Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before the business of the House, I would like to say that Mr. Speaker Rowe will not be in attendance for the balance of the week. I would like to have the members of the House join me in extending to him our thoughts of deep sympathy on the passing of his mother.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the members of the House 11 students from Leaside High School who are with us this afternoon. They are from grade 12 and are under the able leadership of their teacher, Mr. Vickers.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce a class of grade 8 students from Bruce Mines Central School, with Mr. G. Christenson in charge. I would like members to welcome them at this time.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce 33 grade 7 students of St. Maria Goretti Separate School in Scarborough, plus the adults who came with them. They are in the west gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry. The hon. Premier.

OMBUDSMAN

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne on March 11, the government announced its intention to establish the office of Ombudsman for Ontario.

The concept, which has a lengthy tradition in Sweden, has come to be regarded as a basically sound and useful protection and has been adopted to fit various other systems of government, including the parliamentary system as we know it. Some examples are the United Kingdom and New Zealand, as well as other provinces in Canada.

The addition of the office of Ombudsman will add a further safeguard to the rights of the individual, which will complement the well-established framework of existing laws that have already made Ontario a leader in the field of civil rights legislation. It has been and still is the policy of this government that the best safeguards of the rights of the individual lie in good legislation and good rules of procedure for the guidance and direction of those who make decisions in the administrative processes of government.

In 1972, we celebrated the 10th anniversary of the proclamation of the Ontario Human Rights Code, which entrenches in law certain basic moral principles governing the behaviour of individuals to each other and of institutions toward the individual. In that year, the code was strengthened and updated. The fundamental principle of the Human Rights Code remains that of equal opportunity in employment, and the assurance to every resident of Ontario the right to participate in and contribute to the life of the community without fear of discrimination as to his or her race, creed, colour, sex, nationality, ancestry or place of origin.

In 1971, this Legislature enacted the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Judicial Review Procedure Act and the Civil Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, which gave the people of this province the most comprehensive programme for the protection of individual rights within our society that has been enacted by any jurisdiction in our country. When these statutes were proclaimed, they brought into force a code of administrative law procedure which was designed to reinforce the rights of the individual in relation to the many administrative processes of modern-day government within the provincial jurisdiction.

As society and government increase in complexity, it becomes apparent that a number of complaints with regard to administrative matters are not within the ambit of the earlier legislation. Accordingly, we have concluded that if we are to achieve our goal of ensuring the rights of the individual in this area, the office of Ombudsman will be a necessary additional tool to the already extensive programme for the protection of civil rights which exists under the law of this province.

Under our proposals, as in all other parliamentary systems, the Ombudsman will not have supervisory power over the administration of justice. The principal role of Ontario’s Ombudsman will be to investigate decisions, recommendations and acts committed or omitted in the administration of the work of the Ontario government. This he may do either in response to complaints received from an individual or organization or on his own initiative. It will be his job to recommend appropriate action to meet each situation and to inform the complainant of his recommendations. He will be required to make an annual report to the Speaker of the legislative assembly.

These principles are basic to the office of ombudsman in most other jurisdictions and the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) will, within the next two or three days, introduce the detailed legislation.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the Legislature that at such time as the necessary legislation is enacted the government will propose for consideration of this House the appointment of one of our most distinguished citizens, Mr. Arthur Maloney, QC, as Ontario’s first Ombudsman.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): I thought so.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): I am not going to argue with that one.

Mr. Lewis: We have now defined “person” as masculine. Apart from that, it is a good appointment.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Maloney, who was born in Eganville, Ont., is from a family renowned for its contribution to the political life of Canada and Ontario. His father was a federal member of Parliament, and his brother and grandfather were both members of this Legislature. An eminent lawyer, Mr. Maloney himself served as a member of the Parliament of Canada, for the Toronto-Parkdale riding from 1957 to 1962.

Mr. Maloney has been elected five times as a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada and is chairman of the society’s professional conduct committee. He is a former director of the Harold King Foundation to assist former prisoners or parolees from penal institutions. He served on the advisory committee on the treatment of offenders to the Minister of Correctional Services and was a member of the province’s task force on policing two years ago. In recent months, Mr. Maloney undertook a review of police complaint procedures for the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission, the report of which was published last week.

I can think of no more suitable assessment of Mr. Maloney’s qualifications for the position of provincial Ombudsman than the tribute paid him by St. Dunstan’s University in Charlottetown, which conferred on him the honorary degree of doctor of laws in 1961. As part of the citation, it noted his “outstanding service to the cause of justice in Canada ... generous contribution of talent and time in the interest of education at all levels in our country ... [and] gratuitous assistance of the poor at the tribunals of justice.”

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to draw attention to Mr. Maloney, who is a guest in your gallery, sir, on this occasion.

SEAFARERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Yesterday, the federal Minister of Labour, the hon. John Munro, announced that he has, after considerable delay, decided to order a federal investigation into the Seafarers’ International Union. At the same time he made a series of allegations concerning the Ontario government’s lack of co-operation in providing information.

It would appear that Mr. Munro is trying to provide some explanation for the lengthy period of inactivity at the federal level. Mr. Munro is quoted as saying the Ontario authorities were “strangely unhelpful in providing clarification” of allegations made concerning intimidation and violent tactics being used within the Seafarers’ International Union.

I am rising now to deny categorically, once again, these unfounded allegations. Our history of co-operation in this matter is lengthy and well documented. I think it best simply to review now the recent highlights of this matter as it pertains to the Ontario government’s responsibilities.

There are three points I would like to make to this House and to Mr. Munro. Firstly, the Ontario Provincial Police have always pursued matters of a purely criminal nature relating to members of this union, as is their clear duty in the enforcement of the Criminal Code.

A special team of officers at a senior level in the Ontario Provincial Police special services division, with co-operation from the Metropolitan Toronto Police intelligence branch, and a special counsel from the Ministry of the Attorney General, was established precisely to pursue this matter.

Charges have been laid and we have carried on actively with the criminal matters which we have been able to substantiate. A preliminary hearing into charges against two individuals was held on April 2 of this year and the accused were committed for trial. The member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) appeared as a witness for the Crown at that hearing. Our investigations are continuing.

The second point I would like to make is that every conceivable effort has been made to provide the federal authorities with any information which could be useful to them.

All the information provided in this House by the hon. member for High Park on Nov. 19, 1974, was forwarded to senior federal officials on Dec. 10, 1974. Information related to charges made under the Criminal Code is in the public domain and has been freely available to federal authorities since last May. There is, in addition, a continuous exchange of information on criminal matters between the RCMP and the OPP. Finally, the Ontario Solicitor General conducted three briefings for the RCMP in January, 1975, as well as a briefing of representatives of the federal Department of Labour and the federal Solicitor General.

I have written a letter to the hon. John Munro demanding that he substantiate his charges regarding the alleged lack of co-operation.

Finally, I would like to re-emphasize the view which we have held from the beginning, that if there is to be an inquiry, it should be held under the Canada Labour Code and not the Criminal Code.

From April, 1974, when a particularly intensive effort was commenced, we have been able to lay only five specific charges, one of which was laid by one of the victims. As mentioned in the Deputy Solicitor General of Ontario’s letter to the federal Deputy Solicitor General, which was tabled in this House last December -- and I would point out that that letter was never responded to, other than by statements to the press -- we pointed out these matters to the federal authorities.

We have encountered great reluctance on the part of union members to come forward to give evidence relating to acts of violence or other wrong-doing in Ontario or elsewhere. This indicates to us that these members of the union sense a general atmosphere of intimidation and reprisal within the organization.

I would also point out that when the member for High Park raised the matter in the Legislature on Nov. 19 and in the subsequent special debate on the matter which followed, the entire thrust of the presentation was that the cases of violence alluded to were not isolated criminal acts but were related to a conscious campaign to intimidate the membership at large to ensure that they will be subject to the will of the union executive. A casual examination of the record of the Canadian press since this became a public issue also makes it clear that this is the sense in which the general public has taken the matter.

Such a situation quite clearly does not fall within those matters covered by the Criminal Code. It is a fact generally known to the public, and certainly known to the federal Minister of Labour, that any regulation of this union, which is federally chartered, is beyond provincial jurisdiction. The authoritative legislation is the Canada Labour Code, administered by the federal Minister of Labour.

