working where he was when he was killed last April. The inquest is the second to investigate the death of the Sudbury miner killed while operating a scoop tram, an underground front-end loader. Sirois said yesterday he told Cullen to work near the mouth of the tunnel where the accident happened but not inside it.”

Dead men tell no tales and we will never know about this. What I am saying about unsafe conditions which people work in is that they are usually told to work there. So I don’t think you can go to the shift boss who sent you in there or has told you to follow a certain practice and say to him, “I think it’s unsafe.” You’re immediately going to have a confrontation when you do that, and that’s what this Act is saying.

I suggest that where a worker has cause -- and cause only, without the inclusion of the word “reasonable” -- to feel that a work situation presents a hazard or a danger, he should decide that the practice should stop immediately and report the situation to a safety representative who represents employees. If we really want to get worker input into safety, all responsibility will be given to employees and their representatives to decide what is safe and what is unsafe. This representative, in turn, will meet with the employer representative. Only in this manner can the employee be expected to make a responsible decision within the confines of his experience. This is the crux of the matter.

Safety should not be a matter of constant confrontation, a matter of who is right and who is wrong, a situation of “You do it or you get out,” but a matter of real concern for all those involved. Sections 2 and 3, as now written, leave the whole matter of confrontation untouched. Only a fresh and honest approach to assure an employee’s freedom and responsibilities towards safety matters is acceptable. The hedging in these clauses assures the continuing abuse by management representatives of the rights of workers to protect themselves.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I really didn’t intend to speak on Bill 139, but when I heard the NDP members to my right doing a lot of talking and leaving the impression that they are the only ones who are concerned about the welfare of the worker, I felt it was only responsible that we should have a few words on the bill.

Mr. Laughren: You are backfilling and protecting your flank.

Mr. G. I. Miller: You think so? I’d just like to point out that as an employee, when I used to employ myself, I wished many times that we’d had health and safety standards we could have applied to the work we had to do. We often had to get up into a hay mow when we were blowing in dry hay, and we had to make sure everything was running okay -- I don’t know, those fellows to my right would probably have disappeared.

Mr. Ruston: That’s right. They would have been long gone.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Or if they had to ride the combine in that dusty clover field and live in that dust while they combined all day, I think they would have had second thoughts too.

Mr. Laughren: Do you think we’re physically inferior?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) does not have the floor. Will the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) ignore the interjections and speak to the principle of the Bill 139?

Mr. G. I. Miller: I certainly am getting around to that point, Mr. Speaker. I thank you again for the privilege of speaking on the bill. I was just trying to point out what we, as employees who employed ourselves, had to contend with for many years.

Getting back to the bill, I feel it is a good bill. My colleagues have spoken on it and I think it is a step in the right direction. The only thing I’m concerned about is

section 4(6), setting up the committee, which says they should meet four times a year or not more often than once a month. Meeting four times a year perhaps is proper, but meeting on a once-a-mouth basis maybe is not often enough in some instances or circumstances. Perhaps there should be some reconsideration given to that portion.

The other area of my concern is

section 7, regarding notices in languages that the employees can understand. I think we’re all aware of the fact that we have many languages to contend with now and I think we want to make sure that the employees aren’t taken advantage of. I know the French language is an issue at the present time, and that should be a consideration, but I don’t feel it is necessary if there is not a predominance or a French issue in the area that is involved. I do feel, however, that the employees should be notified properly so that they can be made aware and have their rights taken care of.

The last point I would like to speak on is the fact that I am happy to see that it is at least 50 per cent made up of employees. Maybe another concern is how many members will be on the committee. I don’t know if that is spelled out clearly or not. I think we also have to be responsible to the employer. I would hope that the employees would not take advantage just for a stop-work order, and I think there should be some responsibility on behalf of the employees to their employer that they’re not utilizing it to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the employer. That point has to be reckoned with.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on this bill, Bill 139, and to begin with I want to say that this bill is one step in the right direction, and this has been said over and over again by every member of the New Democratic Party who has spoken. It is a step in the right direction but, of course, like any bill that the government produces, it doesn’t go far enough to save the lives of workers in the mines or on the job sites.

