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

November 24, 1977

31st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L059 - Thu 24 Nov 1977 / Jeu 24 nov 1977

OBSERVANCE OF DECORUM

RULES OF THE HOUSE

ALLOCATION OF TIME FOR ESTIMATES

BELLEVUE NURSING HOME

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

ENERGY CONSERVATION

CHRONIC HOME CARE

ORAL QUESTIONS

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSIT SYSTEM

AID TO FLOOD VICTIMS

OIL TAX

NURSING HOMES

RADAR WARNING DEVICES

WHITBY PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE

USE OF INFLUENCE

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

ELLIOT LAKE URANIUM TAILINGS

ACTIONS OF POLICE AT BURLINGTON

HOSPITAL SCANNERS

OGOKI LODGE

BRIBERY CASE

HYDRO CONTRACTS

RICHMOND HILL GO TRANSIT SERVICE

OGOKI LODGE

AUTOMOBILE PURCHASES

HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTORS

PIPE PRODUCTION

GARFELLA INVESTMENTS

USE OF INFLUENCE

BRITISH AMERICAN BANK NOTE COMPANY

REPORTS

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

MOTIONS

TRANSFER OF ESTIMATES

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HYDRO NUCLEAR PLANT CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

BRIBERY CASE

OHIP OFFICE CLOSURE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. Deans: How can it be a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: We haven’t started anything today, so nothing could be out of order unless you want to say that prayers were out of order. You will have to rise on something else.

Mr. Williams: It deals with the debate that took place in the House last Tuesday evening.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order. If you want to rise for the purpose of clarifying something that was misunderstood, you may do so, but don’t call it a point of order.

OBSERVANCE OF DECORUM

Mr. Williams: Perhaps I could rise on a point of personal privilege then, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breithaupt: You can always do that.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, during the debate last Tuesday evening during the private members’ hour you had occasion to rise in the House and remind the members of the House that indeed every member had a right to be heard. This resulted from the considerable amount of commotion going on in the House.

I am submitting to you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of equal importance, that during the private members’ hour, every member has a right to equal time in the debate. I would ask you to consider a ruling on the latter point, because I honestly believe that some members are in fact being denied their full time allotment.

If you would allow me a brief moment to make my point, I would point out, and I think many members are aware of the fact, that the members of the third party in particular have a well known trait for shouting insults and ridicule and generally causing commotion while members of both the official opposition and members of this side of the House are speaking.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, knock it off.

Mr. Ashe: You don’t like to hear the facts.

Mr. Williams: That was a perfect example, Mr. Speaker. Knowing the mentality of the opposition members we understand this compelling need on their part. It seems to be their substitute for honest debate of the issues.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: See what he means?

Mr. Lewis: I heard him, I heard him.

Mr. Williams: While the public perception of this buffoonery is a lowering of the dignity and decorum of this House, I can assure you that the members who are targets of this tactic have no difficulty in taking this nonsense in their stride.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you raise the decorum of the House and resign?

Mr. Williams: However, what is not appreciated is the loss of valuable speaking time --

Mr. Breithaupt: Hear, hear. Like now.

Mr. Deans: That is what is happening now.

Mr. Williams: -- that is denied to the members because of unnecessary interruptions. What I would ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, is the exercise of your discretion during debate on the private members’ bills --

Mr. Lewis: Use a cat o’ nine tails.

Mr. Williams: -- to extend the time to members where they have lost two or three minutes of their allotted speaking time because of unruly interruptions --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk) -- that is who it is.

Mr. Williams: -- so that the loss is not at the expense of the speakers, but rather at the expense of those who are delaying the proceedings of the House. I’d ask you to take that under advisement.

Mr. Speaker: All I can say to the hon. member is that the time allocation for the members of the various parties during the ballotted items is by agreement of all three parties and there is nothing official with regard to standing orders. I think it is quite obvious that all of the presiding officers in this chamber have made every effort to maintain order, and perhaps all members could take heed to what has been said thus far and make better use of the time afforded us.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: You can’t debate it.

Ms. Gigantes: Point of personal privilege --

RULES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: If I might, just before I recognize other members of the House, I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to a difficult situation that arose last week. Last Monday I advised the House that I had requested each caucus to give consideration to the question of access to parts of the chamber and its lobbies by members of the press and other strangers.

I have had a response from the usual channels which indicates to me that members of the House are content to allow accredited members of the press gallery to exit from the press gallery by use of the staircase behind the Speaker’s chair --

Mr. Lewis: Triumph returns.

Mr. Speaker: -- but only to move quickly and quietly -- and I emphasize that -- only to move quickly and quietly out of the chamber. Members of the House are in no way to be distracted in the House.

Mr. Lewis: Absolutely.

Mr. Speaker: There was no indication whatsoever that the rules governing the use of members’ lobbies should change. I will continue to enforce the procedure whereby members of the press are not permitted in the members’ lobbies. I hope this will be of assistance to members of the House whose interests must, of course, come first, and the accredited members of the press gallery who have a most important function in the conveyance of the proceedings of the House to the public. I hope that is satisfactory to all concerned.

Ms. Gigantes: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

ALLOCATION OF TIME FOR ESTIMATES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my point of personal privilege deals with the privilege of the members to be afforded an opportunity to review some of the estimates of various ministries and government agencies,

I don’t want to be unduly critical of the House leaders and other members of the House because they are trying to allocate time as they see fit. But I do want to bring to the Speaker’s attention that, for instance, on Tuesday evening, we were in the estimates in the standing committee on general government --

Mr. Speaker: So we don’t unduly waste the time of the House I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. member that the House has no jurisdiction to deal with anything that happens in committee with regard to the allocation of time unless it is specifically requested to do so by that committee through its chairman. The House has no jurisdiction until it is asked to intervene in that way.

Mr. Roy: I ask the Speaker to intervene because --

Mr. Speaker: I can’t intervene at the request of an individual member. I can only do so at the request of the committee through the chairman.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I may --

Mr. Speaker: You can’t debate the question. I have made my decision --

Mr. Roy: I am not debating. I want to ask the Speaker a question if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Why doesn’t the member ask the chairman of the committee concerned?

Mr. Roy: I’ve already discussed it with the chairman of the committee and I thought I should discuss it with you. You are the one who is supposed to protect my personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Through the committee system in this House.

BELLEVUE NURSING HOME

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of personal privilege, and I will try to keep it short.

On Tuesday last, in consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Health in the social development committee, I was discussing Bellevue Residence in the riding of Carleton East and I said: “One former staff member is concerned because Bellevue has no evacuation plan in case of fire.”

It has been forcefully brought to my attention by the Gloucester township fire department that Bellevue Residence does have an evacuation plan in case of fire. I wish to remove any implication that I was criticizing the Gloucester township fire department. My criticism is that an experienced, concerned member of the Bellevue staff did not know of such an evacuation plan.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by her own hand.

Mr. Speaker: By her own hand, P. M. McGibbon, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1978, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, November 24, 1977.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that my ministry is setting a fine example in its achievements as a participant in this government’s energy management program. Provincial correctional institutions achieved a 19 per cent reduction in energy usage during the first six months of 1977, in comparison with the same period in 1976.

Mr. Lewis: That was before you were minister.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The reduction is nearly double the target set for the previous year -- 10 per cent. It represents a cost avoidance and an energy saving of $325,000. The Ministry of Correctional Services was 13th among Ontario ministries to receive funding for the energy management program and in that light our progress has been particularly outstanding. Energy saving methods were established and closely followed by the ministry with the help of expert counsel of private industry.

The moneys saved by energy consumption reductions will remain within the budgets of the individual institutions and thereby avoid some staff and program cutbacks which might otherwise have occurred.

Mr. S. Smith: Getting a small car, Frank?

CHRONIC HOME CARE

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am tabling a report on the evaluation of the pilot chronic home care program. Copies have already been deposited with the Clerk of the House.

Home care began in Ontario under the Toronto Board of Health in 1958, under the Victorian Order of Nurses in Ottawa in 1964, in Guelph in 1965, and in Hamilton, London and Windsor in 1966. Its original purpose was to reduce the demand for active treatment beds.

[2:15]

Guidelines developed in 1970 and refined in 1973 restricted home care to short-term active care. This was where rehabilitation was a realistic goal and where progress, as a result of nursing care, physiotherapy, occupational or speech therapy, could be expected.

In 1975, it was proposed that the effectiveness of extending home care into the chronic care sector be examined. Chronic home care, it was believed, could prevent or slow the physical and mental deterioration of the patient and ease the demand on all types of institutional beds. At the same time, it would save money, since home care is less expensive than institutional care.

In 1975, home care programs were extended into the chronic care sector in Kingston, Thunder Bay and Hamilton, with the understanding that these programs would be evaluated before further expansion was undertaken.

My ministry felt that before province-wide implementation of programs, existing programs should be evaluated to determine their value to the people they serve, and their cost-effectiveness. A study was undertaken beginning on October 1, 1975, and was only recently completed.

The results of the study indicate that chronic home care is more economical than institutional care on a per-patient basis. It also seems apparent that the program is meeting its major objective -- easing or preventing further deterioration of the people it is helping.

However, the study was undertaken during a period of rapidly increasing use of the program, and for this reason the total cost implications, and particularly the impact on other parts of the health care system, could not be reliably estimated.

The costs of extending the program across the province would be very significant, of that I am certain. It is therefore crucial that the program develop in a planned and orderly fashion -- that we know precisely how much a province-wide expansion could potentially cost.

It is equally important that we know the ultimate effect the program will have on the rest of the health care system. The program cannot be viewed as simply another addition to the system. It must be seen in the context of its objective -- acting as a substitute for institutional care. The total impact cannot be fully anticipated against a rising case load.

The recommendations of the study are:

1. That the chronic home care program continue for another 18 months as it presently exists in Hamilton, Kingston and Thunder Bay;

2. That the more extensive evaluation now feasible due to stabilizing case load be carried out on the chronic home care programs for a 12-month period -- allowing four months to prepare for the study and two months to prepare the report; and

3. That the home care information system be revised to provide patient-specific data and indicators of health status.

All three of these recommendations will be implemented. Moreover, to augment the evaluation and to expand services in an orderly fashion, I hope to extend this program further in the New Year.