In an effort to be of assistance to the federal authorities, the Deputy Solicitor General of Ontario, in his letter of Dec. 10, invited the attention of the federal authorities to the specific sections of the Labour Code which empower the federal authority to act, namely sections 196 and 197. These sections provide complete scope and authority of investigation to the federal minister.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that only two months ago another federal minister made similar allegations concerning Ontario’s lack of co-operation in another matter, and when personally confronted by us had the courtesy to withdraw his remarks. I trust Mr. Munro, on consideration of the matter, will have the courtesy to do the same.

I want to make the Province of Ontario’s position clear. In view of the information which has been brought forward in this House and the general cloud of suspicion covering the delay at the federal level in proceeding with this matter, there is no doubt that the results of the investigation by the federal Ministry of Labour should be made public.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. leader of the official opposition.

OMBUDSMAN

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Premier a question further to his statement about the introduction of a bill establishing the office of Ombudsman. Assuming the bill goes forward as expected, and seeing the rather enthusiastic support on all sides for the gentleman who is going to be put forward as the Ombudsman on the recommendation of the government, could the Premier indicate when the gentleman might be able to take up his duties, assuming that the bill does go forward as anticipated?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be understood that Mr. Maloney has certain responsibilities to some clients. I have a feeling there are three or four jury trials that he will have to conclude. It is his hope and ours that these will be concluded as soon as possible. I think there will be a period of time to set up the administrative structure and so on. I think some aspects of the office could be established as early as July; the full-time responsibilities probably to commence in the latter part of the summer.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: This is, in a sense, a device, because I want to tell the Premier what a splendid appointment he has made, and put it simply that way, and ask him whether it would be possible to have members of the Legislature begin feeding to the office, effectively now, categories of complaints, areas which might be looked at by the Ombudsman in July, in a way which would allow us to begin to sort out the process in advance?

I suppose if the Premier had to appoint someone from the west end of Toronto, which he did, and had to eliminate one, it’s just as well he took the other.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to overburden the gentleman before he actually starts to work. I told him I had two or three problems in a riding I know fairly well that I might get to him tomorrow, but I am going to wait until passage of the bill.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): We’ll take care of the major problems.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted to have the endorsation of the leader of the New Democratic Party for the proposed nominee for this position.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview, a supplementary.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, in view of the fact that we too salute the appointment and the prompt introduction of the bill, is the Premier going to produce for us some supplementary estimates so that the department, or the Ombudsman, or the parliamentary commissioner will be able to carry on? I would think there should be funds made available -- I don’t think there are yet -- in the Attorney General’s budget. Perhaps they’d come in as a supplementary estimate and in a different way than in the Attorney General’s budget.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that will be provided for in the bill. While the Attorney General could comment, and will, when the bill is introduced, the financing of it will be referred to in the bill, probably reporting to the House through the Speaker in that the Ombudsman --

Mr. Singer: He should be independent.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- will be a creation here of the Legislature, not through a particular ministry.

Mr. Singer: Not dissimilar to the Speaker.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask of the Premier, who is acting as chairman of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission at the present time, can he assure the House that when an appointment is made to fill the vacancy the appointment will not be from among the back-bench supporters of the government, or even the front-bench supporters?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to become provocative at this particular point --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Neither do I. Can the Premier answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, I can quote him speeches when he talked about the Ontario Northland where he said he -- himself specifically -- would have members of the Legislature on that particular organization. He has said so.

Mr. Roy: Take a gamble.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can give no such assurance to the member, nor do I intend to, with respect to who will be acting chairman of --

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): No, the Premier can’t get away from playing that game, can he?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. That question should be properly directed to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes).

Mr. Cassidy: It’s a cheap form of patronage he continues to indulge in.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the recommendation of the commission on the Legislature, dating from about a year ago, made it very specific that no Premier should appoint a supporter of the party to a position such as that, one of additional responsibility, does the Premier feel satisfied that his subterfuge of appointing his members to special positions as parliamentary assistants, where they get special pay, and then appointing them to the commissions, in fact circumvents the recommendations of the commissioners? Has he checked it with the commissioners; or is he, in fact, just circumventing the recommendation, made in good faith and which would be accepted by myself and my party?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have read the report very carefully. I think the principle of appointing a person as parliamentary assistant so that in terms of the parliamentary process he can be responsible and also serve in another capacity as a member of a board or commission, is not inconsistent with the commission’s recommendations.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier is evading the recommendations for his own purposes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not evading it, and the Leader of the Opposition himself said he would appoint somebody to the Ontario --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is evading it for his own purposes; it is a typical political ploy and the Premier is doing it again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition has made so many promises that they will come back to haunt him. Don’t think we won’t remember them.

Mr. Roy: Does the Premier have any northern members?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): There is no one left in northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Premier have any northern back-benchers? He is running out of them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I tell the member for Scarborough West that we will have more.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Premier imagine the member for Algoma being one?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: What will the member for Algoma do? Will he tap the maple trees on the way by?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Scarborough West should ask the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa).

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Has the member ever run a railroad?

Mr. Lewis: I would not mind running a railroad. I have been railroaded enough times in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Carlton East has a supplementary question.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Why doesn’t the Premier appoint Allister Johnston?

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Supplementary: Would the Premier tell the House why it is he is referring us to the Minister of Transportation and Communications for comment on the future chairman of the commission, when the Minister of Transportation and Communications told this House on Tuesday the Premier made those appointments and he couldn’t answer for the conduct of the existing chairman?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would listen once before he asks a question, I said the question as it relates to the acting chairman of the commission should be directed to the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Roy: Why didn’t the Premier answer the original question then?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member for Carleton East is going to ask me who the chairman of the commission will be, that would be an appropriate question to ask of the Premier. I have said there will be an acting chairman of the commission and that question should be directed to the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Roy: Will the Minister of Transportation and Communications tell us who it will be?

Mr. Speaker: The question is out of order at this time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Who is going to run the railroad?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): The commission is going to run the railroad.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The commission; then who is running the commission?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the commission itself will be operating as a group. They held their first meeting as a commission and --

Mr. Lewis: What? Who will take the chair?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The acting chairman will be selected among the existing members, by the members, to fill that vacancy until such time as another chairman is appointed.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is a northern Wintario approach.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Is the minister then acting as the chairman of the commission himself until such time as they reach this collective decision? Is he simply going to have the railroad run by a committee? That might even be worse than what we had.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I’m not acting as the chairman of ONTC. I have said that the members of the commission themselves will select one of their members to act as a chairman until such time as a chairman is appointed.

Mr. Roy: That is a good appointment; is the Premier proud of it?

Mr. Breithaupt: It is a northern Wintario lottery.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member for Kitchener knows more about that than I do.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Cochrane South.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): I wonder if I can ask the minister, as a supplementary question: Did the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) chair a meeting of the ONTC last night in New Liskeard?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know. I wasn’t in New Liskeard.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But the member for Timiskaming was.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have any further questions?

Mr. Cassidy: Does the member for Timiskaming know if he has resigned?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Ask him; he is in the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications if there was a meeting of the commission last night chaired by the former chairman?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I know there was a meeting of the commission scheduled in New Liskeard. Who chaired that meeting I do not know, I was not in New Liskeard.

Mr. Lewis: Ask the member for Timiskaming for heaven’s sake. What games the minister does play. Turn around and ask him.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t know, I wasn’t there.

Mr. Lewis: What does the minister mean when he says he doesn’t know?

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have any more questions? Does the member for Scarborough West have a supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: Yes. Would the Minister of Transportation and Communications turn around and ask the member for Timiskaming whether or not he chaired the meeting -- which he did -- and why he did and was it his last meeting?

An hon. member: We’ll wait for the minister’s reply.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Act provides for the minister to turn to that particular member who held that post and ask him to answer the question himself. I would so indicate; and he may answer.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order: I understand parliamentary assistants can’t be asked questions and can’t answer.

Mr. Speaker: There’s no point of order. We’ve had enough supplementaries. Would the Leader of the Opposition like to ask a new question?

Mr. Roy: He’s no longer a parliamentary assistant. He’s got no status.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: This is the last supplementary on this particular item.

Mr. Renwick: Could I ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications whether the member for Timiskaming is still a member of the commission?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the announcement was made in this Legislature by the Premier that the member for Timiskaming was no longer chairman of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, therefore I assume he is not.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Did he chair the meeting?