One of the things that I’m reminded of is that the record of this government in terms of the legislation to protect workers on the job site is, to say the least, dismal; to say the least, a failure. When we take a look at the man-days lost through accidents on the job because of poor conditions, or lack of safety conditions on the job, we find out that the number of man-days lost is approximately 30 per cent higher -- as a matter of fact, 33 per cent higher to be exact -- than the man-days lost due to strikes and lockouts.

It’s incredible, really incredible, and the press, whenever there’s a strike, puts it on the front pages as if the end of the world has come, but when men, every day, are dying on the job, nothing is being said. Nothing is being said.

One of the things that really flabbergasted me when I came into this Legislature the first time that I heard it, was the fact that 9,000 chemical compounds enter the work place every year and we know something about only one-third of those compounds in terms of the reactions, in terms of the fumes and what those fumes do to the lungs of workers. It’s incredible in an adult world that supposedly should be geared to logic, somewhat to logic, we find employers are toying with the lives of workers by putting in those chemicals which we know nothing about. I really find that disturbing; a very disturbing fact.

I can understand an 11- or 12-year-old boy or girl playing around with their chemistry sets at home and not understanding the chemical compounds and the dangers that might ensue from these chemical compounds as a result of the chemical combination, but to find out that it’s happening in the factories, to find that it is happening on job sites, is something that really astounds me. I just don’t understand it. I don’t understand how that is allowed to go on.

I say I don’t understand it in terms of my emotive senses, but I do understand it in terms of the profit component that that kind of mentality produces. In other words, if we use these cheap chemicals we can clean the parts of the machinery a lot faster at less cost, and who cares about the life of a worker.

Mr. Kerrio: We all do. Who are you kidding?

[3:45]

Mr. Grande: The whole mentality of the Workmen’s Compensation Board speaks exactly to that principle -- the worker gets hurt on the job; once he’s hurt we will compensate him -- instead of going to the philosophy, to the beginning and saying, “What are the reasons for a worker getting hurt? Let’s get rid of the cause and we will lessen the number of accidents which happen on the job.”

Of course, everything is in the reverse order. This Workmen’s Compensation Board might have been a fantastic idea in 1915 but certainly this year -- let me say to the minister that I speak as the result of experience I’ve had with it in the last year and not before -- as a result of that experience I must say that changes must be coming as fast as possible within that complex. Otherwise we are going to have thousands and thousands more people injured on the job.

We’ll say, “Sure, we will compensate them once they’re hurt.” By that time it is too late. The frustration of these workers is almost reaching a peak and the minister is going to be forced to change the Workmen’s Compensation Board. She is going to do it.

I want to go back to that philosophy which in essence is the principle of this bill. That is that whenever there are accidents at the work place or on the job site and whenever there is any threat to the lives of workers, all we do is change the worker so that the worker can fit the environment and thereby do the productive job he’s supposed to be doing. That’s exactly what happens. We put masks on workers and say, “Work with a mask because that will protect you from the environment, from the conditions of work.”

If I’m allowed to digress for just a couple of sentences. I hear repeatedly, over and over again that we do exactly the same thing with the educational system. We say “We will change the child to the system.” It’s the same mentality. That’s the point that I’m trying to make -- it’s the same type of mentality.

The government tries to change the individual to fit the environment rather than changing the environment so that the individual can work and live in a secure place, knowing full well that after eight hours of work he can go back to his family with some security, instead of after five years, two years or 20 years, contracting all sorts of diseases which will destroy that worker.

As I have said and I will repeat, this legislation is the first step but let the minister not forget that even this first step is 10 years too late. It took the Ham commission report to wake up the government to the need. It didn’t realize the need before otherwise it would have brought in this legislation five years ago. But it didn’t do it. The Tories need that motivation so they can go to businesses and employers in the mines and say, “We’ve got to act. The pressure upon us it too great. We’ve got to do something tangible, something concrete, something visible.”

Don’t let anybody think the government did this because it understands the conditions on the job or understands the kind of frustrations the workers are going through. It understands the conditions of the worker on Workmen’s Compensation so it is trying to change the conditions of work so that will not take place.

The Tories did it because the Ham commission said, “For too long these hazards on the job have existed, especially in the mines. You’ve got to do something about it. You’ve got to change the situation.” This provides the excuse for the Tories to say to the employer, “Now we must act.”