In tabling this report I welcome the opinions of all concerned with this valuable alternative health care program.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSIT SYSTEM

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. When was the last time that the minister had a report on the intermediate capacity transit project of the UTDC near Kingston? Did that report indicate that vehicle size had increased to 40 feet, that the practicality of the steerable axle is in question due to severe metal stress, and finally and most important, that the linear induction motor upon which almost the entire rationale for this concept and system is based may have to be replaced by a more conventional rotary motor?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I do get periodic reports with regard to the progress of the ICTS program being carried on by UTDC. I don’t recall any report specifically giving me the information that the hon. Leader of the Opposition suggests.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, considering that the ministry is planning to spend about $55 million on this project, would the minister undertake to be brought up to date about what is happening there? And would he not agree that if the vehicle size increases, if the steerable axle is done away with, and if an ordinary motor is returned to this project, that basically he is spending $55 million to reinvent the bus or the subway car?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I don’t accept that at all. My ministry does have a monitoring group within the ministry that monitors the progress of the ICTS program and reports directly to my deputy minister. I do recall some discussions as to some possible change in vehicle size -- a possible change because of design problems in fitting the necessary equipment within the vehicle; possibly they were going to enlarge the vehicle some amount. I do not recall the 40 foot figure that was mentioned at all and I don’t recall receiving any report on the other items, but I’ll certainly inquire.

Mr. Cunningham: I’m wondering if the minister would indicate how much money has been spent on this fiasco to date, and what is the source at the present time? If he is borrowing money, who is he borrowing it from and at what interest rate?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I’ll have to get a report from UTDC on the total expenditures to date. But money is being supplied to UTDC through the estimates and budget of my ministry.

Mr. Kerrio: Is there any jurisdiction where these articulated vehicles are in use, and have they been proven practical?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I really don’t know what the hon. member is referring to. The intermediate capacity transit system has nothing to do with an articulated vehicle. If the hon. member knows what an articulated vehicle is, then I’m sure he must know that there are many jurisdictions in which they are in use. There are articulated buses and there are articulated streetcars; they’re in use in almost every country in Europe. I really don’t see, Mr. Speaker, how this has any relation to the original question.

Mr. Cunningham: You answer the question, we will make the rules.

Hon. Mr. Snow: But we do plan within my ministry -- and it’s nothing to do with UTDC -- on calling tenders some time within the next few months for the manufacture and supply of approximately 50 to 60 articulated bus units, which will be supplied to different transit systems throughout the province.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary: Am I correct in the assumption that the ministry is not borrowing money from the private sector at this time?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We are not.

Mr. Cunningham: I mean UTDC.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m not aware; I’ll check into that. UTDC is a federally chartered, corporate structure which may or may not, from day to day during the normal business practices, be borrowing money from a chartered bank.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, could I draw the minister’s attention to my original question? I wonder if he might favour me with a reply?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of the question that he asked.

Mr. Cunningham: I asked the minister if he was borrowing money from a private institution, how much and at what rate?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question exactly today. I just say that UTDC is a corporate structure, separate from the ministry, of which the ministry is the sole shareholder on behalf of the province of Ontario. That corporate structure has its own officers and its board of directors and operates as a normal business corporation. I wonder if the hon. member has had some experience in doing business in this world. I would think people in his party might have a little; the other party probably has none. But I would expect that the hon. member might understand that a business like this would have normal banking arrangements.

Mr. Reid: Any normal corporation would be bankrupt.

Mr. Martel: The Liberals would rip everyone off.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, by way of final supplementary: As the person in charge of this fiasco, is the minister not aware where he is getting his money, or where that corporation is getting its money, and at what rate? As the minister in charge, is he not aware of that?

Mr. Lewis: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Go ask the Mounties.

Mr. McClellan: I don’t think we should repeat questions, do you?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge and according to the last financial statement of the corporation, they had funds invested on short term investments and were not borrowing money from anyone. But things change from month to month as projects progress. As I stated before, money is being supplied through that ministry by the government through my estimates.

AID TO FLOOD VICTIMS

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Premier, if I might: Does the Premier have some plan on behalf of the people of Ontario to be of assistance with regard to the present devastation that has occurred in the Indian subcontinent, in India in particular -- the flooding after the cyclone and so on? Can this Legislature and this province be of some assistance to the people of India at the time of this very grave devastation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there aren’t any immediate plans. We have as a government, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, involved ourselves in the very unfortunate earthquake situation in Friuli some few months ago. I think that we also were involved, going by memory now, when there was a situation in Florence. We have not really expanded these policies to include every geographic area in the world. I don’t minimize the devastation; the difficulty that has been created in that country, but the government has not at this moment considered any plans of financial help.

I think it is true also, and I’m going by memory again, there have been other situations where we’ve had a certain surplus of some agricultural commodities which, I think the province has provided through the Red Cross. There may be a situation here that could be explored, but I can’t commit the government until I get some further understanding from those who might have some responsibility.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Should any request come from the Red Cross or any other international body, would this government be prepared to help those people who are in particular need, regardless of the present circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I just referred to the Red Cross. I’m going completely from memory, but I think the Red Cross has made representation to us in other situations and if it has been possible for us we have met some of those requests. I would expect that if the Red Cross made some requests of us, if we were in a position to be of assistance quite obviously we would try. But I don’t know that any such request has been received.

OIL TAX

Mr. Lewis: A question to the Premier initially: Can the Premier comment on the possible impact for Ontario of the Supreme Court decision disallowing the imposition of certain taxes and royalties by the province of Saskatchewan on the oil industry, particularly since the province of Ontario intervened at those hearings in support of Saskatchewan and the assertion of the provincial constitutional right?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t tell the leader of the New Democratic Party in any legal sense. I can recall some very brief discussions with the Premier of Saskatchewan as to what might emerge, depending on the results of that decision. I will ask the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to convey to the House what would probably be a much better opinion than any that I might personally express.

Mr. Reid: He’s zero for three. You might as well take a chance.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I’m no gambler when it comes to matters of this kind, but I will consult with the Attorney General and get an opinion for the leader of the NDP.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask, by way of supplementary, does the Premier know from the conversations he has had whether it places any existing resource tax policy in jeopardy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to be very cautious. I don’t believe so, but I would like really the indulgence of the hon. member -- and I know he recognizes how complicated it is -- that it doesn’t create a problem for us in the sense of any of our tax policies. I don’t believe it does, but we will make sure and we will inform the House.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health: May I ask the minister how many prosecutions of nursing homes under the Nursing Home Act have been instituted by his ministry since 1972?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’d have to get those figures. I gave some figures to the estimates committee yesterday indicating that there were 10 licence revocations since 1972; I don’t recall: the figure for prosecutions off hand but I’ll get them for the hon. member.

Mr Lewis: If I might ask a further question if the minister is getting the information. Can he indicate to the Legislature at that time how many prosecutions over violations of the Act there should have been, or might have been, based on the reports of his various inspectors as they inspected a number of nursing homes in Ontario? Is it true that, in fact, he has not proceeded very vigorously to implement the recommendations of a number of inspectors of nursing homes?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I don’t believe that’s true, Mr. Speaker. If one was to pull out the various reports for 1972, there are different inspectors there now. There is a different director of the branch. There is a different minister. We might reach a different conclusion than did those who were in the positions of responsibility at that time. But, certainly, I’m not aware of any such decision, certainly not during my time, nor in the time before me.

Mr. Warner: Is it not true that there are inspection reports on file indicating that a violation of the Act had occurred by unlicensed nurses giving medication; that the same report also contained a recommendation for prosecution; and that those recommendations were never acted upon to date and those reports are still in the minister’s custody?

Second, when will the minister release those reports and the others which we so desperately need in order to get to the bottom of this problem?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would care to be specific in connection with the home or homes on which he thinks such a report or reports exist, I’ll check that out. I’m certainly not aware of any such reports.

RADAR WARNING DEVICES

Mr. Roy: I ask this question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications in relation to amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. Why is he waiting to bring in amendments to the Highway Traffic Act pertaining to the outlawing of devices which are used to circumvent the police traps or radar equipment -- the so-called Fuzzbusters? How long is he going to tolerate this in this province whereby instruments are sold which are clearly intended to contravene the law?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Not very long, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary: In view of the fact that the minister has tolerated this for three or four years and that his colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth), said some time ago that he’s considering legislation, what is he waiting for? Is there any relationship between the people who happen to sell these instruments, who are good Tories, and his apparent lack of haste in outlawing these instruments?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there’s any connection there whatsoever.

Mr. Foulds: There’s no such thing as a good Tory.

Hon. Mr. Snow: My colleague the Solicitor General made a statement some time ago that he would be bringing in legislation that would outlaw these gadgets. I fully support that position and I expect that he will be doing so in the near future.

WHITBY PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Health. Yesterday at a picket line at Whitby Psychiatric Hospital protesting the cutbacks some allegations were made to me in the absence of the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) that under the new Correctional Services program, there were in fact prisoners from Whitby Jail now performing certain duties in, they specified, the laundry room there that had previously been performed by hospital employees. Can he confirm or deny those allegations?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No.

Mr. Breaugh: Would he investigate that then? While I’m on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I take the opportunity to present, again in the absence of the member for Durham West, this petition from those employees to the minister?

RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Could the minister tell me if there is any truth to the rumours that are going around my riding regarding Rideau regional hospital school, and the fact that we may be contracting out the laundry, food and cleaning services of that institution -- Rideau Regional Centre, Smiths Falls?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that at this point in time there has been no such decision. In fact there is no serious consideration being given to such proposals at this time.

USE OF INFLUENCE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, in the past week or so, the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Legislature have asked certain questions relating to Mr. Arthur Armstrong and the possibility of a criminal prosecution. I have requested senior law officers of my ministry to conduct a complete review of this matter and the events relating to it which occurred in April and early May of 1975. I have today received a full report on the legal questions raised in this regard. Rather than take up the time of the House to read the report, I would like to table it and provide copies for the members opposite.

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

Mr. Reed: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Now that the minister has released his decision authorizing expropriation to proceed on the Bradley-Georgetown corridor, will he tell the House how he justifies three 500 kilovolt lines and two 230 kilovolt lines to run south from Bruce to Milton when the power that is demanded from that station is flowing into northern Ontario?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

Mr. Reed: Could I have a supplementary to a non-answer, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: You can try.

Mr. Foulds: All you get from this minister is non-answers.

Mr. Reed: Is it because the minister does not know the answer, or is it because he really does know the answer but is not prepared to reveal it to the House?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I said I would take that question as notice and that’s precisely what I shall do.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: He knows it’s loaded.

Mr. Lewis: If the Minister of Energy had been doing that in the last six weeks, he wouldn’t have got into so much trouble.