Mr. Breithaupt: But the meeting might well have been irregular.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I don’t want to pursue this unduly but evidently we have to direct it to the Premier. What is the status of the member for Timiskaming vis-à-vis the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission? Is he still running it? Is he attending meetings? What’s going on? Is he a member of the commission?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the great importance the Leader of the Opposition attaches to this. I said here on Tuesday that with regret the member for Timiskaming was no longer chairman of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is he a member of the commission?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, he is not a member of the commission.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you.

HALDIMAND-NORFOLK COMMUNITY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of Housing. Can he explain why the special planning committee established to oversee the emerging structure of the new city in Haldimand-Norfolk is being chaired by a Conservative member from downtown Toronto? In the membership of that committee why did the minister have to go outside the constituency to find a Conservative from a nearby constituency to sit on it? Doesn’t the minister feel that this is carrying the arrogance of 32 years of Conservative government a bit far? Isn’t he aware that the local people are not going to stand for this sort of intrusion into their planning responsibilities?

Mr. Roy: That’s very close to a dirty trick.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. Leader of the Opposition isn’t very well informed, because the fact that the parliamentary assistant is chairing these meetings is very much in order. We have had parliamentary assistants chairing task forces, we expect to do the same in the future, and I expect to have my parliamentary assistant attend other meetings on my behalf. I can’t be present at all the meetings. So the input will be from the local people; the relationship of the local people will be through my parliamentary assistant to myself and to the government.

An hon. member: The government will never learn the process.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Then the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) has been given the responsibility by the Minister of Housing to be the chief planner for that particular city?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Not so.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, she has been made chairman of that committee. Is she acting in the minister’s place, or is she the chairman herself?

Mr. Cassidy: Parliament will never be the same when she is finished.

An hon. member: Are they going to give all their parliamentary assistants a chair?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Distorted.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Distorted? That is the committee that is planning this new community. You would think they didn’t have an official plan, Mr. Speaker. You would think they didn’t have an elected council. The minister is putting all the power right here.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member like to give the minister an opportunity to reply?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, if I could be allowed to say a few words, I might be able to explain the situation a bit more fully.

The parliamentary assistant is chairman of the committee until such time as we have a board of directors in place to carry out the implementation of a plan for the new city. In the meantime we can’t stop. We must have planning taking place today, tomorrow and next week, and there must be continuity of development of the lands in question. If there were any time wasted, I would say that would be cause for great regret on our part.

Therefore, what we are doing is ensuring that the local towns will be expanded to what extent they can be, and then we’ll provide for the major portion of the housing that’s needed in the new city through a board of directors I expect, and at that time it will be the problem of the government as to who is on the board.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, with your permission, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing then is acting on the policy first established by the former Treasurer, the member for London South (Mr. White), who said that he was not going to let locally elected people stand in the way of the implementation of his plan. Is that correct? In other words, the authority for planning resides with the minister and those to whom he delegates it directly, rather than with the people in the community, who have an official plan, who have an elected council, and who have local responsibility.

Mr. Singer: We even have a nice member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has to understand that we on this side of the House have always made sure that the local people are involved in the planning of any --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister made the decision for them. Always paternalistic.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- operation as big as a new city. The local people are very much involved. They are on the task force. They are on the planning; they have their planning staffs involved, and certainly as far as they’re concerned, they are quite happy.

Mr. Roy: Just like Spencerville.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I suppose the member is not happy because he hasn’t got the operation and he never will have.

Mr. Roy: Tell us about Spencerville.

Mr. Cassidy: He was so gentle before he became a minister.

LAKE NIPIGON FISHERMEN

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. Is he going to respond to the petition of the licensed fishermen on Lake Nipigon, in which they have asked to be removed from the jurisdiction of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corp. because they feel that the prices offered them are unfairly low in comparison to prices in Manitoba, for example? Is he going to allow them to remove themselves from the jurisdiction of the marketing corporation or is he perhaps going to give them better prices?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that the Liberal Party has got some life in the riding of Thunder Bay because I gather this came from their candidate there.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We have got it in Kenora too.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Not much. The Leader of the Opposition had better go check it. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the present member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) has been discussing this issue with me for some considerable time. In fact, I had the privilege of meeting with those commercial fishermen in the presence of the member for Thunder Bay to go over all aspects of it. I have asked my staff at Thunder Bay to go over all the details. I have asked Bill Parks, who is the Ontario representative on the board of directors for the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corp., to meet with the commercial fishermen in that particular area to go over all the points of controversy to see if they can be resolved. I have also asked my staff to review the vote that was taken about a year or a year and a half ago in the entire area to see if there is some way we can accommodate them. I will be reporting very shortly on that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the best thinking of the minister and the member for Thunder Bay has evidently not yet brought a resolution to this problem, why wouldn’t the minister let those fishermen simply market their fish in Manitoba where the price is better, rather than being forced to come under the jurisdiction of this marketing legislation where their prices are officially reduced?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is not aware that a special Act of this Parliament was passed to dovetail with a piece of federal legislation putting that part of northwestern Ontario into the federally-operated marketing board.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was designed to give them better prices, not lower. They want the price to go up.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The board has run in the red and caused a real disruption among the white commercial fishermen in northwestern Ontario, but brought a certain amount -- and I think a great deal -- of benefit to the remote Indian commercial fishermen in the northern part of this province. So we have to weigh all sides of this before we take any positive action.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Supplementary: Will the minister look into the possibility of allowing them to market their fish independently in the Montreal and New York markets where the prices are at least double, without the need of going through all of the long drawn-out process of yet another vote? Has he looked into that possibility?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am not sure we have to go through another vote. I certainly intend to discuss it with the marketing board, but I don’t think I can arbitrarily direct or allow the commercial fishermen who are now in the marketing board area to sell their products outside of the marketing board jurisdiction. I don’t think I have that authority.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

STATUS OF PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, given the announcement of the Ombudsman today, let me raise with the Minister of Community and Social Services one of the most vexing areas which may come to his attention quickly. How is it that in the case of the 7,300 people in Ontario still classed as permanently unemployable, whom the minister has not yet seen fit to regard as physically disabled and brought within the GAINS programme, there is confusion over the payment to the doctors for completion of the forms? How is it that all of these individuals are not being scrupulously reviewed by the ministry at this time?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, during our estimates this issue was raised. I indicated we would be submitting revisions, that one definition of disability would encompass the two groups, that the forms were being reviewed, and that we would establish in various areas of the province a review comprising medical and social persons in each area. The matter is under very active consideration at this time. The matter that the member raises about the fees is one of those that will be remedied.

Mr. Lewis: I see. The minister intends to move on the fee question?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The fee is only part and parcel of the whole.

Mr. Lewis: It’s another obstacle. Can I have from the minister a sense of time? Is he going to take a look at all 7,300 cases in a systematic and serious way with an effort to resolve them all within the new definition, and by what date?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I have indicated previously that we were looking at this and that we did start -- as the hon. member has said, we have transferred somewhere around 5,500. Each case is being looked at individually and, with the new definition, certainly quite a large number will be transferred. But I would also like to reiterate what I said earlier, that they will not all be transferred.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, is the minister suggesting his ministry is initiating a review of all these people on its own, or is he waiting for many of us to bring to him the instances of difficulty? Is his ministry in fact undertaking a review of every instance?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We are well aware of the problems. That matter is presently being dealt with by my own officials, so there is no need for the hon. member or members to bring it to our attention. We are definitely dealing with it at this time.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): A supplementary: Would the minister or his officials consider a 59-year-old woman, who has one 12-year-old child and who has had a severe coronary attack and been forbidden to work by her doctor, to be disabled?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: If the hon. member would give the name and address of that person, I will give it my personal attention.

Mr. Lewis: As a separate or additional question, because I would love to get it resolved, how does the minister explain the continuing emergence of case after case -- I have another half dozen myself -- where apparently his ministry is not responding at all? What is the nature of his ministry’s review? What is the time limit? When does it get done for these people?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I think the hon. member has been long enough in this Legislature to know that any major change in regulation does involve a certain length of time. It may take up to two or three weeks, maybe a month, before those regulations are passed and enacted.

Mr. Lewis: For the total review?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No, for the new regulations. The total review could take longer than a month; it could perhaps take as long as two months.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. That’s good enough. We’ll hold the minister to that commitment.

RENT CONTROLS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Housing: Given the observations of the member for Scarborough Centre yesterday in committee that rent controls might well be necessary by 1976 if there is no increase in apartment or rental accommodation supply, and since accommodation in the Toronto area alone plummeted by 78 per cent in the first two months of 1975 over the similar period in 1974, how now does the minister feel about the growing crescendo of Conservative voices asking for rent review and rent control?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The hon. leader of the NDP knows full well that we are as concerned on this side of the House as he is or as anyone else is.