Let me end this, because I hadn’t planned on speaking for more than two or three minutes. That particular amendment which I am sure we are going to be presenting, of making these committees mandatory, is most -- as a matter of fact, it is mandatory that it gets done. The only way the worker can really have any security whatsoever that the working condition is going to be changing is if the committee is mandatory and not at the discretion of the employer.

Mr. Bain: Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party feel a certain amount of reluctance to speak, each of us --

Mr. Kerrio: Reluctance?

Mr. Bain: -- because members may feel we are overstating the case. I rise, as my colleagues have risen, not to speak for myself --

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s reluctance.

Mr. Bain: -- but to speak for the miner that I knew as a child, whom I watched in his rocking chair wheeze out the last days of his life, or for the man working in the bush who was forced to work under conditions that could do nothing but lead eventually to a crippling accident. I rise to speak for all the young miners who are in the mines today in their thirties who are already becoming deaf.

I rise to speak for the workers in Ontario and all the workers in my riding who have the right to expect and have had the right to expect for a long time that they be accorded what I feel is a basic democratic right, or should have been a basic democratic right, to have safe working conditions. That has been a right that this government has not accorded them, lo these many years.

Bill 139 looks to be a good bill. It looks as if it will accomplish some of the basic things that are essential, such as co-ordinating the enforcement of basic standards by putting that enforcement under the jurisdiction of one ministry, which is something we have been requesting in this party for quite some time. It looks as if it will do a job because it gives the worker the right to refuse to work in unsafe conditions.

I say “it looks” because we see many examples in this province and in this House, where the Minister of Labour actually makes statements in this House that are anti-labour. One cannot help but conclude that when the minister in her heart sees a circumstance, she does not immediately bound to the floor in the defence of working people in this province.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You are deaf.

Mr. Bain: Too often I have seen her rise in this House to defend the mandarins and the bureaucrats in the vertical -- or is it horizontal? -- files of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, when an injustice is brought to her attention or when the Compensation Board refuses, as it did a few years ago, to compensate for silicosis -- eventually it did -- or when it now refuses to compensate for cancer of the throat brought on by asbestosis, or when it refuses -- and I don’t have the case in front of me -- to compensate for bronchogenic carcinoma. Forgive me, I’m not a medical doctor and I don’t have the phrase right in front of me.

The reason I hesitated over the phrase is it doesn’t make any sense to me. I have a case presently before the Compensation Board where the doctor himself has written to the board saying it doesn’t matter whether it’s silicosis or bronchogenic carcinoma or whatever it is, the condition of this man was brought about because he worked in the mine, and anybody in the medical profession would agree.

I don’t see why we’ve had all the problems over the years of trying to pigeonhole people who have been put in a position where they contract diseases because of their work place, trying to pigeonhole them into some category so they will collect compensation. In reality, all that has been done is that the Compensation Board has succeeded in denying them compensation that they had every right to expect.

The Compensation Board, to my way of thinking, has been a shining example of what has been wrong with this government’s attitude when it comes to working people. I had a situation again where a doctor prescribed a particular drug for leg cramps that were brought about by a compensable injury, and there the wrangling going back and forth between him and the Compensation Board doctors --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What principle of this bill is the hon. member relating to?

Hon. B. Stephenson:

Section 3?

Mr. Bain: I’m relating it to the whole position of working people in this province, and the Compensation Board, in fact, is mentioned in this bill, in one of the sections. But simply to conclude on the Compensation Board, the doctor in question was finally forced into a position where he had to accept a particular drug prescribed by the Compensation Board as opposed to the drug that he felt was best, simply so the worker could collect the charge for such a drug. That kind of thing is totally ridiculous.

The position that I come to with this bill, as I said earlier, is that it appears it will do some good. But I’m afraid the only way this bill will do any good is if there are a lot of New Democrats in this House to see that it’s enforced. Why would I say that? Because I look at an example that’s happened in my own riding, I look at an example of this government’s supposed concern and the way it has gone about enforcing health standards.

Mr. Kerrio: Better do it now, because you are not going to have as many next time.

Mr. Bain: I am sure the minister is familiar with the situation at United Asbestos. Suffice to say that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), who was in charge of the mines engineering branch -- which will now be moved to this ministry under

section 12 of this particular bill -- stated on February 25:

“United Asbestos, far from having the worst conditions yet, they were the best conditions yet in United Asbestos at Matachewan.”