ELLIOT LAKE URANIUM TAILINGS

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister assure the House that the uranium tailings called pyrites, which when oxidized release sulphuric acid, are not causing an environmental problem in Elliot Lake?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows there are hearings going on at Elliot Lake at the present time and both old and existing tailing areas are part of a control order that has been issued by my ministry. I would assume the retention of those tailings are done in a way that is safe and won’t affect the surrounding waters -- for example, Serpent River or Whiskey Lake.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Have the ministry officials been monitoring that situation on a regular basis?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Monitoring would occur as a result of a control order. I will have to get the information in respect to the hon. member’s question, but there has been continuous monitoring.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Is the minister aware of the complaints of the Serpent River band that they have not received adequate assistance: in providing good water as a result of the pollution in Serpent River?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As the hon. member knows, that reservation is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I understand that the federal government has undertaken to dig wells in one or two places where there has been a problem of radiation -- at radon 226 levels, I believe. I might also say that there’s a difference in criteria between the province and the federal government that is causing problems. But I understand that the wells, as far as we are concerned -- and our level is lower -- are safe.

Mr. Wildman: A further supplementary: What attempts are being made to resolve that difference between the federal and provincial levels? Is the minister having meetings with the federal officials to resolve that and when does he expect a reply, or a resolution?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The criteria for arriving at the levels are different. We use the levels that are used for occupational health -- for example, for people who are exposed on a 24-hour basis to radiation. The federal government does not do that. It’s a matter of resolving the figures, depending on the criteria we use.

ACTIONS OF POLICE AT BURLINGTON

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Attorney General. Has the Attorney General, either at the behest of the Solicitor General or on his own initiative, requested that an investigation be carried out into the statements made by one Roy Murden, a former police officer with the Halton police force? This man has indicated in a public statement that he had taken part personally in a number of incidents involving brutality over the years that he was on the force, and had done some considerable physical harm to a number of citizens of Burlington. If the minister has not done so, will he?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I haven’t. I am not aware of the statements that are attributed to the former police officer. I think this is a question that at this point in time should be directed to the Solicitor General.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Given that it was directed to the Solicitor General with the request that he broaden the investigation which had been requested by citizens of Burlington into the police force to include those previous incidents, and that to this point there has been no response to that, will the Attorney General on behalf of the public, as the chief law officer of the Crown, direct that an inquiry be undertaken into these particular statements and into the validity of them? This would determine whether or not what has gone on has been brutalization of citizens by the police in Burlington, which has to be stopped, and whether or not it is a matter of practice.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Certainly I will undertake to inquire into the matter myself and to discuss it with the Solicitor General, who I see is absent. He is, I believe, at the opening today of the new Metropolitan Toronto Police College. That is as far as I am prepared to go at this time.

Mr. Deans: I hope they teach them better things there.

HOSPITAL SCANNERS

Mr. Baetz: I have a question of the Minister of Health. In view of the fact that the district health council of Ottawa-Carleton has now endorsed the installation of a full-body capacity scanner for the Ottawa Civic Hospital, may the people of Ottawa and the entire Ottawa Valley now expect an early ministerial approval to install this highly valuable equipment?

Mr. Foulds: No, no. It’s taken Thunder Bay a year and a half.

Mr. Breaugh: Two bucks says he won’t say no.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What odds are you giving?

Mr. Foulds: Ten to one -- on a dime.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I understand that the district health council did meet early this week to consider priorities for the region of Ottawa-Carleton and that is one which they have either placed at the head of the list or certainly among the top priorities.

I haven’t received from the council a formal indication of what those priorities are. I can assure the member, and through him the people of the Ottawa-Carleton region, that I will give it serious consideration in evaluating approvals for new programs for the coming year.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Could the minister, while he is examining the whole procedure for purchasing the body scanners, also look into the request from the Toronto General Hospital for the same piece of equipment?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The hon. member knows the TGH already has a scanner -- but not of the same kind, I agree. They already have a head scanner.

Mr. Makarchuk: But that’s different.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I know it’s different, I know. But the hon. member and the members of the House should realize that we already have in place or approved in Ontario more scanners than the whole of the rest of the Dominion. While it may seem to some that we are perhaps proceeding slowly and cautiously, I think it is the prudent manner in which to approach the allocation of machinery which is only four or five years old at the most, is into about the fourth generation of technology, and the cost of which is anywhere from $600,000 to $750,000 for each machine, with operating costs of about $250,000 a year. I think it behoves us to move cautiously and prudently in allocating such machinery.

Mr. Foulds: Final supplementary: While we’re on this matter of scanners, has the minister sorted out the difficulties between Port Arthur General Hospital and the McKellar General Hospital and the Thunder Bay district health council with regard to the location of the scanner in Thunder Bay? If so, when will the minister be making the announcement of the commitment to locate one there, or has he already made that decision?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the hon. member knows, while I have approved the allocation of a scanner for that area -- very much with the support and encouragement of the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) -- I am relying on the district health council --

Mr. Foulds: And the member for Port Arthur, and the former member for Fort William.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, I think I have heard from that member -- if we’re using ratios -- about 10 to one in support of the need for such a facility in that community. I am relying on the district health councils to advise me as to whether it should be attached to the Port Arthur General with the cancer clinic or to the McKellar General Hospital with the neurology unit. I would hope to have that information as soon as possible. Quite frankly, it’s taking much longer than I had hoped for.

OGOKI LODGE

Mr. Eakins: To the Minister of Culture and Recreation, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister indicate when Ogoki Wilderness Lodge will commence operations? Has it been determined whether it will ultimately become financially self-sustaining and meet its original objective of employing native people, or will it become another Minaki?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I can answer the questions in reverse, it certainly has been the subject of a management study. Certainly the emphasis is to be on native people being employed and I’m very optimistic as to the future prospects of what I think is a pretty worthwhile project.

Mr. Reid: What about Minaki?

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: Have costs skyrocketed from a 1974 estimate of somewhere around $300,000 to something now over approximately $1 million in September, 1977, although it is still not completed and will require substantial modifications? Will the minister table accounting records of funds spent to date by the Indian community secretariat?

Hon. Mr. Welch: There has been some acceleration of costs. My estimates will be before the standing committee on social development starting next Tuesday afternoon and at that time I certainly would be expected, I think, to provide the particulars to which the member has made reference.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: Has the minister received an indication of the expected operating deficit of Ogoki Wilderness Lodge and has it been determined whether his ministry or the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will underwrite such anticipated losses?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I can’t speak to the question of that report. I haven’t got that information with me but I’d be very glad to have it available for my estimates.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: Given the fact that the limited company is apparently reluctant to commence operations without a government guarantee of underwriting, can the minister advise us in his estimates -- if not now -- who he foresees as the potential operators of this operation? Can he tell us also how the recruitment and training programs of native peoples in the Whitewater Lake area have developed and how many native people are expected to be employed?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I will have that available for my estimates.

BRIBERY CASE

Mr. di Santo: I have a question for the Attorney General. In the answer given to me by the Attorney General last Tuesday to my previous question, the Attorney General stated that in the case of Melvin Kurtz, it was “necessary in these cases to refrain from prosecuting one or the other of the giver or receiver in order to have the evidence of one for a successful prosecution.”

In the view of the fact that Melvin Kurtz, the briber, admitted to Judge Waisberg that he had received money from Marion Construction, and in view of the fact that the principal of Marion Construction had stated, as is shown in the report on page 113, that bribery was --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Question!

Mr. di Santo: I am coming to the question.

Mr. Foulds: It’s coming, it’s coming. Don’t worry, John.

Mr. di Santo: -- acceptable only if it worked, could the Attorney General tell us why was it that the big shots got off the hook and the small fish got charged in this case?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: With respect, I think I gave quite a complete answer on Tuesday to the member’s question in relation to the charges that were laid. I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave at that time.

Mr. di Santo: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: How could you possibly have a supplementary when he said he has nothing further to add?

Mr. di Santo: Then to the previous question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Attorney General table the names of the people involved in these cases?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I repeat what I said a moment ago. I have nothing further to add to my answer given on Tuesday.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Hon. J. A. Taylor: On Tuesday the Leader of the Opposition questioned the existence of schedules and cost estimates for Bruce heavy water plants which were cited in a letter from Ontario Hydro to Lummus Company of Canada on April 22 last.

Mr. Lewis: It wasn’t asked by the Leader of the Opposition. It was asked by Harold Greer.

Mr. Roy: That sounds as if the member is getting jealous of our research.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You know what he did to Wintermeyer.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The Leader of the Opposition asked if these documents did exist, whether I would table them in this House. While it may deter the Leader of the Opposition in his development of a further scenario for television performance, I want to confirm that the schedules and cost estimates do exist.

I am tabling herewith, Mr. Speaker, the following documents: Plant B commissioning schedule, dated April, 1977; master project

schedule in regard to plant D, dated April 7, 1977; project cost

summary for the period ending May 1, 1977, for plant B; and project cost

summary for the period ending May 1, 1977, for plant D. These were the documents referred to and which the Leader of the Opposition doubted did exist.

Mr. Foulds: The minister’s explanation is longer than the documents.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I am pleased to table two further documents which he did not request, but which are germane to his question. These further documents are a project cost

summary for period ending October 30, 1977, for plant B and a project cost

summary for period ending October 30, 1977, for plant D.

If the Leader of the Opposition will compare the cost summaries he will find that the overrun on plants B and D have been kept on target -- indeed, the overrun totals have been slightly reduced in the April through October period. This is verification that the Lummus Company has been meeting the cost targets on which Ontario Hydro conditioned the continuance of Lummus work after April 13 of this year.

Further, I would draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to the grand total figures. As of October 30, 1977, it is predicted that Lummus work on plant B will run approximately $82.3 million more than the original cost estimate set in 1975, when allowance is made for some $9.4 million in approved extras. Further, and in the same manner, the documentation shows that Lummus overrun on plant D will approximate $62.3 million over the 1975 cost estimate, when approximately $4 million in approved extras are allowed for.

Mr. Deans: Is that over or under the target?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: In short, the Lummus project cost summaries show that the overrun on Bruce heavy water plants B and D will total approximately $143.6 million on original estimates totalling $703,808,000.

Mr. Deans: That is like the Treasurer’s budget. His budgetary overrun is right on target.

Mr. Riddell: What’s a million dollars.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: This represents an escalation of 20.4 per cent, exclusive of $13 million in approved extras which, in fact, would add another two per cent.

Mr. Roy: You seem to be proud of that.