Mr. Deans: I don’t believe that.

Mr. Cassidy: I don’t believe that either.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): The hon. members don’t believe anything.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have always said that we will carefully analyse the situation as it is in Ontario --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): The government is hung up on an ideology.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- as it is in Canada, as it is throughout all of North America and as it is throughout Europe. We want to determine what is best for our people, not what is worst.

Mr. Renwick: That is exactly the problem.

Mr. Lewis: The government has a rigid philosophy.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Whether or not we can accept the fact that we have all the responsibility; I don’t think we have. I think the federal government --

Mr. Lewis: The federal government?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- has something to determine, and I expect it will determine whether or not there should be controls --

Mr. Lawlor: For heaven’s sake; this is for Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- not only for rent, but perhaps for wages and prices --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s the same old complaint: Pass the buck.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I expect that Mr. Turner in his budget will come out with a statement early in June which will define where the federal government stands, not only in regard to rent controls but also wage and price controls --

Mr. Lawlor: If Toronto wants it, why can’t it have it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Can the hon. member hear me?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I can; but I can’t understand why the minister is so intransigent.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Until such time as the federal government gives us some direction in regard to inflation -- inflation is really the problem, and the federal government has not dealt with it up to this stage --

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s why Ontario’s deficit is bigger.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What we want to do is to make sure that the poor are not made poorer.

Mr. Lewis: I doubt that. If the minister concedes the problem of inflation; if he knows, as he must, that despite the fact that 45 per cent or thereabouts of Ontario are renters, only 17 per cent of the shelter stock last year was in the rental market; if he sees the accelerating crisis, why is he so tied by his rigid social philosophy? Why can’t he be flexible enough to allow the city of Toronto its application and request for rent control?

Mr. Roy: He will become flexible.

Mr. Lewis: Just try it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The hon. leader of the NDP knows full well that we can’t separate one small portion of a large area and expect it to work. There is absolutely no way, in my opinion, that it can work --

Mr. Renwick: Of course it will work.

Mr. Lawlor: They are prepared to try.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- however, I think it might be feasible to analyse very carefully what could happen in the future. I am saying to the hon. member that we have daily considered the problem of rent controls and other related problems.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What about shelter costs related to clothes; related to food? That’s just as important.

Mr. Renwick: No, that’s not related to it at all. That is the minister’s problem.

Mr. Lewis: Shelter cost, up 50 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All of these items are related to the living cost of the poor of this province and throughout Canada, and I think the federal government has to take a stand.

Mr. Lewis: The federal government?

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): What about local autonomy?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

CANADA METAL PLANT

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Labour, if I may: Is he aware that the Canada Metal Co. has a safety incentive plan based on draws -- everybody has an urge to draw things these days -- and that for the purpose of the plan -- I am now quoting: “Time lost due to lead intoxication or any other industrial health problem would be considered a lost-time accident.” If you have a lost-time accident you are not eligible for the safety incentive plan.

Can the minister tell me how it is possible for a company like Canada Metal, which has violated so many of its workers’ rights up until now, could get away with lead intoxication as a way of removing them from a safety incentive plan? Can he step in and correct that?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a plan and, no, I don’t know how they can get away with it. I will investigate it, or the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) will. I think it is probably our responsibility and I’ll look into it, sir.

CHRONIC CARE FACILITIES

Mr. Lewis: One last question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development: How is she going to respond to the very large petition she has -- I have a copy of it here -- from residents of the Niagara Peninsula for additional chronic care facilities?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that petition. I don’t have a copy of it.

Mr. Lewis: Is she aware of letters addressed to her in the middle of April dealing with the question of chronic care facilities in the Niagara Peninsula?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not.

Mr. Lewis: Really?

Mr. Cassidy: She doesn’t read her mail, eh?

Mr. Lewis: Oh, well, I find her mail most interesting, so I urge her to read it.

No further questions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CENSORSHIP

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Could the Attorney General advise whether or not his department intends to appear and argue about the constitutionality of censorship, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday granting permission to appeal on the constitutional issue, whether or not censorship is a matter solely within federal jurisdiction, being a matter of criminal law?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. I didn’t hear the first part of his question; I heard the remainder. What was the first part?

Mr. Singer: The key part was: Does the Attorney General intend to appear through counsel when that matter comes on before the Supreme Court of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Singer: And which side will he take?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Once the case has been presented I will supply the hon. member for Downsview with a copy of our brief.

An hon. member: Always on the right side.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It’ll be the right side.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, is the Attorney General in favour of provincial control of censorship or does he think it should be a federal matter?

Hon. Mr. Clement: A provincial role is our position.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Cochrane South.

NURSES’ AIDES’ APPEAL

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Has the minister had an opportunity to review the further request by the 12 nurses’ aides of South Centennial Manor in Iroquois Falls who have requested that the government appeal the decision of the provincial court so that they will have the opportunity to appeal to get their jobs back at the manor?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the member for Cochrane South has discussed this with me on several occasions and has requested that the ministry should take on the task of appealing the decision of the court. The decision of the ministry is, no, we don’t want to do that for various reasons. We will co-operate with the various applicants if they want to do it on their own.

A settlement was made at the time the decision was given whereby payment for their time off was made to those who had been dismissed. If the matter is appealed, we feel there will be more at risk and the people who were dismissed could lose more than they would gain, and that’s the basis on which we don’t want to take on the task for them.

There is also the other point that if we do it we would have to be doing it on a basis of law, and since that time the law on the matter has been changed. The new Employment Standards Act makes different provisions than were in effect at the time these circumstances arose, so we would not be establishing any point of law if we appealed it.

Mr. Ferrier: A supplementary: If the minister is not prepared to launch an appeal, would he intercede with his Minister of Community and Social Services to meet with the board to see if they will change their attitude toward these women, and when vacancies become available to give them an opportunity to be hired again at some kind of jobs at that manor, since at this point the manor refuses even to accept an application for employment?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a reasonable suggestion to put before both the Minister of Community and Social Services and the board itself.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

DENTAL CARE PROGRAMME

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Premier, pertaining to his statement to the dentists yesterday that a denticare plan would be just too expensive in this province. Does he not feel as Premier that possibly if he had accepted our advice two or three years ago and brought in a constraint package for Dr. Kinloch to save $50 million, or that if he had collected the premiums -- where, as pointed out by the Provincial Auditor, $55 million went uncollected

-- and, in fact, if he would enter more preventive health programmes, such as the proposed seatbelt legislation and reduction of speed limits, he may well have had money to enter into a dental care programme for this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only say, by way of a general observation, that I think this question should be directed to the Minister of Health.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If this government were to have accepted all the recommendations made by the members opposite this province would now be broke.

Mr. Breithaupt: The government doesn’t have to accept our recommendations to do that.

An hon. member: They don’t need us to do that.

Mr. Cassidy: They spent four times as much back in 1971.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: How does he feel as Premier of a province which has the reputation of being the richest in this country and is now a second-class province, where a number of other provinces do, in fact, have a dental care programme?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a supplementary question.

Mr. Roy: Is he happy that all of this has happened under his administration?

Mr. Speaker: Order, that is not a supplementary question.

Mr. Roy: I’m right on, Mr. Speaker, right on.

Mr. Speaker: I said it is not a supplementary question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will only reply that, unlike the member for Ottawa East, I do not regard Ontario as a second-rate province; I think it is first rate and the best in Canada.

Mr. Roy: That’s what is happening.

An hon. member: Number one!

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Nine billion dollars in debt.

Mr. Roy: He is second rate as a Premier too; I can tell him that.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: Would the Premier not agree that a preventive programme, particularly for children up to the age of seven, which might cost in the neighbourhood of between $18 million and $20 million, would be money well spent and should be a No. 1 priority of his government so that this preventive dentistry can begin now and we can save costs later on?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Once again, Mr. Speaker, this is a question that should be properly directed to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Roy: They were the Premier’s comments.

An hon. member: Yes, that’s right.

Mr. Roy: A first-rate province; a second-rate Premier.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

HYDRO BLOCK

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to put a question to the Minister of Health, reminding him at the beginning, of his commitment to involve local people in the planning process when he was commenting on what is going on in Haldimand-Norfolk. Can the minister say what --

Mr. Turner: The member said “Health.”

An hon. member: Housing.

Mr. Cassidy: I beg your pardon, the Minister of Housing; I am sorry.