That reassures us. This was the man -- now this minister will be replacing him -- who is responsible for enforcing work safety in the mines of this province. He speaks out, we are reassured. He had in his possession at that time reports that had been made as early as the fall of 1975, which indicated that the conditions at United Asbestos were deplorable, in fact the worst that the writer of the occupational health protection branch report had seen anywhere. He had those reports, yet he did nothing about them.

He paraded bravely in this House and elsewhere as the defender of corporate interests. Finally, on the workers themselves, I must tell the minister that workers in northern Ontario do not have the same opportunities as people in the south. Jobs are few and far between and often they are forced into a position where they have to accept poor working conditions because they know there are not other jobs for them to go to.

This was a situation with the men who were working at Matachewan. I grew up near Matachewan and I saw that community when two gold mines closed; people were thrown out of work, 8,500 people were left without any economic base. The people in Matachewan not only left to find employment elsewhere, they literally took their homes with them on the floats of trucks as they left.

So everyone realized when United Asbestos went to Matachewan that this was important. Those same men who needed those jobs so desperately went out on strike in the beginning of April, and what did they demand? They simply demanded that they would be able to go back into the work place --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must remind the hon. member that every member in this House could bring out examples of where this bill might apply to a specific incident in his or her riding. It’s not the practice in this House to give specific examples but to speak to the principle of this bill.

Mr. Bain: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your recommendations and your admonitions, but I would remind the Speaker that there is no point in us passing any bill in this House unless it’s going to apply to the people in all of our ridings and protect the workers in all of our tidings.

[4:00]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If you want to get into specifics, there will be an opportunity during the committee stage of the bill.

Mr. Bain: I was about to mention that finally these men went out because they wanted only to go back into the work place and help clean it up. The company, of course, wouldn’t do that. Finally, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) had to get involved, and at that time he finally came around to saying that the attitude of the executives of United Asbestos was unbelievable. Why didn’t he take that position earlier? Why didn’t he admit that the executives of that company had a poor attitude? Why didn’t he, from the very beginning, ensure that the mine was safely set up --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Obviously the member didn’t heed my original admonition. It wasn’t a recommendation. I was insisting that you stick to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Bain: Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill deals with such things -- I could recite them if you would like me to, Mr. Speaker, but I won’t do that for you; I know that you --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am well aware of the principles involved in this bill.

Mr. Bain: I am glad that you are and I am glad that you appreciate the importance of this bill; but this bill, like almost any other bill, has to be enforced. One of the sections of the bill,

section 9, mentions that there will be no reprisals. This is an area where the ministry is going to have to be very diligent, because I am sure the minister will appreciate that having something written on a piece of paper does not mean the companies will abide by it.

I hope the minister will see that there are sufficient people in her ministry to enforce the provisions of this Act and safety in general. I am sure that people in the mines engineering branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources will tell the minister that one of the reasons they were so handicapped in enforcing their concern about mine safety was that they never had enough people to get around to all the mines; they could only deal with flash fire areas when they became well known to the people of the province through the media. The minister is going to have to make a real effort to see that these sections of this Act are stringently and rigorously enforced.

The Act itself is a step in the right direction. It doesn’t go far enough, of course, in implementing the recommendations of the Ham commission. Something that I believe is most important is that we have to establish a way of tracking the people who have worked in mines. There has to be a continuous record kept of them.

Examples have already been cited -- the sinter plant at Inco in Sudbury and other plants around this province -- where neither management nor anyone else really knows who has worked there; so it’s impossible to contact these people and advise them they should be seeking medical assistance to make sure they haven’t contacted any diseases that can be traced to their original place of employment. That was a recommendation of the Ham commission, and I hope it’s one the minister will implement very shortly.

I am sure the minister will have the support of this party in her efforts -- and I hope there are efforts on her part -- to rigorously enforce this and really become, in her own cabinet, the spokesman for working people. When an issue is presented in this House, she shouldn’t react on the side of the companies but on the side of the working people; and if on occasion she should err on the side of working people, I am sure no one in this province would ever hold that against her.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this very important legislation. I will be very brief, but there are comments that are important for me to make.