Mr. Foulds: What are these extras?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: And further, I would like to assure the Leader of the Opposition that I would be pleased to explain the significance, purpose and role of the Bruce heavy water plants in Ontario’s energy future.

Mr. Roy: When?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The chairman of Hydro would be pleased to explain the details of the construction contracts to him, if the leader wishes to pursue the matter in the select committee at its forthcoming session.

Indeed, I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition would pursue in meaningful discussion before the select committee the many matters which he has discussed with such abandon and inaccuracy with the mass media during the past six weeks.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary to this response: Would the minister kindly put before himself the project cost

summary, May 1, 1977, for B, and the project cost

summary, October 3, 1977, for B? In so doing, would he kindly look at the overrun for material subcontract, labour and construction and recognize that they have gone up from approximately $117 million to $123 million, and that the reason the total at the very bottom of the page has stayed the same is that the portion marked “contingency” has apparently developed a positive balance of approximately $6 million? What kind of contingency fund is it that runs up a sudden finding of $6 million between May and October to make up for actual cost overruns in the field? Wasn’t it padded in the first place?

Mr. Nixon: Just a little tin box he keeps there with petty cash in it

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I’ll take that observation as a statement on the part of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Epp: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister how he can reconcile an overrun being on target?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have tabled this additional information and I --

Mr. Nixon: Stand by it, come what may.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: As I have mentioned, I would invite all members to pursue this as thoroughly as they know how. I think that if the member would think a moment, he will understand that estimates were made some years ago in connection with the total cost of completion.

Mr. Roy: Why don’t you plead the fifth amendment?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: It’s very difficult to predict over a number of years precisely what your labour costs will be because, for example --

Mr. Foulds: It is only two years.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- they do depend on negotiations and settlements --

Mr. Mancini: Plead insanity.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- and there are factors such as that which, of course, cannot be predicted with a firmness that might be expected here. But I think the member will realize that it is a matter of the ongoing monitoring process that tries to update whether the predictions are onstream or not, and whether they fall short or, in fact, overrun those that were anticipated earlier.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the minister if he would care to table the schedules that he speaks of for the year 1975? Those are the relevant ones, surely.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated consistently over the past six weeks or so, I am delighted to table whatever information you wish.

Mr. Wildman: You are consistently delighted and we are consistently bewildered.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I invite and continue to invite all members to let me know what they want in connection with these contracts and I would be delighted to see that they have it.

Ms. Gigantes: We would like that.

Mr. Roy: You sound more like a delivery boy than a minister.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: You sound like an ignoramus, and not only that, but you are accomplishing that image.

Mr. Roy: Will you bring me some papers tomorrow?

[3:00]

RICHMOND HILL GO TRANSIT SERVICE

Mr. Williams: With regard to the proposed Richmond Hill-Union Station GO Transit rail line, I have a three-part question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications:

First, could he indicate if in fact the scheduled opening for the spring of 1978 is indeed on schedule?

Second, could he indicate if any decision has been made by him with regard to the proposed rate increases to meet and offset increased operating costs as reported in the November 15 newsletter of the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority?

Third, in that same document there is reference to the fact there is some difficulty being experienced with regard to renegotiating the GO Transit rail operating agreement with the CNR. I would like to know --

Mr. Speaker: Order, in the essence of saving time your third

whereas wasn’t a question.

Mr. Williams: -- what progress is being made with regard to negotiating that agreement?

Mr. Lewis: You have a lot of audacity accusing us of interjection. Accuse us of indulgence.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I’ll try and recall all those questions. First of all, the infrastructure contracts for the track improvement and the station construction for the Richmond Hill line are in progress, on

schedule and will be completed this winter. We do expect to implement the rail commuter service on the Richmond Hill line in the spring of 1978. It probably would be ready before that if rolling stock was available, but the new double-decker cars have to arrive to replace the single-decker cars. That will take place early in the new year.

With regard to the GO Transit fares, the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority have made a recommendation for increased fares, but that has not been put before cabinet or approved yet.

In answer to the third question, the CNR contract is not finalized at this time.

OGOKI LODGE

Mr. Riddell: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- I’m tempted to ask the minister what my chances are of being selected for the Agriculture Hall of Fame, but I won’t do that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Not good.

Mr. Foulds: Ask him what his chances are.

Mr. Riddell: I would like to ask the minister a question pertaining to Ogoki Wilderness Lodge. Has the minister received the audit of all funds expended on the Ogoki Wilderness Lodge for development and construction as prepared by the audit services branch of his ministry?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, that question should be redirected to the minister in charge of the Indian community secretariat which is now looking after that work.

Mr. Eakins: Oh no, it’s through ARDA.

Mr. S. Smith: Through ARDA.

Hon. W. Newman: Oh, that’s right. Are you talking about the audit?

Mr. Riddell: Yes.

Hon. W. Newman: The audit is being done by them, not by me.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is it true that substantial ARDA funds were provided for the project and will the minister table a detailed audit?

Mr. Eakins: What about your participation?

Mr. Roy: What’s yours?

Hon. W. Newman: About eight per cent.

AUTOMOBILE PURCHASES

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. On October 20, the minister tabled a reply to a question relating to the purchase of automobiles for ministers and deputy ministers -- which, incidentally, showed one purchase was $9,749.

Mr. Roy: Who would that be?

Ms. Bryden: Is the minister considering revising the request-to-purchase form, which he also tabled, so as to restrict automobile purchases to energy saving models, compact and small models --

Mr. Roy: Hey, the Minister of Industry and Tourism should listen to this.

Ms. Bryden: -- and to limit the number of options which the government will pay for in this time of restraint?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, any change in such standards would be by way of a change in the manual of administration from the Management Board, and whatever the manual of administration would set down would be our guideline for purchasing.

Ms. Bryden: May I then ask the Chairman of Management Board is he planning to revise this request-to-purchase form in order to bring in a restriction on the gas guzzlers?

Hon. Mr. Auld: We’re always looking at the items in the manual of administration.

Mr. Lewis: A Volkswagen is good enough for my successor.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Volkswagens are not manufactured in Canada.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Would the Chairman of Management Board be prepared to arbitrate between the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) so that we could lower the cost somehow for the Minister of Industry and Tourism on the same car as the Minister of Education purchased?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It has better resale value.

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, Mr. Speaker.

HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTORS

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In the light of numerous complaints in many municipalities concerning shoddy workmanship and non-completion of work in the construction industry, is the minister considering bonding and registration of all home improvement contractors as itinerant sellers under the Consumer Protection Act?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Under the Act, a lot of itinerant sellers are required to register. The problem has always been the ability to find them, to police the Act and follow it through.

It’s an area that causes us some concern. We’re currently reviewing it, though we are not about to report back next week, to see just where we go in the area in terms of an effective system. We don’t want to go with a system which requires registration if it’s going to be meaningless.

We’d be happy to receive any suggestions the member may have with regard to a meaningful way to look after that problem.

PIPE PRODUCTION

Mr. Swart: I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Does the minister still hold to his recent damaging statement that, and I quote, “Some of the technology is not in place in the Ontario pipe industry,” and that Ontario companies therefore may not be able to supply the pipe for the proposed Alaska Highway pipeline?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, back a week or so ago when the question was asked, I was very clear in saying that some of the technology was not in place in this country at this time.

Mr. Wildman: But isn’t Algoma getting it ready?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Just one second. It was clearly indicated by the president of Stelco and several other companies that they concurred with that very observation, but they also said, exactly as I said in this House, that it could be brought into production. The system could be implemented in the Canadian system in a relatively short period of time but it is not here at the moment.

The other point I raised was about the lack of technology and understanding, both in Canada and the United States, of a high-pressure system to carry the product that is being designed to be carried in the pipeline. That has not been carried out. That is why Mr. Homer and the federal government have been negotiating for the larger pipe with a reduced pressure factor.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Does the minister know that Peter Gordon, the chairman and chief executive officer of Stelco, expressed concern at a press conference in Welland yesterday about persons falsely stating that the pipe couldn’t be produced there. He said, and I quote, “We can produce pipe that no other company in North America can produce. There is no question that we can meet the requirements for the transmission of frontier gas.” Does the minister dispute his statement?

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s exactly what the minister said.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I think Mr. Gordon is stating a fact in relationship to certain specifications that could very well be brought in.

Mr. Swart: No, he is not. He made that clear.

Mr. Wildman: Resign.

Mr. Warner: Is that a misunderstanding?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I don’t know whether it’s a misunderstanding or not. I want to make it very clear here.

Mr. Speaker: Please ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There is some relevance to the interjections because it would be best to clear up their lack of understanding.

Mr. Swart: Read his statement.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Very clearly, and it’s been a known fact --

Mr. Foulds: You are in trouble on this one.

Mr. Germa: Go back to insurance.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the minister to ignore the interjections and answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In reply to the question, I say again the fact remains from the federal point of view, and from our point of view and in discussions with Stelco, including Mr. Gordon, the possibilities of the high-pressure pipe have been reviewed. It is not a system they are prepared to undertake at this time because of the lack of technology and experience.

The other pipe system, which has been discussed very thoroughly with Mr. Homer and others, is the one that we feel that Canadians, generally speaking, are capable of producing.

Mr. Swart: Check with the union and read his statement yesterday.

Mr. Warner: Check it out with your barber and then resign.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the hon. member opposite has been on the pipe too long.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Beyond the pipe.

Mr. Kerrio: Is the minister aware of the fact that the large lobbies in the US are attempting to get the pipe specification changed, to disadvantage us in Canada and to have a better chance of landing the total contract?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as the Premier said the other day in response to a similar question, it would be unbelievable for us as Canadians to sit here and believe the Americans and their steel industry, which is depressed at the moment, would not be out trying to secure orders in this Canadian market or anywhere else in the world.

The fad remains that we have been as competitive, from a Canadian point of view, as anyone. We’ve had discussions and committees established, both federally and provincially, to review the essential requirements of the six companies that will install the pipeline here in the Canadian portion of the contract.

Mr. Kerrio: How about Alberta?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There’s also the possibility, and we may as well be honest with that, that the Alberta firm as well will be out trying to seek a portion of the supply of pipe for the system.

Mr Martel: Run them across Canada.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We have had assurance from people with the Foothills Pipeline organization, both publicly and in discussion with them federally and provincially, that we in Canada will be given the opportunity of quoting and participating and likely supplying a very substantial portion of the equipment needed, including pipe, valves and other portions of the pipeline requirement. We’ll be able to tender on it.