Mr. Turner: There is a difference.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, there is. I would say that maybe health is handled better than housing in this province.

What is the decision of cabinet on the Hydro block housing project not far from here, and would the ministry now be prepared to carry out a commitment to the working committee there which has presented a plan? Is that plan now acceptable to cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Which one?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I will be making a statement on this in due course.

Mr. Cassidy: When?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I expect very shortly.

Mr. Breithaupt: Whenever his day comes up.

Mr. Singer: It was an issue in 1971. Every four years it becomes an issue.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Education has an answer to a previous question.

PENSIONS FOR RETIRED TEACHERS

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) asked me if there were any representatives of the superannuated teachers on the committee that was meeting with our people about escalation and matters such as that, and I wasn’t sure when I answered the question the other day. There was a member of the superannuated teachers of Ontario on that committee, a Mr. H. Redfern.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS BRANCH ADVERTISEMENTS

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; to the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Accepting the fact the federal government has now acceded to the request of many provinces in the telecommunications field to give the provinces a greater input in the formulation of telecommunications policy, and accepting the fact that within the minister’s own department there are no less than five sections and/or branches dealing with telecommunications policy, and all the people involved in that; can the minister explain why it is necessary for him to advertise four positions that will cost the Treasury more than $100,000 to fill?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with what that particular ad says, but I know there is an effort to develop within my ministry a competent staff to deal with the very complicated issues that come before the communications branch. This branch is dealing with such things as presentations before the Canadian Transport Commission, and whatever the new board will be, on rate cases, intervening on behalf of the people of this province when increases are requested from such companies as Bell Canada, CN and others. It takes a fair amount of expertise to deal with this.

I might also point out, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is correct, there is going to be a greater role played by provinces, and obviously we are going to have to have adequate staff to handle this greater role.

Mr. P. Taylor: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister saying the rather large bureaucracy indicated on page 110 of the government of Ontario’s telephone directory is not competent to handle this problem and hasn’t been competent in the past?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, they are very competent. If the hon. member would take the time to read more than the phone book around this town he might find out exactly what that communications branch is doing.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well I will tell the member, he is so incompetent he ought to know.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): That member can’t read very much more than that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; the member for Nickel Belt has the floor.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps we can advertise for a new chairman for the railway too.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Any time.

Mr. Ferrier: The minister must have taken some nasty pills today.

Mr. Roy: The minister should get back to his investigating.

SUPPLEMENTARY GRANTS FOR STUDENTS

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In view of the fact that summer job listings are down between 30 and 35 per cent at the University of Toronto placement centre and the expected contributions from students under OSAP calculations are being raised, will the minister consider allocating additional funds for supplementary grants for students who are unable to obtain summer employment?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, I am aware that it would appear, particularly in the private sector, that student summer employment will be down this summer. This, in effect, will mean appeals to OSAP in the fall because people haven’t been able to earn funds during the summer.

I can’t undertake at this moment in time to say that additional funds will be allocated. On the other hand, in the history of OSAP during the past fiscal year, the hon. member will recall that the budget figure for 1974-1975 was $32.5 million and the sum actually expended for the provincial bursary part was about $40 million. So I would say that we will attempt to carry out the commitments inherent in the OSAP programme.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I might: How does the minister justify, in the first place, raising the expected contributions from students during a time of such high unemployment?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Well for one thing, Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, because of the increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

REHABILITATION OF PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development: Would the minister inform me what action is being taken regarding the request from the Waterloo regional mental health association for funding for its expansion budget relating to the rehabilitation of psychiatric patients within the region? I believe it has this request before the minister at present.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, that request from the Ontario Mental Health Association for some $2.5 million is under consideration.

Mr. Good: A supplementary: Mr. Speaker, could the minister inform me whether the specific request from the Waterloo region, which was made in a presentation to her, is being considered separately, apart from other rehab programmes by mental health associations?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

JAMES BAY EDUCATION CENTRE

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education: Could the minister tell the House if the external evaluation report, I think it’s called, on the James Bay Education Centre by D. S. Felker is available and what the contents of the report are?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, if he means is it available, I have the report now.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister in a position to inform the House of any of the contents of the report?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will look into it, Mr. Speaker, and see if it’s ready for tabling. I’m not sure; I can’t tell the member today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Etobicoke.

CERTIFICATION OF TRADESMEN

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Is the minister in a position to give an answer to the House on a question I asked some weeks ago about the certification of bricklayers and other tradesmen from North York?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I signed a letter to the member with all the detail on that question about bricklayers, either at the end of last week or on Tuesday of this week. If he’d like me to read the letter in the House I could -- but perhaps he’d check his own mail. It’s rather lengthy -- I think it’s two or 2½ pages -- I’d be delighted to read it in the House if he wishes but he should have it by now.

Mr. Braithwaite: I haven’t seen it, Mr. Speaker, but if the minister says he sent it I should be receiving it.

A supplementary then: Would the minister look into having the $10 fee the various tradesmen had to pay before they took the test returned to those who failed? I don’t know what’s in the letter so I really don’t know whether the question is appropriate but I would like to know whether the minister would look into that end of it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I can look into it. I think when the member reads that letter he will find that --

Mr. Braithwaite: Answer my question.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- certification is not required by us. It is required, apparently, by certain employers.

The question of the fee has been, I suppose, looked at on several occasions. It’s standard for all these things; it certainly doesn’t cover the whole cost but is really a nominal amount. However, I’ll take a look at it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

CHANGES IN GRANT STRUCTURE

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. Has the minister responded yet to the city of Hamilton Board of Education brief to the cabinet, presented, I think, on April 8 in Hamilton, with regard to changes in the negative grant structure to allow for the sale of board-held properties to another board -- a separate school board in this instance -- without imposing the penalties of the negative grant?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It’s my recollection, Mr. Speaker, that I did reply to that request.

Mr. Deans: They don’t have a reply.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege, would you please direct the leader of the NDP to return my mail to me; and in future to return it before he opens it?

Mr. Lewis: Just a second, on a point of privilege, lest these tender sensibilities be fluttered, it is but a copy.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That’s interesting.

Mr. Deans: We get our copies before the ministers get their originals.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River has the last question.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

Mr. Reid: I have a question of the House leader. Will the House leader see that my questions on the order paper dating back to last May, almost a year old now, are answered; particularly the one on the number of contract people the government has hired?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, if that’s possible I certainly will supply that answer.

Mr. Reid: A short supplementary: Is it not a fact that the minister has that information, and has had it for two or three months, and has yet to table it in the House?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Unless the member has more information than I have, that is not so.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired. Did the Minister of Natural Resources want the floor?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I know that members of the Legislature will want to join with me in welcoming two school groups to the Legislature today. The first is a group of grade 8 students, about 25 in total, from the St. Thomas Aquinas School in Kenora, and who are ably led by Mr. R. Wiley. They will be in the gallery after 3 o’clock this afternoon. I think they may be coming in now.

Also, Mr. Speaker, of a very significant nature is a large group of Indian students from Sandy Lake. I’m sure my friend, the member for Thunder Bay, will recognize how far that is away from Toronto. It’s about 240 air miles directly north of Kenora. This particular group had to take a chartered aircraft to Dryden, and then take the Transair flight to Toronto.

In this connection I would like to recognize some guests of my colleague, the member for Yorkview. Their school is the Oakdale Jr. High School in his particular riding, which is playing host to this group of Indian students from Sandy Lake. I know that members would want to recognize them.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, could I just add my word of welcome, because of the nature of this group here today, the Oakdale Jr. High School in the riding of Yorkview is playing host to the group from Sandy Lake. I would simply add my word of welcome to the Sandy Lake school and also the representatives from the Oakdale Jr. High School.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Ewen from the standing private bills committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee recommends that it be permitted to extend its time sufficiently to finish the consideration of Bill Pr33, an Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Clement presented the eighth annual report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission.

Mr. Singer: How about the one for the Ontario Police Commission?

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the bill I have just introduced, I would like to make mention that the purpose of this legislation is twofold.

First, it is to implement the recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission report on the administration of Ontario courts with respect to the office of Master of the Supreme Court. Second, it is to ensure that the county and district court judges, acting under appointment by the Governor General as local judges of the Supreme Court, have jurisdiction to make orders granting alimony and the maintenance and custody of children when a claim for such relief is joined with a petition for divorce.