There are those in this House who would suggest that there is only one party interested in the worker and his well-being. I would like to say that’s not quite true. When I stand in this House, I am very concerned about the worker and the work place, but I think there are many more responsibilities that some of the other people don’t identify with.

We in the Liberal Party feel very strongly about representing all people in this province, whether they be workers or employers. This is the role of the government. I think that’s what true government is all about, that they will keep the broader spectrum open and that when there is something that should be supported they will support it diligently and not attempt to make it appear that there’s only one party in this House that is interested in the worker.

They know that is not true and I would bring this to the members’ attention. I think this is a very valid point -- having been a worker, having been an employer, and maybe having come from that small business spectrum that isn’t even talked about here -- the responsibility to those people who have to make things pay. Yes, they say, things go strictly down to the economy of the situation. I don’t think that’s quite true. I think such broad statements are what makes the credibility of what they’re suggesting very untrue.

I think we must realize that all of us have a heavy responsibility, when we try to train the worker to be a safer worker we are doing it for his own good, and when we attempt to have safety meetings and have those employers attend those safety meetings and make it incumbent on them that the work place is as safe as they can make it, that’s part of our responsibility.

Some can say this legislation should have come 10 years ago. They could say it should have come 200 years ago, when they took 12-year-old children in the mines. We are all aware of that, but I say this bill is a good bill and we are going to support it. The Liberal Party has one great difference from the socialists and that is that we have a broad responsibility, and when I stand on this floor, I say that I represent that broad responsibility and I think they should do the same.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few comments to make with regard to the bill. I am always interested in listening to the Liberal Party members speak of their responsibility. Methinks they doth protest too much. They seem compelled to point out their purity in the matter. I don’t think we need to do that, since what we have done is self-evident to most people in the province of Ontario.

I think it’s sad that we have to pass bills like this. I think it’s a sad commentary on the state of the civilization that we live in that we have to ensure by law that safety and health will take precedence over the accumulation of wealth. That’s what’s happening.

I have been concerned, I think for almost all of my adult life and certainly for some of my pre-adult life, with the health and safety of workers. I have been concerned about it because I watched an old man die, and when my colleague from Timiskaming (Mr. Bain) spoke of seeing this happen, I want to say to the minister that I can recall the discussions that I had with my grandfather, who was a miner, who worked in intolerable conditions, who died prematurely because of the conditions that he had to work in, and I won’t recite them here today because obviously they don’t apply exactly in this day and age as they did in that day.

Oh, they did apply in this country too. In fact, the conditions that he spoke of are not really that terribly unlike the conditions that many people in the province of Ontario face on a day-to-day basis, given that we have now moved some 80 years from the time that he first started in the mines. But in other areas of the economy we have moved much more rapidly. We have developed all kinds of sophisticated machinery for production purposes. We have developed all kinds of sophisticated apparatus for the movement of people and things.

We have even developed new procedures for legislative debates -- though it wasn’t evident this afternoon -- but for some reason or other we have, and we have done that fairly rapidly. We can send a man to the moon now --

Mr. Kerrio: We have to have a protective suit, Ian.

Mr. Deans: -- and we consider it a priority. Yet the truth of the matter is that when we send that man to the moon we take every single precautionary step to ensure that his or her -- in this case up to now it’s been his -- well-being and person are protected throughout to the maximum degree. That’s done under public scrutiny; people watch it every minute of the day and they see it happening.

Yet we don’t seem to be able to understand in a reasonably civilized way that there are a great number of conditions which currently exist in industry and in the mines, particularly, which are inhuman, which are hazardous, which have been dangerous and have affected the lives and the economic wellbeing of many people across this province, and which needed to be changed many years ago.

I put it in that way because, like everyone else, I am always glad when a bill comes forward which attempts to correct some injustice or some hazardous situation. But let me tell members that we have legislation in the province of Ontario at the moment. We have The Mines Safety Act -- page after page of direction with regard to the safety of miners; much of it ignored. We have The Construction Safety Act, again page after page of supposed protection for people in the construction industry; much of it ignored.

I had the occasion to be part of the committee dealing with the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I heard from the industrial safety branch about its inspections -- this was two and a half to three years ago -- about its inspection procedures and the kind of conditions which prevail through much of industry in the province of Ontario, much of it, if not all of it, in direct violation of the law.