I think it would be unrealistic to believe that the Canadians are going to be given a carte blanche position in quoting; they have said, “If they were competitive.” We have that position. We’ll keep a very close eye on what happens with other countries in their bids in the pipeline system.

The member for Niagara Falls has said once before in my estimates something about subsidies coming through special tariff programs or give-away programs of the US government. We will monitor those to make sure that they do not become applicable in the quoting system in pipe for this pipeline.

GARFELLA INVESTMENTS

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this is in response to a question from the member for Etobicoke in relation to the operations of a certain firm known as Garfella Investments.

I’ve had the material submitted to me reviewed extensively; it was submitted to me by the member for Etobicoke, and it was reviewed extensively by law officers of the Crown. It appears that at the present time there is no breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act as the tenants have been advised that their respective tenancies will not be disturbed.

However, the scheme in question is being used as an alternative to the Condominium Act for the sale of residential accommodation. Law officers from my ministry, the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations have made a tentative suggestion that the Condominium Act be amended to ensure that such sales are made in accordance with that Act.

Mr. Philip: The minister’s announcement is very much appreciated.

I have a supplementary: I wonder if the minister is aware that two employees of N.S. Mitro Real Estate, namely a Mrs. Holden -- I don’t have the first name -- and also an Alice Constantino are advising purchasers of the shares in this building that they can evict the tenants on 90 days’ notice following the purchase of shares in that particular building? Would the minister look into the possibility that this real estate firm is violating the Combines Act by way of misrepresenting what they’re selling to the potential purchasers of shares?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If the facts support the information that the hon. member has, it would also appear to be a matter of encouraging a breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act, because in my understanding of the legislation it would be impossible to legally evict individuals on that basis. If the hon. member could provide us with as much information as he can on this, we’d be happy to pursue that aspect of the matter further.

Mr. Philip: I will be providing the minister with affidavits tomorrow, then.

Mr. Foulds: I wonder if the minister can tell us how soon we can expect that amendment to the Condominium Act, inasmuch as it was promised last January by the then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with regard to a similar situation with Waverley Park Towers in Thunder Bay?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no knowledge of that particular matter but I would think that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations might be asked. He is well aware of the situation and I think the question as to when such an amendment is likely to be introduced should be more properly directed to him.

USE OF INFLUENCE

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Attorney General, following his tabling of a previous response on the Armstrong matter: Can the Attorney General tell the House whether the opinions which his law officers have formulated in this instance were formulated with or without the benefit of having heard certain tape recordings of a conversation between the counsel for the Mississauga inquiry and a Mr. Armstrong? Was this opinion formulated with or without the benefit of having heard that particular piece of evidence?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer that question. I think it’s likely that the opinion was formulated without that information, but I can’t be certain of that. I just don’t know at this point in time.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary if I might. I realize we are running out of time and you are kind to allow me to do this, Mr. Speaker. When the Attorney General is getting this information, would he also undertake to table in this House the OMB file on the Jan Davies application in question and also any correspondence between the hon. Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and Mr. Armstrong pertaining to the entire matter in question?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would have to ascertain just what is available from the OMB. I think the matter of the correspondence involving the Treasurer was handed over to the Ontario Provincial Police and that may well be available. But I would like to ascertain that first before making any undertaking.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: We only have time for one more question and in fairness I think we should recognize the hon, member for Carleton East.

BRITISH AMERICAN BANK NOTE COMPANY

Ms. Gigantes: A question for the Minister of Labour: In connection with the strike going on in Ottawa at the British American Bank Note Company by the Ottawa Steel Plate Examiners Union, will the minister personally initiate action or have action initiated by officials of her ministry, so that the management will drop its position that it’s normal for women to be paid less than men for work done by women which is of a similar and/or more skilled nature than men are doing in the same firm?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if indeed that is the position of the British American Bank Note Company, it is in contravention of the equal pay law in the province of Ontario. That law states that in any establishment where work of similar nature or equal nature is done by men and women, the rates of pay will be the same.

REPORTS

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Hon. Mr. Kerr presented the annual report of the Ministry of the Environment for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1976, and ending March 31, 1977.

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr2,

An Act respecting the Township of Dover.

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

Bill Pr28,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Bill Pr30,

An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing general government committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor be granted Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Office of the Lieutenant Governor program................................................... 100,000

Further resolved: That supply in the following amount to defray the expenses of the Office of the Premier be granted Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Office of the Premier program.......... $1,478,000

Further resolved: That supply in the following amount to defray the expenses of the Cabinet Office be granted Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Cabinet Office program..................... $1,077,000

MOTIONS

TRANSFER OF ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be transferred from the standing resources development committee to the standing general government committee for consideration not to exceed 25 hours;

And that the following estimates be transferred from the committee of supply to the standing administration of justice committee, namely: Ministry of Correctional Services, not to exceed 12 hours; Justice policy secretariat, not to exceed 10 hours;

And further, that the supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Culture and Recreation be referred to the standing social development committee for consideration within the time already allotted for that ministry.

Motion agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HYDRO NUCLEAR PLANT CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that a select committee of the Legislature be appointed:

First, to inquire into the cost of construction of the two heavy water plants being built by Ontario Hydro at the Bruce nuclear power development and to report to the Legislature on all factors affecting cost, such examination to include but not be limited to:

(

a) The requirements for heavy water, the original estimates of the cost of the plants and the contracts signed with the Lummus Company of Canada for the construction of the plants, and the conditions placed on the contracts for Canadian content;

(

b) The change in the scope of the work required due to changes in plant design after the original estimates were completed;

(

c) The effect on the total cost of the plants and their construction

schedule due to the cancellation of the fourth plant known as plant C;

(

d) The factors affecting any additional costs incurred by the contractor and Hydro for the supply of major equipment, structural components or other supply items;

(

e) The factors affecting escalation of sub- contracts placed by the contractor or Hydro for work related to the construction of the plants;

(

f) The factors affecting labour costs for construction of the plants including escalation of labour rates, work stoppages, union jurisdictional disputes, and the shortage of any labour skills required for construction;

(

g) The effect of interest rates and foreign exchange rates on the overall costs of construction;

(

h) The administration of the contract by Hydro and the control methods used to monitor and minimize the costs;

and to prepare and submit a report for the Legislature upon the conclusion of this inquiry.

Second, to review the implementation of the recommendations of the select committee of the 30th Parliament which examined Ontario Hydro’s proposals for both power rate increases for 1976, such review to include consideration of Ontario Hydro’s status reports tabled by the Ministry of Energy.

Third, to examine Ontario’s nuclear commitment, taking into account the report and recommendations of the royal commission on electrical power planning and Ontario’s energy future, such examination to include but not be limited to:

(

a) Ontario Hydro’s system planning strategy for adopting nuclear power, and in particular:

Large versus small generating stations, remote stations versus sites close to urban areas; the ratio of nuclear-fueled generating stations that should be built in comparison to fossil-fueled stations, keeping in mind security of supply and cost differentials;

(

b) The economics of nuclear power versus generation from other primary fuels;

(

c) The performance and reliability of nuclear generating stations;

(

d) The responsibility for and the standards relative to the safety of nuclear generating stations;

(

e) Environmental impact and health considerations related to nuclear power.

And that the select committee may prepare and submit interim reports for the Legislature and shall prepare and submit a final report before the end of December 1978, and that the select committee may request such coverage of its proceedings by Hansard and the printing of such papers as the committee deems appropriate; and the committee shall have authority to sit during the interval between sessions and have full power and authority to employ counsel and such other personnel as may be deemed advisable and to call for persons, papers and things, and to examine witnesses under oath and the assembly doth command and compel attendance before the said select committee of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations, for which the Honourable Speaker may issue his warrant or warrants; and the committee shall be composed of 14 members as follows: Messrs.

MacDonald, chairman; Ashe, Foulds, Ms. Gigantes, Haggerty, Handleman, Jones, Kerrio, Lane, Leluk, Nixon, Reed, Samis, Williams.

Mr. MacDonald: May I just give notice to members of the committee, to show this is a rather urgent matter, they will be meeting at 6 o’clock tonight in committee room No. 2, with a buffet supper.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is indeed organization.

Mr. Lewis: If it had been a Liberal chairman it would be at La Scala.

Mr. Breithaupt: If it were a Liberal chairman it would be down in the dining room.

Mr. Speaker, we congratulate the government House leader for bringing forward what we see as a very involved and general set of terms that should be easily attended to. There was only one point I wish to raise, and that is with respect to the management, handling and disposal of nuclear waste. I just want the assurance of the government, House leader that, either with respect to that last item (

d) in the third part, concerning safety of generating stations, or in the final area of environmental impact and health considerations, there will be an acknowledgement that that subject likely could be seen to be included.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the committee could decide on that.

Motion agreed to.

BRIBERY CASE

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to give notice that I was not satisfied with the disappointing answer of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and I’d like to debate it tonight.

OHIP OFFICE CLOSURE

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) filed the necessary notice to raise a matter at the adjournment of the House. The question was addressed to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) on November 15, and with the agreement of both parties the debate was stayed until today, which is November 24. This matter will be debated this evening at 10:30 p.m., along with the matter raised just now by the member for Downsview, who is dissatisfied with the answer given to him by the Attorney General. So those two will be debated on the late show this evening.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moved first reading of Bill 110,

An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the three amendments to the Planning Act which are placed before you today have the objective of speeding up the approval system under the Act while increasing the importance of locally made decisions concerning development proposals.

The first amendment concerns local municipal zoning by-laws. The amendment removes the threat of legal challenges as to the conformity of zoning bylaws which have been advertised according to regulations, received no objections and come into force without the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board.

My ministry will shortly issue the required regulations which will be based largely upon the current rules of procedure of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The second amendment provides a means of removing frivolous appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board on consent and minor zoning variance decisions of local committees.

The third amendment concerns appeals to cabinet over local decisions on consents and minor zoning variances.

It is my view these three amendments will significantly improve the planning process and will speed up the process in the province.

[3:30]

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before the orders of the day, I wish to table answers to questions 37, 39 and 40 standing on the order paper.

We will be calling the ninth order, Mr. Speaker, and when doing so, may I indicate to you, and through you to the House, that the whips have generally arranged the debate on Bill 70 and the reasoned amendment which will no doubt be introduced during the course of that debate in such a way that we plan a division tonight around 10:15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: With a 30-minute maximum bell?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I suppose if there is to be a bell we had better start ringing it at 10 o’clock. Do the whips agree to that? Of course I suppose that is a maximum bell, we could agree to have a 15-minute bell. I think that is the agreement, that we have a 15-minute bell at 10:15 p.m.