In part three of its report on the administration of Ontario courts, the Ontario Law Reform Commission made 23 recommendations with respect to the office of Master, 13 which require amendments to the Judicature Act. With minor variations resulting from our discussions with the Masters, this bill implements the commission’s recommendations.

The office of Master of the Supreme Court is frequently called upon to determine issues between the Crown and private individuals, a function which is inconsistent with the civil servant status that Masters now hold. The first six sections of the bill relate to the titles, appointment, tenure, conditions of employment, censure and removal from office of Masters. They ensure judicial independence equivalent to that presently enjoyed by provincial court judges under the Provincial Courts Act.

Subsection 3 of section 118 of the Judicature Act was enacted in 1970 to give divorce jurisdiction to county and division court judges acting under appointment by the Governor General as local judges of the Supreme Court. However, the section as presently worded does not confer upon the local judge the power to order alimony or the maintenance and custody of children where divorce is not granted.

The Ontario Court of Appeal in a recent case held that rule 778(a), which purports to grant such power to the local judges, exceeds the statutory authority of section 118.

Local judges have been exercising this jurisdiction on the basis of rule 778(a), as it was originally intended that they should.

To preserve both the intention behind section 118 and rule 778(a), and to validate the present practice of the courts, section 7 of this bill amends section 118 to confer upon the local judge the power to order alimony or the maintenance and custody of children where a divorce is not granted.

Retroactive legislation is often objectionable on the basis that in many circumstances it is unfair. Persons govern their activities by rules, and to change the rules after they have been relied upon is frequently offensive to our sense of justice. This is particularly true of penal and taxing statutes. In some circumstances, however, it is unfair not to make legislation retroactive. This is true when many persons have governed their activities by what was generally assumed to be the law, and these assumptions prove to be incorrect.

This is the case with the amendment now proposed. Subsection 2 of section 8 will make this amendment retroactive to July 1, 1971, the date when the divorce jurisdiction of the local judge commenced. It will restore what was widely considered to be the existing law. A failure to make this amendment retroactive would have undesirable consequences in that those who have been ordered by local judges to pay alimony might legally refuse to continue making such payments, thus creating grave financial difficulties for women and children who are dependent upon these payments.

ADMINISTRATION OF COURTS PROJECT ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to enable the establishment of a Project for the better Administration of Courts in the Region of Central West.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, in 1974 the Ontario Law Reform Commission report on administration of Ontario courts was completed and tabled in this Legislature. This bill, the Administration of Courts Project Act, is to facilitate the implementation and testing of that report’s recommendations in a limited and controlled way.

The bill enables the establishment of a developmental project in the central west region, which is comprised of the counties of Brant, Dufferin and Wellington and the judicial districts of Haldimand-Norfolk, Halton, Hamilton-Wentworth, Niagara North, Niagara South and Waterloo. Provision is made for central co-ordination of the administrative facilities and services of the courts in the region and for the efficient disposition of the business of the courts, subject to the traditional independence of judges respecting matters bearing directly on the adjudication of matters coming before them.

A seven-member advisory committee, composed of the Chief Justice of Ontario and the chief judges of the county and provincial courts or their respective nominees, two lawyers engaged in active practice in the region and the Deputy Attorney General as chairman, is established to advise and make recommendations to the Attorney General on any matter concerning the project and its implementation or operation. Because it is a developmental process, the various legislative adjustments necessary to carry out the project are to be effected by regulations made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the recommendation of the advisory committee.

A provision providing for automatic appeal on July 31, 1977, is included in the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 14th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (CONTINUED)

On vote 1502:

Mr. Chairman: On vote 1502, items 2 and 3 are carried.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): I was the last one to get up the other night. Item 3 was not carried as far as I know.

Mr. Chairman: Item 3, the member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I just have a couple of more questions on this particular emergency measures organization. As I understand it, at some time during the past year or so the ministry has had a study done by Price, Waterhouse in regard to EMO. I wonder if that study has been made public or if it will be made public.

Secondly, there was some discussion the other night about the number of people that are still under the employ of EMO. Is there an undertaking from the minister that they will receive employment of a similar nature at least within his ministry or some other ministry of government? I wonder if the minister can assure me of that, as well as answer the first question in regard to the study that apparently has been done.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Acting Solicitor General): Mr. Chairman, my problem is that I have noted here that we completed our discussions -- at least I thought we had -- on that item, vote 1502, item 3.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I was the last speaker and the chairman asked me to stop because it was 10:30. So I said I would stop.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am just trying to recollect. Did we not complete the discussion on item 3?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): No, we didn’t.

Mr. R. S. Smith: No, I don’t think we passed item 3.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am sorry, I was under the impression that we had. There was a report completed for the internal use only of the ministry. I believe the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Mattel) asked for a copy -- if this is the report you are talking about, the consultant’s report -- to be made available to him. I wrote him perhaps two days ago advising that we were --

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, if I may, my recollection is that we had completed this item, because my colleague, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) --

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right.

Mr. Renwick: -- had spoken about fire protection for the unorganized municipalities, which was under item 4, fire safety services, and there had been a discussion about that aspect.

Mr. R. S. Smith: It hadn’t been carried.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Let him ask it.

Mr. R. S. Smith: In spite of what the member for Riverdale might think, I was speaking on this at 10:30 when the House stopped the other night. There was no indication from the Chair at that time that the item had passed. Maybe it had passed earlier, I don’t know, but I was in a dialogue with the minister on it at 10:30 when the chairman asked if I would curtail my remarks because it was 10:30.

Mr. Chairman: Carry on.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, it comes back to me now. I was trying to remember where we had left off. The member for Nipissing and I had had a discussion relating to EMO and that had taken part of the evening. It ended the other night, if you will recall, when the member for Nickel Belt did indeed raise the question about areas where no fire protection was available. The member for Nipissing added his observations that he had concerns about areas in his constituency where fire services were available from an adjoining municipality at a contracted price. In many instances, as I understood your question, certain communities did not feel that they could handle the price for fire protection provided by adjoining municipalities.

That’s where I think the record would indicate that we terminated the discussions and we were in the middle of those when 10:30 rolled around.

Mr. Lawlor: Welcome back, Matt.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I stand to be corrected, but that’s my recollection. You had the one concern and the member for Nickel Belt had the prior concern.

Mr. R. S. Smith: If you would just answer those two short questions on the EMO we could get it out of the way as far as I’m concerned.

Hon. Mr. Clement: With reference to that, one of the two questions you had on EMO was were people going to lose their jobs; the answer was no. There were 33; they were being assimilated into other positions, either within the ministry or as advised by the Civil Service Commission. The ministry has been working with the commission for placement of these people. That was item No. 1 on that prior item; and item No. 2 was your question relating to the consultant’s report to the effect would it be made available. The answer I gave to the member for Sudbury East was no, it was not available. Now can I go on with the fire? --

Mr. R. S. Smith: No, just on that. It is an internal report which you are not going to make available?

Hon. Mr. Cement: That’s right.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Okay.

Mr. Chairman: Item 3 of 1502 is carried.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister one more question. I raised a question with him the other night and I don’t think I received the answer I was looking for. Perhaps I can tie it in with what the member for Sudbury East or Nickel Belt was discussing about emergency measures and, in particular, fire services in unorganized areas of northern Ontario.

I think my question to you previous to that was what are you going to do with the emergency measures equipment which is already located throughout the Province of Ontario? Particularly where they have a number of auxiliary fire pumps which handle somewhere around 300 to 400 gallons of water. Perhaps some of this equipment is still good equipment; has never been used. Could this not be made available to those unorganized areas in the Province of Ontario? This pump is one that two men can handle and put on the back of a pickup truck while another one can be used to carry the additional equipment such as fire hose. They can go to a fire with it and provide them with fire protection. Without having the enormous costs of a fire pumper, this would provide services there until perhaps a larger piece of equipment could move in.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, this again was asked the other night. I believe I answered at the time by advising the members that a substantial portion of the cost of that equipment was provided by the federal government. At the present time a programme for the disposal of it is being worked out between the provincial and federal governments. It will be a programme of disposing of those capital assets which will be standardized across the entire province.

Mr. Haggerty: Could this equipment not be made available to these communities in northern Ontario; give them the first choice if they want to purchase it?

Hon. Mr. Cement: Yes, that might well be what they intend to do with it. Right now, they haven’t formulated their final approach to it. It might well be a partial solution to the question which has been raised by the member for Nickel Belt and indeed added to by your own colleague from Nipissing.