Simply passing this law isn’t going to change in any way the conditions people find themselves in. It isn’t. What will change those conditions is how the government enforces this law. If it enforces this law in the same way as it has enforced the other safety laws, it won’t work. If it is going to have inspectors phoning ahead and telling the company they’ll be dropping by to make an inspection tomorrow or next week, as has been happening right across this province for years, then let me tell the House that all of the good intentions and all of the importance of this legislation will be lost.

The minister can’t tell me from her place in this Legislature that it is a coincidence that workers are told on a particular day to go and clean up and get things put away in their proper place, to clear the floors and reduce the dust levels. Then, just by accident, the inspector drops by the following day or the day after that. If the minister tells me that’s a coincidence, I tell her that’s nonsense. That has been happening across this province.

I’ll tell her more than that. There are violations day after day in construction which will and have cost people their lives and caused others considerable aggravation and pain. The inspection procedures are virtually non-existent.

Mr. Kerrio: I’ve never had notice.

Mr. Deans: It’s extremely difficult. I’ll take the minister and let her speak to people working in the industry --

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is not true.

Mr. Kerrio: I have never had notice.

Mr. Deans: She can say -- I don’t care; I’m not sensitive to that.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member will continue speaking to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Deans: I’ll take her and let her see people who work in the industry and they’ll tell her about it. I don’t understand what kind of enclosed, protected environment she lives in that she never comes into contact with the people I come into contact with. I don’t understand that.

I know them. I deal with them working in construction on a day to day basis. They have complained repeatedly, time after time, about the conditions, particularly about the elevators put in on the construction sites which are supposed to raise and lower materials and persons.

Mr. Grande: Do you believe the workers?

[4:15]

Mr. Deans: It’s a matter of who you believe, I suppose, and what you consider to be a violation and what you consider to be a hazard.

My worry about it is this, in any event. The law itself, like a lot of laws, can be full of good intentions. This law’s filled with good intentions and I agree -- and I support it. But what I really want to see is how you make it work.

If the minister is going to leave it up to the decisions of individuals, companies or employees, whether there will be safety committees formed, then she’s going to find that by a very careful coercive measure that has gone on for years -- it’s called fear of the loss of one’s job -- that many of the hazards and many of the problems that have been in existence and in evidence for as long as I’ve been involved in the work force will continue. Because, you see, a worker is never fired for complaining about an unsafe situation.

It’s three or four months later that his services are no longer required and, of course, it’s extremely difficult then to prove the reasons why. That’s what I’m concerned about in terms of the application of the Act.

I think the minister has to be sure that there are mandatory safety committees. I think she has to be sure that those committees have the maximum amount of strength, that they are given every conceivable source of information with regard to safety and the hazards that are involved in health in order that they can do the job well. There has to be an ongoing flow of information to them about new materials, about new liquids, about new coolants, about what they should look for in terms of symptoms of illness and health problems in order that they can make an accurate assessment.

I hope the minister is going to do that. I hope she is going to do that because that’s what’ll make it work adequately.

Let me go on just a moment just to say to the minister that if it works well and if we identify the hazardous areas then we can’t arrive at a saw-off; there can be no compromise. The safety and the health of the people of the province of Ontario, working in whatever area, must be the primary consideration.

We can’t accept the argument that “we would like to fix that up but we can’t afford it,” because if it’s going to be an economic argument that we can’t fix it up and so therefore it has to be allowed to continue for a period of time, then what you’re really doing is saying that those people’s lives can be played around with and we can’t afford to have that happen. I’m not suggesting the minister said it, I’m suggesting we have to be careful not to do that.

On top of that, we have to make some very fundamental changes to the Workmen’s Compensation Board and to the methods now being used to assess -- I say to the minister, it’s very much related to this bill, very much related to it. We have to make very fundamental changes to the way in which the Compensation Board performs its function.

We can’t afford to have people waiting for such extended periods of time for their payments and the reason is this. If a worker is off either through accident or illness and has to wait for eight or 10, or 12, or 16 weeks in order that an assessment be made, an investigation take place, a judgement be forthcoming and then finally a cheque arrive, the next time that worker is faced with the same situation he will choose not to report it because he can’t afford it; economically he can’t survive.