Mr. Breithaupt: Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT

Hon. B. Stephenson moved second reading of Bill 70,

An Act respecting the Occupational Health and Occupational Safety of Workers.

Mr. O’Neil: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We consider Bill 70 to be one of the most important legislation for working people to be brought before the Legislature in many years.

In the last two years particularly, our leader, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith), and the Liberal caucus have consistently challenged the government’s inaction in the area of occupational health and safety. We have been pleased to discuss this matter with labour organizations, management groups, industry people and experts in the health field. The Liberals will be suggesting a number of major amendments to strengthen the legislation to better protect every employee in the province. The amendments will not involve the expenditure of additional public funds or endanger the employment of a single worker.

Providing the minister demonstrates a flexible attitude in her remarks on second reading, we will not block the bill at this stage. We feel amending the bill now before us is a more constructive and responsible approach than that suggested by the NDP. In referring to their suggestion that the bill be passed back to the government, we feel it is better we put it before the Legislature now and have it go to committee.

I would first of all like to make some comments regarding coverage. Coverage under Bill 70 continues to be restricted to certain places of employment rather than including all employees. The minister has discretion to include or exclude work places from the legislation at her discretion; I refer members to

section 3(1)(

e) and

section 3(2)(b). Thousands of workers in the province will likely continue to be excluded because of the high degree of ministerial discretion. Hotel and hospital workers; inside and outside municipal workers; teachers and support staffs in schools, colleges and universities; farm workers; staffs of such provincial institutions as psychiatric hospitals, mental retardation centres and correctional facilities; and workers in medical laboratories -- all continue to be excluded by this legislation. Many members of these groups are exposed to hazardous substances such as pesticides and laboratory chemicals, as well as dangerous work practices.

I would like to read into the record, if I may, some of the statistics supplied in a brief presented to our members by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. Among their members who were excluded from the legislation are: some 9,000 employees of government-run psychiatric hospitals; 4,000 employees of governmental retardation centres; 10,000 employees in Ontario community colleges; and 3,000 employees in Ontario correctional institutions. The only exception to this is the coverage of laundry workers in some facilities under the Industrial Safety Act.

All others are in fact excluded from coverage under the Industrial Safety Act because their work places do not fit the definition of a work place covered by the Act.

I would also like to read into the record, if I may, that in the institutions operated by the Ministries of Health and Community and Social Services an equally dismal record exists as to the accident rate. In the St. Lawrence Regional Centre, which employs some 55 OPSEU members. 275 days were lost during the period 1975 to 1977 due to work-related injuries. In the Rideau Regional Centre, Smiths Falls, in 1975, 3,600 days were lost by OPSEU members due to 561 work-related injuries and 238 assault-related injuries. In 1976, a total of 777 incidents occurred, 225 which were assault-related and incidents which resulted in 3,697 days lost by OPSEU members.

In the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital in 1976, 612 days were lost by OPSEU members due to work-related injuries. This year up until March 31, 1977, 401 days were lost due to work-related injuries. We could go on to the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital where in 1975 at this facility there were 829.5 days lost by OPSEU members because of work-related injuries. In January, February and March 1976 -- during those three months -- 86 work-related injuries occurred, which resulted in 502.5 days being lost by OPSEU members.

This clearly shows that this is one segment of many we mentioned that should be covered. I feel that at the time when this comes to committee the minister should seriously consider the inclusion of these different sections in the bill.

As I mentioned, coverage for farm workers is excluded under the bill. I know it is difficult to obtain statistics on the extent of work-related farm accidents. The minister herself has stated that accidental death on the approximately 25 per cent of Ontario farms covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Board increased from 34 in 1975 to 45 in 1976, while the number of lost-time accidents decreased.

Some American authorities have suggested that farming has the third highest accident rate of any occupation, exceeded only by the mining and construction industry.

While there are clearly occupational health hazards in the agricultural community, we also recognize that special circumstances exist in the agricultural community with respect to weather conditions, seasonal nature of work, long hours during peak periods and machinery and equipment designed and manufactured to different standards for agricultural rather than other uses. For example, we understand that the detailed regulations now in effect for industrial machinery and equipment simply do not exist for the agricultural sector.

We note that the minister promised on January 18, 1977 to appoint an agricultural representative to the advisory council on occupational health and safety. She did not do so until the past few days when Mr. Peter Fisher was belatedly appointed. Almost a year has been lost in this delay.

In their joint briefs to the minister, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Farm Safety Association and the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association generally supported an extension of health and safety legislation to agriculture, provided that it is developed by the Minister of Labour in consultation with the agricultural advisory committee. This is contained in their joint briefs of August 1970, page 2.

We commend these organizations on their enlightened approach and urge the minister to take a more active role in encouraging the development of suitable regulations covering such working conditions as roll-over protection for tractors, guarding and shielding of farm equipment and personal protection equipment. While we realize that it will take some time to develop regulations suitable for the farming community, we feel that the minister should be willing to commit herself this time to a specific timetable for the drafting of such regulations and the protection of agricultural workers by occupational health and safety regulations.

The minister stated in the Legislature on October 18 that dispassionate consideration has convinced the government that expansion of coverage of the legislation would be inappropriate at this time. What more logical time is there to consider the expansion of coverage than in the introduction of supposedly comprehensive legislation on this subject? Surely the minister would be prepared to have the question of expanded coverage either of additional groups of employees or more simply and perhaps preferably, of the inclusion of all employees considered at the committee stage of this bill.

I would also like to say a few words regarding standards for toxic substances. There are absolutely no standards for toxic substances whatsoever set out in the bill. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations on a wide variety of subjects, including, “Prescribing any biological, chemical or physical agent or combination thereof as a designated substance”;

section 39(2)22. I quote again: “Prohibiting, regulating, restricting and limiting or controlling the handling of, exposure to, or the use of, or disposal of designated substances”;

section 39(2)23.

I quote again: “adopting by reference any criteria or guide in relation to the exposure of a worker to any biological chemical or physical agent or a combination thereof.” But there is no indication whatever in the legislation of what criteria or guidelines are to be adopted.

Many scientific groups have done extensive research into the airborne concentrations of substances and conditions to which workers may be exposed day after day without adverse affects. For example, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, which had a Canadian, Dr. Mastromatteo, as a consultant, has compiled a list of approximately 400 toxic substances and set out exposure standards, both with respect to the average concentration for a 40-hour week and for the maximum exposure permissible for a short-term period.

Yet the extensive work of the American conference in establishing threshold limit values for over 400 substances could be entirely ignored by the Minister of Labour.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s what we use now.

Mr. O’Neil: We feel that the province of Ontario should adopt standards at least as effective as the threshold limit value standards for all substances for which threshold limit values standards have been adopted.

At a very minimum the legislation should set out specifically that in adapting standards dealing with materials or harmful physical agents the standards should be adopted which most adequately assure to the extent feasible that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity, even if such employee has regular exposure to a hazard regulated by such standard for the period of his working life.

How are these standards to be set? Under the proposed legislation entirely at the discretion of the minister behind closed doors. We propose that employees, employers and independent experts should have a voice in establishing these standards. One possible mechanism for establishing standards might be the advisory council on occupational health and occupational safety to be established under

section 10 of the bill.

The Minister of Labour named the 16 members, and as I mentioned it is now 17 following the inclusion of a representative for agriculture on this committee on November 14. This advisory council, including representatives of employees and employers, might serve a useful role in setting standards providing that its membership were representative of all employees and employers, non-unionized as well as unionized, and small as well as large employers.

We also notice, in looking over the list of people who have been appointed to this advisory council, that there seemed to be no one representing some of the smaller companies and worker groups. They all seemed to be from larger corporations or larger unions. We wondered if we could have some comments from the minister concerning this.

In a number of other jurisdictions, industrial health and safety standards are set openly by public bodies and we feel the minister should follow this example in Ontario. The legislation sets out a distinction between designated toxic substances,

section 39(2)22, and other toxic substances for which the minister suggested in her introductory statement that guidelines be enacted. It is unclear from the legislation what sort of regulations will be enacted with respect to either category of toxic substances.

Perhaps more important is how will these regulations be communicated to workers on the job site. In our view the legislation should require that a notice containing pertinent information on general occupational health and safety legislation and notice of particular harmful substances be made available to every employee. This is done in some of the California legislation on health and safety.

[3:45]

We are concerned that the bill makes no provision for the introduction of a pretesting program for new substances introduced in the work place which are suspected of being harmful, and we will be proposing amendments to

section 15 of the bill accordingly. The federal food and drug directorate provides such protection with respect to food and drugs. We feel that there is no reason that workers should receive less protection.

We understand also that the environmental protection agency in the United States has recently begun a program of pretesting of all substances that find their way into the environment. They are apparently giving priority to these substances with the greatest potential for causing harm, particularly those which may cause cancer. They are utilizing new medical techniques developed by Dr. Ames of the University of California. Surely the government of Ontario could co-operate with other agencies involved in testing new substances, perhaps dividing up the substances to be tested in order that pretesting could be done in an expeditious and efficient manner.

We have had preliminary discussions with representatives of employers’ groups as well as employees on this subject. They’re naturally concerned about possible production holdups and loss of competitive advantages. They are not unilaterally opposed to the concept of pretesting providing that delays are reduced to the minimum possible period.

In our view, this bill is lacking with respect to the involvement of both employers and employees in achieving high standards of health and safety at work. Under Bill 139, the minister was empowered to establish health and safety committees, composed of an equal number of employee and employer representatives, and to appoint worker safety representatives. To our knowledge, the minister has not appointed a single such committee or representative. We feel that such committees are particularly important for non-union employees, who may have no other effective channel of communications with their employer.

We feel that the powers of health and safety committees and worker safety representatives are unclear and inadequate as set out in

section 7(4) and

section 8(5) of the proposed bill. We feel that these groups should have access to both information and training from the occupational health and safety division of the ministry or other sources. Thus there would be more reliance on accurate on-site monitoring and less reliance on inspection from the Ministry of Labour.

In some cases, on-site discussions, inspections and recommendations may not be sufficient. Perhaps there should be some mechanism linking the role of the joint committees and safety representatives with the activities of the ministry. In the event that an employer refuses to accept the recommendations of a joint committee or a safety representative, perhaps an inspection from the Ministry of Labour within a short time, perhaps three days, could be made obligatory.