With reference to those two inquiries, we are really talking of two situations. You will recall earlier, perhaps around 10 o’clock on Tuesday evening last, we were talking about certain moneys, about $150,000, to be utilized by the fire marshal in conducting studies in three different communities. I gave the reasons for those communities having been selected.

Firstly, there is the situation described by the member for Nickel Belt in which there is no fire prevention or fire service available to a municipality. The member for Nipissing deals with the situation in which fire services are available to a municipality from a neighbouring municipality for a contractual price which, perhaps for one reason or another, is not attractive to the community lacking the fire protection. Those are the two situations as I understand them. Hopefully, with the study which the fire marshal plans to undertake, he will come forward with recommendations in both instances. I am not suggesting the study will indicate that fire protection can be made available in the form of a full-time fire department, and I am not saying that you are saying that in your question --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I hesitate to interrupt my friend but I don’t think there is a quorum.

Clerk of the House: There is not a quorum present, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, I see a quorum.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. I would like to make a ruling that item 3 of vote 1502 was carried on Tuesday, May 20, between 10 and 10:15 p.m. The member for Nickel Belt suggested he wished to speak on item 4 at that time, and the member for Welland South has been asking questions that I would suggest come under item 4.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, I have.

Mr. Chairman: Have you further questions?

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Last year, the minister piloted the Ontario Building Code through this House, but I don’t know of any municipality that has adopted that code yet. Could he inform the House as to why there is a delay in municipalities adopting the code?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The building code?

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, the provincial building code. That deals pretty well with fire matters.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I piloted that through last year as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, but I don’t know the status of that now. I remember filing in the House -- I think it was a year ago December -- the proposed regulations under the proposed legislation and then we introduced the legislation.

There have been exchanges and dialogues -- I am speaking from memory of my former responsibility -- and there have been briefs, observations and criticisms of the regulations offered by groups who have various interests in the contents of the regulation. As I understand it now, the regulations are being drafted in final form, hopefully for enactment by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. You will recall at the time I introduced the regulations, which must have been 3 in. thick, that they were proposed regulations and not, of course, the actual regulations. That’s the current status of it, Mr. Chairman, as I can recall it right now.

Mr. Haggerty: The reason I raised the matter with you, is that it is a rather important piece of legislation. It involves fire protection, and of course fire protection involves fire prevention, which is the most important thing dealing with fire matters. But I can’t recall any municipality adopting that building code as its official building code --

Hon. Mr. Clement: They don’t have the choice. They don’t adopt that as their building code. That’s it.

Mr. Haggerty: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: But as I recall the legislation, there were certain sections which do not come into force until they are proclaimed. One of the sections that doesn’t come into force until it is proclaimed is the regulation-making section of that particular statute; and until the regulations are in fact ready to go, then they won’t proclaim that section. When the regulations are ready to go forward, they will proclaim the section and enact the regulations. It isn’t a matter -- I make this clear -- it is not a matter of the municipality adopting it; it is a matter of the municipality having to accept it.

Mr. Haggerty: Well, what you are saying may be quite true, that they have to accept it, but they have to pass a bylaw to accept it. I am sure of that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We’re talking about legislation that has been debated in this House perhaps a year ago. They don’t adopt it by bylaw. There are sections in that code that cancel out the bylaw-making powers that now are enjoyed by municipalities insofar as requirements for quality of construction are concerned.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, but when I say they are going to have to pass a by-law, I mean they have to appoint the officers who are going to do the inspection. And until they pass the bylaws to enforce your regulations, then of course the legislation is just sitting there. That’s the point I wanted to bring to the minister’s attention.

The other concern I have, I say to the minister -- and indirectly to the fire marshal, who is here today -- deals with the fire inspection of such institutions as Children’s Aid Society premises, provincial court buildings and buildings of that type. I am just wondering if there is a uniform building inspection card or form for three- or four- month checks on the buildings themselves and on equipment such as fire extinguishers. This one sitting back here has been inspected four times since Jan. 1, 1975.

The reason I raise this to the minister is that I have a report here of the grand jury at the regular sittings of the general sessions of the peace at Welland, Ont., Monday, May 12, 1975, on the inspection of the children’s reception centre. One of the recommendations was:

“There should be more fire inspection and an adequate number of the appropriate fire extinguishers. Extinguishers should be checked regularly and the date recorded and posted.”

This is where I suggest that you should have a uniform form for checking inspections. When these inspections are made, you and the fire marshal should get copies of the report. He would be able to see if the orders are being followed out. The report also deals with the courthouse, inspected May 9 and 12, 1975. One of the recommendations was:

“The assumption is that the fire department inspects this building regularly and finds a number of fire extinguishers satisfactory and in good order. Some of the check tags on wall extinguishers show the month and day of the last inspection, but not the year. It is recommended that information pertaining to such inspections be complete, and that periodic training of the appropriate people in the use of extinguishers be carried out on a regular basis.”

I suggest to the minister that they should have a uniform inspection form there to catalogue this data so that his department has a record, the fire marshal has a record, the municipality has a record and perhaps the maintenance supervisor of that particular building would have one.

Now, these are some of the matters that I thought I would bring to your attention. I raised questions last year during the estimates concerning aluminum wiring hazards. Of course, this was referred to the committee last year and there was a reply from the Ontario Hydro. Perhaps I should read this into the record.

I wasn’t too satisfied with the response I got in raising the matter with Hydro last year dealing with the possibility of fire hazards in homes. Ontario Hydro issued a press release saying aluminum wiring hazards were exaggerated. The release said:

“Reports that aluminum wiring used in thousands of Canadian homes could be a fire hazard are exaggerated, according to the special Ontario Hydro team set up to study this matter. J. A. Dicker, Hydro’s manager of electrical inspection, said that although the team will continue its investigations, ‘things aren’t nearly as bad as alleged earlier.’ ‘The combination of poor workmanship and the use of improper wiring devices on aluminum wire increase the possibility of electrical failure,’ he added.

“The team’s investigation revealed several failures involving aluminum wire, but damage was generally confined to the outlet box and no actual fires resulted. ‘The number of reported failures is very small in terms of the number of installations,’ Dicker said.

“The special team was set up after news reports several months ago suggested that aluminum wiring -- which had replaced its more costly counterpart, copper, in most new homes’ circuits -- was turning residences into ‘time bombs’ waiting to go up into smoke.

“‘That just isn’t the case,’ said Dicker. ‘But we recommend strongly that homeowners keep a close eye on the behaviour of electrical systems, whether they have aluminum wiring or any other kind.’

“He said the Hydro team’s interim report indicates a general upgrading of all wiring systems in today’s homes may be desirable. ‘Heavy appliances such as air conditioners are coming into common use today and they can be a strain on the electrical system,’ Dicker added. ‘A general improvement in standards might be a good idea.’

“The team recommended that anyone concerned with electrical installations watch for warning signs.”

Of course, he tells you there is nothing to worry about -- it’s been exaggerated -- and then he goes back on and it tells you here that --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Not many of them.

Mr. Haggerty: He said Hydro’s interim report “indicates a general upgrading of all wiring systems in today’s homes may be desirable.” And then Hydro said the reports were “exaggerated.” The question is: Just how serious is it?

Then Dicker goes on to say what you should do before you go to sleep at night. I am just adding a few comments in here, but don’t go to bed at night until you check out the electrical installation. Hydro says to watch for these warning signs:

“Hot or discoloured plates on switches or receptacles; unusual odours in the vicinity of an electrical outlet; persistent but intermittent flickering of lights for no apparent reason.

“The Hydro team urged homeowners who notice any of these symptoms to consult a qualified electrician or electrical contractor immediately.”

So they say that there is no serious problem here, it has been exaggerated. Then again they warn you to, before going to bed, look for all the signs that you could wake up to a time bomb with fire in the home.

Just how serious is this matter of aluminum electrical wiring in Ontario? Is it safe? How much of a hazard is it? I know of cases in the United States. There is a matter before the Supreme Court in the United States now -- I guess it’s with one of the large aluminum companies in the United States -- where people are trying to get a decision from the court on whether the company is responsible for a number of fires in homes through the aluminum wiring. Just how much of a hazard is this in the Province of Ontario? Should we continue to use aluminum wiring if we have to try to sleep through the night after all those inspections?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor West?

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Yes, if the minister isn’t replying.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am prepared to reply, Mr. Chairman. If you will allow it, I would like to reply to the member for Welland South and then perhaps we can direct our concerns to the member for Windsor West.