That’s why the minister has to make some changes. She is going to have to authorize on-the-spot immediate inspection by the local officers where they exist and, where they don’t exist, she’s going to have to make sure that there are a sufficient number of inspectors available to go out on one day’s notice to job sites where there are questions being asked about their safety as a result of an accident. An immediate assessment must be made with regard to whether or not that particular situation the worker finds himself or herself in is related directly to employment or to the health hazard and therefore is justifiably a compensable accident or incident.

There are so many subtle ways of making sure that the workers are placed in such jeopardy that they themselves, are not able to stand up for the very thing which will protect their own health and their own lives. That’s where the minister really has to put her emphasis.

Her emphasis must be on inspection and ensuring that there are committees established right across the province and that the Compensation Board is reoriented -- that its thinking is reoriented so that it reverts to the position it once took, that where there was a doubt, the doubt was found in favour of the injured worker.

That hasn’t been in application in this province for the last three years. That’s very unfortunate. People in this province working for wages and salaries in the main don’t earn sufficiently high wages or salaries in order to be able to withstand two or three months without pay. It is quite common now in dealing with the Workmen’s Compensation Board that that happens -- two to three months; eight to 12 weeks.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Give me some numbers so I can investigate.

Mr. Deans: I’ve done that. Go to the board. I’ve been up there with them.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Don’t give them to the board; give them to me.

Mr. Laughren: I’d be glad to.

Mr. Deans: We’ll give them to you.

Mr. Laughren: You reject them anyhow. What is the sense of giving them to you?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps we can --

Mr. Deans: But I want the minister to know -- this is right on the bill.

Mr. Acting Speaker: -- cease debating the Workmen’s Compensation Board’s deficiencies or inefficiencies and get on with the second reading.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I’m glad you raised it in that way because I know you and I share the concerns which will flow from workers not being able to have this Act administered in the way in which we intended because they are under severe financial hardship. You have raised it with me yourself so I know we share it.

I want to say that these are the subtle ways in which the Act will be circumvented. If the minister can’t enforce the existing Acts, which she can’t; if she allows the land of economic pressures which are currently being allowed in the province to avoid compensable accidents; if she continues to allow employers to give workers light work rather than report accidents so that the hazardous situations don’t come to her attention, she is never going to be able to clean up the work place in a way which will provide adequate protection for people.

I think this Act should be considered in conjunction with the other Acts to see exactly where they all fit together. I think, more than that, she has to recognize one thing. If she comes to a decision, however she comes to it, that a work place is so hazardous that people cannot work there, there has to be an absolutely clear and unequivocal guarantee that the employees don’t suffer economically as a result of that decision. In the province of Ontario retraining and rehabilitation programmes must be set up and in place and working to guarantee that they will be able to maintain themselves and their families with some dignity.

That’s why I keep asking the question about the minister’s Manpower policies; it is very much a responsibility of the Minister of Labour. If she doesn’t have all these things in place then this Act, with all its good intentions, isn’t going to fill the bill and isn’t going to protect the people in the way we in this Legislature hoped it would.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I confess it is with some gratitude that I rise finally to participate in this debate. I had anticipated that there would be strong support and therefore some limitation upon the length of debate but I gather there is some concern that authorship of this bill shall be shared within the House. I would like the members to know that I have absolutely no hesitation in suggesting that there are perhaps 125 authors of this bill. Pride of authorship is certainly not my primary concern.

In contrast to some of my hon. colleagues who have participated in this debate, I shall attempt to keep my remarks tightly related to the principles of the bill. I may digress a little but I promise you that I shall not become quite so tangential as some of those who have participated.

I don’t possess as many years’ experience in this Legislature as some of my colleagues and I am not therefore capable of dredging up from memory long past debates demonstrating either lack of resolve or change of position, or flip-flops, or whatever one would like to call them. Nor did my work experience in a number of jobs in this province -- jobs long before I became a physician -- and in my job as a physician as well, instil in me either the urge to be cynical about human beings in Ontario or to stratify Canadian society.

I do not relegate some citizens to lesser status. Unlike some others perhaps in this Legislature, the members of the government of Ontario believe that in this province there are no classes of citizens, that all people are equally important, whether they work on the production lines --

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bain: Did you ever hear of John Homer?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- whether they work on the farm, in the m