Also, on the right to refuse work the minister in her introductory statement stated that she was clarifying the right to refuse work. In our view, the new legislation is less satisfactory than the provisions of Bill 139 in this regard. Under the provisions of Bill 139,

section 3(1), the employee has the opportunity to refuse work and then report this matter to his employer in the presence of either the health and safety representative, a committee member who represents employees or a representative of the trade union. The important evidentiary and physiological benefit to an employee of discussing this matter of first instance while accompanied by someone else, appears to have been dropped in

section 21 of the new bill. We consider this a retrogressive step rather than a clarification.

The rights of an employer to assign another worker to work which another employee has rejected as unsafe, is also left unclear by the section. Should the employer not be required to at least advise the employee of the refusal of previous employee?

Section 21(9)(

b) also appears unclear in the extreme and possibly open to employer abuse. It states that during an inspection of an alleged unsafe work place, a worker shall remain at a safe place near his work station unless the employer, “where an assignment of reasonable alternative work is not practicable, gives other directions to the worker.” What sort of “other directions” does the minister have in mind? Suppose the worker is told to go home without pay. Is that the sort of “other direction” permitted by the legislation?

Section 21(11) of the proposed bill has caused a great deal of concern to employees of this province, although some employers have argued that the inclusion of this provision marks no substantive change from Bill 139 where the employer had the same rights by implication.

The minister has provided statistics which indicated that the right to refuse unsafe work was exercised in only a relatively small number of cases in the year since the introduction of Bill 139, and in only a small percentage of cases was it exercised without reason.

Secondly, virtually all unionized employers have a management right’s clause in their collective agreement which permits them to discharge or discipline employees for just cause. For these reasons, we do not understand any compelling reason for including

section 21(11).

The real problem, in our view, exists regardless of the inclusion of

section 21(11). It is the inordinate length of time required for the arbitration of discharged cases. With respect to discipline relating to health and safety matters, the problem might be resolved in several ways; by giving the inspector authority to make a preliminary determination of the reasonableness of the employee’s refusal, subject to later appeal, or by ensuring that the employee receives a particularly expeditious hearing by the Labour Relations Board.

The problem of delay in the arbitration procedure extends far beyond the health and safety area, as the minister recognized in her appointment last year of an industrial inquiry commission to examine this matter. Unfortunately, the commissioner declined to hold public hearings and nothing has been heard of his progress, if any.

I would also like to make a few comments concerning prevention. In our view, the bill is particularly deficient with respect to means of identifying and preventing industrial health hazards.

Section 15(

d) contains a provision whereby an employer shall accurately keep and maintain such records of exposure of a worker to biological chemical or physical agents as may be prescribed.

What does the minister have in mind in this regard? Will these records be available to individual workers, health and safety committees and worker representatives? Most importantly, will the information required by regulation be turned over to provincial registry where each worker’s entire work history can be followed? Surely, this is absolutely essential for two reasons: One, to enable an individual worker to prevent irreversible damage to his health; and two, to enable medical authorities to identify high-risk substances and working conditions.

I would also like to make some comments concerning education. Several other deficiencies in the legislation render it less effective than it should be. The bill fails to establish the Occupational Health and Safety Research Institute which the Premier announced during the 1975 election campaign. What is going to be done about this? Will we have one?

The province continues to lack an adequate supply of occupational health specialists of various fields. The minister and her deputy minister have referred, on many occasions, to the lack of industrial hygienists, nurses, safety engineers and other professional and para-professional personnel; yet, what has been done to remedy the situation?

Even today, nurses who wish to specialize in industrial health must receive their certification in the US. Industrial health experts are being sought after in other jurisdictions at a time of high unemployment in Ontario. Once again, Ontario lags behind in this area.

As I mentioned in my opening comments, we will be very interested to hear what the minister has to say in reply to these questions which I have just raised and other questions which will be raised by other members here, and by the other party. As I said, it is our intention that she provide some flexibility in her remarks so that we will vote for second reading and so that this bill may go to committee where it can be discussed. After the committee meetings when some of these things have been revised and, hopefully most of them included as part of the bill, Ontario will have one of the best occupational health and safety bills in this part of North America. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker. I’m left somewhat puzzled by the remarks of the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil), because I’m not sure whether he said that they would support our reasoned amendment or would not support our reasoned amendment or whether he was saying he was going to wait and see how flexible the minister was.

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we will not be supporting the returning of this bill back to the government. We feel that is not the way it should be handled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, you had your remarks.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I did want that clarified. I did not want to unjustly accuse the official opposition of not being willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Most of the remarks by the member for Quinte I would, quite frankly, agree with. His points are well made. However, I would point out to him he’s dealt in some detail with the major principles embodied in the bill. To then vote for it is a bit of a contradiction. I would urge him, and not in a provocative kind of way, I would urge him, as seriously as I know how, to think seriously about our reasoned amendment. That reasoned amendment was not put on the order paper in my name for frivolous reasons; that reasoned amendment is put there in order to strengthen the bill and so we can, as the member for Quinte also concluded, have one of the best occupational health programs of any jurisdiction.

Mr. O’Neil: We can do that in committee.

Mr. Laughren: That is something on which I would agree entirely with the member for Quinte. I am serious when I say the reasoned amendment was designed and worked entirely to do that. There is nothing in our reasoned amendment, Mr. Speaker, which should cause offence to anyone whose primary concern is to improve the occupational health of workers in the province of Ontario.

Mr. O’Neil: We feel there will be too long a delay.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, we have waited a long time now and I can tell you that’s one reason the reasoned amendment is on the order paper. I can recall very vividly last December when we were debating Bill 139, the father of this or mother of this bill. I can remember proposing a number of amendments in the committee stage and the minister’s reaction was slightly short of violence, because she indicated --

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have never been violent.

Mr. Laughren: She was short, only slightly short, of violence.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Not even short of.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t be offended by the word “short.”

Hon. B. Stephenson: Well, I am.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I recall the minister’s reaction, which was primarily that for heaven’s sakes, don’t try and change this interim bill. The real bill coming up next year will embody all the principles -- well almost all the principles -- about which you expressed concern.

I am very disappointed, as are many people in the labour movement, at the minister’s omnibus bill. This was an opportunity to do something rather exciting about occupational health in the province of Ontario. We have been sadly jolted by this bill, because in some ways it, as a matter of fact, takes a backward step to the former Bill 139 on occupational health. I shall refer to this in more detail.

I think that one of the things that’s bothering me, and bothering others, is that when you introduce a bill like the interim bill, you raise people’s expectations about what’s going to be forthcoming. I, for one, took your remarks last year in good faith. I believe you were reacting in a legitimate political way to pressure from this side of the House and from the trade union movement about problems of occupational health in the work place. Certainly that was the way in which we viewed that Bill 139.

That was why we understood your attempt or your efforts to get the bill before the House last spring rather than waiting until now to bring in the omnibus legislation. We supported you on that. We did not feel you were being politically expedient and merely doing it because there was an election in the spring of 1977. I think it’s fair to say we did not accuse you of that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: If you are accusing me of that now that is dirty pool, I’ll tell you.

Mr. Laughren: Well, there’s an expression that goes something like “if the shoe fits”; and I will be careful of my letters.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It doesn’t fit.

Mr. Lewis: You backed away from your commitment completely, which surprised us.

Mr. Laughren: You have backed away from a number of commitments.

[4:00]

Hon. B. Stephenson: Not true.

Mr. Laughren: You have backed away from a number of commitments.

I personally did give the benefit of the doubt to the minister when she introduced the bill in order to get it before the House and to make it the law of the land. But there are a couple of reasons why I am beginning to have serious reservations about the motives of her government last spring.

One is because of the nature of this bill itself, and its refusal to go forward in areas which I shall outline in more detail -- some of which have been mentioned quite adequately by the member for Quinte.

The other is the attitude towards the existing legislation. I think I know the minister will understand those to which I refer. I suspect that it’s impossible for this minister to understand that management rights have no place in occupational health. I suspect that is at the crux of a lot of the problems she has in giving workers a fair shake on matters of occupational health. There is still that narrow approach towards occupational health. It’s still dealing with accidents, it’s still viewing the work place as something which needs to be cleaned up and with giving workers minimal rights in order to protect themselves.

It does not go into the whole area, such as the World Health Organization talks about, of improving the entire physical, mental and social well-being of workers in the work place. That’s where we have to change. That’s where the minister simply has to move from the traditional approach to occupational health and broaden the scope of the legislation.

I am disappointed in this legislation. The reasoned amendment was put very thoughtfully on the order paper. It was a serious attempt to convince the Liberal Party to join with us in sending this bill back so that the improvements in principle could be made. The amendment contains changes in principle which would be very difficult to change at the committee stage.

We say that when we have got the opportunity of an omnibus health and safety bill before us, let’s make it the best health and safety legislation that is reasonable, that is practical at this time.

Specifically, this reasoned amendment is not an attempt to oppose for the sake of opposition. It is an attempt to say to the minister and through her to the workers of the province, that we have faith in their integrity as workers; we have faith in their expertise, and in their interest in improving occupational health conditions. At the present time, workers are still regarded as people who have to fight for everything they can get in the work place. Instead of giving them certain rights, the minister regards occupational health as an encroachment on management’s rights, rather than as a fundamental right of workers. And that’s a very serious shortcoming in her philosophy.

I hope the minister will note that the areas we deal with in our reasoned amendment are not frivolous areas. We have restricted the amendment to what we consider to be the very serious shortcomings of the bill; namely, the problem of committees, the problem of the right of workers to refuse to work in unsafe conditions; the lack of coverage referred to by the member for Quinte; and the whole problem of toxic substances.

Those are very serious shortcomings in the bill. Without those you really don’t have a substantial occupational health program in Ontario. You certainly don’t have a preventive occupational health program in the province. Those basic principles are absolutely crucial if we are going to change the attitude towards occupational health problems.

I would like to talk, first of all, about the whole problem of joint occupational health and safety committees in the work place. I believe that the participation of workers in occupational health is the most crucial aspect of this legislation, bar none. Without worker participation it simply cannot work. The minister has admitted on different occasions that it is not possible to blanket this highly industrialized province with inspectors to monitor the work place and to enforce the existing legislation; it simply cannot be done. Surely she understands that we’ll all be better off if workers are the inspectorate in the work place.

Since Bill 139 became the law of the land last December the minister has not recognized safety and health committees -- period. She simply has refused to recognize the committees and that was one of the key components of the bill itself. She needs no other examples than the big Steelworkers’ Local 6500 in Sudbury where they have been trying again and again and again to have health and safety committees recognized in the work place.

What really is strange is when the minister can say in a letter to Mr. Rothney, chairman of the safety and health committee at Sudbury, “I have no power to designate either committees or representatives. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, which deal exhaustively with my discretionary powers in relation to committees and representatives, contain no power of direct designation.”

Hon. B. Stephenson: Read the rest of it.

Mr. Laughren: I’ll give you one more sentence of your quote. You say, “However, I do not base my decision on these narrow bounds, but have treated the union’s submission as a request for the exercise of those discretionary powers given to me under sections 4 and 5 of Bill 139.”

Then you go on and refuse to recognize the committees, which they have requested. You can’t say in one breath, “I don’t have the power.” and the next minute say, “I will not base my decision on a narrow

interpretation.” Then the third step is, you refuse to recognize the committees.

Hon. B. Stephenson: What do you mean recognize?

Mr. Laughren: I mean recognize, under Bill 139, safety and health committees as requested by the workers.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But that’s contained in this Act, so that can happen.

Mr. Laughren: It certainly is. The power is in Bill 139 for you to recognize committees.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, it is not; to designate committees or establish committees, not to recognize.

Mr. Laughren: They would be quite happy to have that done, and you haven’t done that either.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is in this Act.

Mr. Laughren: Why didn’t you do it under Bill 139?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member for Nickel Belt direct his remarks through the Chair?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Through you to the minister, the minister simply has not designated committees when requested by the union, and there is no excuse for that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Power to establish a committee, not designate a committee.

Mr. Laughren: The minister can mumble all she likes over there --

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am not mumbling.

Mr. Laughren: I can’t hear you.

Mr. Lewis: Anything we can’t hear is a mumble.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Really.

Mr. Laughren: We can hear inaudible whispers, we cannot hear mumbles.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But I don’t mumble.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the minister should rise on a point of personal privilege if she’s offended.

The whole question of committees, to me is the major liability in this bill. Unless the safety and health committees are made mandatory in all places of work over, say 10 employees --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Read the bill.

Mr. Laughren: -- you’re simply not going to have adequate numbers of committees in the province. It simply won’t work.

Do you know what the minister’s concern is? The minister’s real concern about appointing or designating committees is that her ministry would not be able to monitor the activities of the committees. That’s her real concern.

But if she’s worried about monitoring the committees’ work, how is she going to monitor the work places themselves?

Hon. B. Stephenson: What an idiotic suggestion.

Mr. Laughren: There is a contradiction in logic there that is beyond my comprehension.

Hon. B Stephenson: It should be, because it is stupid.

Mr. Lewis: Who is going to monitor them?

Mr. Laughren: Who is going to monitor the work places if you don’t allow the workers to? You don’t have that kind of budget in your ministry.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But there is a program for monitoring.

Mr. Lewis: No good faith; like everything else in the Ministry of Labour -- you don’t do it, you don’t execute it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You don’t have to have everything in legislation for gosh sakes; have some faith in human beings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I’d remind the members that the question period expired some time ago.

Mr. Lewis: We are resuscitating it in the interest of good faith.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister through you and to him when she replies, which I hope she will, to tell us how many committees have been designated under Bill 139 so we can understand why she has this reluctance to designate committees.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I don’t designate them.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the minister is playing with words --

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I am not, you are.

Mr. Laughren: -- and she knows full well that what we are talking about is the recognition, I don’t care what words she uses, the recognition of safety and health committees to have the authority as laid out in Bill 139 and under this Act.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Then support Bill 70, because it’s in there.

Mr. Laughren: That is all the union has ever asked for; that is all the workers have ever asked for; and that power in Bill 139 has been refused by the Minister of Labour, time and time again.

Mr. Lewis: It is all in the ministry.

Mr. Laughren: And you ask us why we don’t have good faith?

Mr. Lewis: You have had it before.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s in the bill, it’s in Bill 70.

Mr. Lewis: Well why is it any more valid now than it was before?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is expanded in Bill 70. You have not read the Act, obviously.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have read the Act again and again --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Well read it again.

Mr. Laughren: -- and I have read Bill 139 again and again. The workers have read those bills as well, and they have the same fears I do.

Mr. Martel: They cannot get it recognized.

Mr. Laughren: Because in Bill 139 all the reassurances and assurances were there by the minister; but when it came time to enact or to recognize and designate committees, the minister was found wanting. She simply would not do it. It would be very interesting at some point if the minister would tell us exactly what kind of employers’ lobby there has been in the last year. I suspect there has been a very strong one, otherwise --

Hon. B. Stephenson: None

Mr. Lewis: It is all in the ministry; there is enough there to last a life time.

Mr. Laughren: It probably says more, if there has not been an employers’ lobby, about the attitude of the minister and the Ministry of Labour, because I can tell you this bill takes several backward steps. Despite that fact that the minister has stated on numerous occasions that Bill 139 was not abused, yet she still steps back from some of the principles of that bill.

One of the other problems, of course, is that there is still no provision for the education of workers on occupational health and safety matters. There is an advisory council to approve education programs using provincial lottery funds, I understand that, but I am saying that the minister still has a half-hearted commitment to educational programs for workers.

This was discussed during the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and certainly nothing has changed. I think that what we are saying to the minister is: why step back from Bill 139; why not use that as a foundation and build on it to improve occupational health, to give workers more of a say in their own occupational health and stop being so maternalistic about workers.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Don’t call me paternalistic.

Mr. Laughren: I said “maternalistic”; you might check Hansard.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Sorry. All right then.

Mr. Laughren: I made that mistake once in the Ministry of Labour estimates.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Better not make it again.

Mr. Martel: Are you threatening?

Mr. Laughren: Or intimidating me? The minister should; perhaps she would then understand this language better.

If the minister is going to err on the side of one or the other, for once set a precedent and err on the side of the workers in giving them some control over their own health in the work place.

Mr. Lewis: Right; like you do for Aime Bertrand and others.

Mr. Laughren: Just once we would like to see that happen. I would like her to keep in mind as well the whole problem of committees and what it means. It means participation. I don’t know whether you read that as control, but you shouldn’t. In the occupational health, or joint occupational health committees, the workers have a great deal at stake in their own occupational health. They would not be frivolous about it. You need only look at the unemployment figures to understand that workers in the province of Ontario are not going to frivolously refuse to work. That has never been the case and the minister knows it.

The second major liability in the bill is the question of coverage. For the minister to say that, “while immediate expansion of coverage appears desirable, dispassionate consideration has convinced the government that this expansion would be inappropriate at this time,” is to play fast and loose with many of our own employees, employees of her government. For her to promise that regulations will be brought in to extend coverage, quite frankly, is not good enough, given her performance on Bill 139. I see no reason to exclude the employees of the psychiatric hospitals, the mental retardation centres, the community colleges of applied arts and technology -- the correctional institutions.

[4:15]

Those four institutions alone, by my computation add up to about 26,000 employees who would not be covered, all Crown employees. They are very uneasy, as I am, about leaving that kind of discretion up to the minister through regulations. There is no reason to be so vague about who is going to be covered. For example,

section 3(1)(

e) says this Act applies to: “a work place designated generally or specifically by regulation.” Then it goes on to say in

section 3(2) (b): “a work place that is exempted generally or specifically by regulation.”

I am confused that the Act applies, in one breath to “a work place designated generally or specifically by regulation,” and then says, that it does not apply to a “work place that is exempted generally or specifically by regulation.” That is what is making us all very nervous about the coverage in the bill.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union has provided the minister with statistics on lost time accidents. I think they are relevant, and indicate that those people should be covered under the bill as well as anybody else.

Brewery workers are another example that my colleague from Hamilton East raised.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Delivery?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, those who deliver beer to a hotel but are not covered when they are at the hotel unloading the beer. Farm workers are not covered, and they are subjected to considerable danger in their place of work.

Mr. Riddell: I am not sure they want to be.

Mr. Laughren: Quite simply, if protection under this Act is legitimate for some, it’s legitimate for all. The other legislation in the province does not designate classes of people. Whether you are talking about the Ontario Highway Traffic Act or termination pay for workers, they apply universally to workers in the province. So should matters of occupational health, there is simply no excuse for excluding them.

The third point that is sadly lacking in the bill is the whole question of toxic substances. This is where the problems are going to be in the future. I know that the Workmen’s Compensation Board has published statistics indicating that 95 per cent of all lost time covered by Workmen’s Compensation is a result of accidents, as opposed to industrial diseases. But to look back on what has happened in the past, and rather smugly indicate that the real problem is accidents not disease is to have no commitment to prevention. Dr.

McCracken was the person who said most lost time was a result of accidents as opposed to illness. I would hope that the minister would not take that attitude. If we are going to be successful it has got to be through preventive measures, not through catching up afterwards. But that is what the minister is really talking about, a catch-up process rather than one of prevention.

There simply must be pretesting before harmful substances are introduced into the work place. The onus should be on the employer to substantiate the introduction of toxic or harmful substances, not on the Ministry of Labour to catch them; not on the Minister of Labour to enforce regulations after the fact. That is not prevention. The minister should take a page out of the book in the UK, where they do have preventive measures. There the onus is on the employer to say to the government that there are certain substances which they are introducing into the work place, the manner they are going to introduce them and outline the precautions they are going to take; and that can be done.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s in the Act.

Mr. Laughren: No, it is not. I have read the Act very carefully. You show me in the Act where it says that there is pretesting.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We are “required to be informed of.”

Mr. Lewis: Oh thank you very much.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I can imagine what that will be like. And also, it is only --

Hon. B. Stephenson: You have no faith.

Mr. Laughren: No, you are absolutely right.

Mr. Martel: I am going to show you why in a few minutes.

Mr. Lewis: None, none at all; and with fairly good reason. Ontario is littered with dead bodies based on faith; that’s right. It’s not a question of faith, with the record of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the former ministry.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Faith, something to rely on!

Mr. Martel: You heard the union the other night.

Mr. Laughren: The minister simply must understand, as I said earlier that given Bill 139 we have lost some faith in your commitment to occupational health. I’d like to see the proof of your commitment. Probably the most obvious and glaring example is your failure to designate the safety and health committees. The minister when dealing with toxic substances still talks about guidelines, except for a limited number of substances. I can tell you that guidelines didn’t do a damn thing for the workers in the Reeves Mine or the Matachewan asbestos operations or in the uranium mines.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Because they weren’t there.

Mr. Lewis: Sure they were.

Mr. Laughren: They’ve done absolutely nothing. It’s only a month ago, in the Ministry of Labour estimates, under the occupational health branch, we w