With reference to the grand jury reports which the member for Welland South made reference to, those inspections that are done down in that area, which is an area common to both the member and myself, are done by the municipal fire department. The inspection tag you referred to in this building, on an extinguisher behind you, would be done by the Ministry of Government Services right here in Toronto. With the greatest of respect, I would suggest that those grand jury reports relating to fire safety are very important and should surely come to the office of the fire marshal but also go to the municipal fire department involved. In this case it would be, I presume, the city of Welland, certainly for the courthouse, and the Children’s Aid facility I believe out in the Pelham area, Pelham Rd. S. Perhaps that has been done by the officials at the courthouse in Welland. The clerk of the court, assuming it was a county court grand jury clerk, or the local registrar if it was a Supreme Court jury, should send them forward to those fire departments involved.

With reference to the member’s concern about aluminum wiring, we cannot outlaw it. It is technically acceptable. Ontario Hydro has special provisions as to the installation and use of aluminum wiring. There is no evidence from Ontario Hydro or the fire marshal’s office or the insurance industry that aluminum wiring, properly installed, creates any type of safety hazard. The matter has been thoroughly investigated by Ontario Hydro along with the Canadian Standards Association to ensure safety in the use of that particular type of wire. Those are the two observations I wish to offer, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions of the minister just to see if I have it completely straight. The building code which we passed here some time ago contains both the building code for Ontario and the fire code, is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No.

Mr. Bounsall: Is there a separate fire code still to come?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That is correct.

Mr. Bounsall: Then those regulations that you spoke about, which are about to be proclaimed, refer only to the building code?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That is correct.

Mr. Bounsall: How soon might we expect the fire code and the regulations pertaining to that fire code to come forward?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would anticipate that it would be perhaps two years before a fire code similar in principle would come forward as a provincial fire code. I would estimate probably 24 months.

Mr. Bounsall: I regret that, Mr. Minister. There was a hope at one point, and we heard the building code was being delayed in the hopes that the two of them could come in jointly, because they do bear some resemblance to each other or one bears a little bit on the other. I am upset to find that it might be another couple of years.

It was brought to my attention, I think well over a year ago, by a person applying for a licence to operate a pre-school daycare centre, that the regulations pertaining to fire were particularly stringent and some of them, for that particular setting, very unreasonable. She heard, at that time, that there would be a fire code brought in very shortly and perhaps the regulations in that fire code would be such that she wouldn’t have to meet those regulations.

I wrote to the minister about it at that time and certainly some of the requirements for that particular setting were rather unusual. It was unusually stringent requiring signs indicating in writing where the fire exits were in a building which contained only children who couldn’t read and two or three adults who obviously could read and would obviously know where those fire exits were because they were in charge of the programme.

It seemed quite unreasonable that they would have to be in a written, lit-up form for two or three adults only in the programme who would know where the fire exits were. For the other occupants of the programme, all pre-schoolers not able to read, it was rather redundant. There were others. There was some hope that the code and those revised regulations might come in in time so that she might be able to open up her operations next September. I gather the answer to that hope is forlorn in the sense that they’re certainly not coming in at that time and not coming in for a couple of years.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think I should make this distinction, if I may. The creation of a provincial fire code, let’s call it, and the fact there is not one available now would, in no way as I see it, inhibit your constituent’s problem. She would have to have her construction done in conformity with: 1. The National Building Code which presently prevails across Ontario certainly and most of Canada; 2. Special requirements as would be required by the ministry involved. I take it in this case it would be the Ministry of Community and Social Services and/or the Ministry of Education or whichever ministries are involved. They have extremely high requirements surpassing even the National Building Code requirements when it comes to public buildings which are housing youngsters for educational or other purposes.

I would put forward to the member, say we had a provincial fire code ready to go forward today; that fire code would be a basis for use across Ontario. It would obviously have to recognize certain climatic differences and so on as we have in the National Building Code but in addition the individual ministries, I’m sure, would also wish to reserve the right to upgrade that basic requirement when particular or specialized uses of a building are required for a specialized client group.

Mr. Bounsall: If I understand the minister correctly, he is saying that the fire code, when it comes, will be a fairly basic document. It would not be all-encompassing and in terms of daycare centres the appropriate ministry would have its requirements on top of that as it relates to fire and safety.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That is the way I would see it as an individual. I would hate to think -- I just couldn’t visualize it unless you broke it down into sections and this might well be the format. I don’t know, but I would hate to think we would have to have exit lights over every exit including exits in your own home. That’s absolutely ridiculous.

There would be the two ways to go and I would think that probably the individual ministries may well maintain their rigorous requirements in addition to that. If that was not the format it took there would have to be special sections of that fire code dealing with institutions, let’s say, which have to have approval of ministries within this government. There would have to be the specialized requirements of each ministry set out in that code.

Mr. Bounsall: You anticipate this would not be the case?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am having a dialogue with the member and I have given him what I think is the form it would take. I may well be wrong but I certainly can’t visualize a fire code which is going to be applicable to all residential buildings -- high-rise and one-floor residences -- plus having the same requirements for institutions. It just wouldn’t work that way and I’m not suggesting you are suggesting that either. I just point out that I don’t think your constituent has really been inhibited at the present time because of the absence of that particular document.

Mr. Bounsall: It was only implied that if that document came forward there might be a lessening of the problem, or a closer inspection of her type of problem, which must occur more often in Ontario than just in her case, that would cause a review of some of the regulations, which did indeed seem rather unusually stringent and serving no particular purpose, to allow her to open operations outside of that.

But I quite appreciate the minister’s point. You can do it in either of two ways, the basic one that you speak of, to which others are added, or the code itself or the regulations themselves, taking each particular instance that you can think of and expanding on that. But I can see it would go either way.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you. I am just paying tribute to my colleague as being representative of Indians in Ontario.

I want to ask you about two things. One, now that you have disbanded EMO, and I realize that vote has gone, how do you propose that the work it had previously done could be undertaken, as it will undoubtedly have to be undertaken, by the volunteer and professional firefighters in most of the areas where there are emergency conditions that arise from time to time? I will give you an example of what I am saying to you.

A year ago we had extensive flooding in the Hamilton area and down through my riding along Lake Ontario. It would have been impossible for the police or the fire service, whether professional or volunteer, to have undertaken the responsibilities for the work that had to be done, and much of that work was done by the EMO.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Pumping and this sort of thing?

Mr. Deans: Pumping, the preparation of dikes, the getting of the equipment, the co-ordinating of the services of volunteers and professionals and that kind of thing were all done by the EMO, and they did an excellent job. I was a little surprised to find that they were being done away with. On thinking about it, I now realize that that responsibility will have to be undertaken by either the regional police force, and they are not equipped for it, or by the local fire services, and they can’t be looking after diking and pumping and providing fire service to the community at the same time.

Could you tell me what kinds of additional funding or what kinds of provisions you have in mind to shore up the fire services in those areas in order that they can, in fact, meet these additional responsibilities that they no doubt are going to have to undertake?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty obvious that you could not utilize the services of a fire department in a highly urbanized area like Hamilton. You can’t put them on to pumping and shoring up when they should be -- and, in fact, must be -- available for public safety reasons to fight fires.

The provincial position insofar as the EMO is concerned is that we have not prohibited EMO. We have merely withdrawn the EMO programmes. The municipalities are at liberty to continue them with the unconditional grants that are going forward to each municipality this year. If a municipality opted not to carry on an EMO type of operation and if the problem was of a magnitude that it couldn’t be handled by a small group locally, then the ministry concept would have to apply and the ministry of government involved, be it Environment or Natural Resources, would then have to be involved.

I think the member would agree, and certainly he knows better than I, you wouldn’t deploy more than a minimal amount from any fire department into that type of operation.

Mr. Deans: I am kind of concerned about it. I know, for example, that in the city of Hamilton it is entirely possible that they might be able to afford to put two or three or four or 10 people out to do some work. That’s not as much of a concern as is the more rural area, where there is shoreline stretching all the way from Confederation Park to Grimsby that falls within the jurisdiction of the town of Stoney Creek. They are going to have to have some means of dealing with the emergency situations which arise every year, or, if not every year, certainly with amazing regularity and consistency -- every two or three years. They have volunteer firefighting in the community and even less than the city of Hamilton could they afford to deploy people for purposes of flood control or whatever but they are the very people who are going to be charged with the responsibility.

If you go to what you are talking about, the ministry concept, where one ministry will assume responsibility for certain kinds of catastrophes, there is always the problem of how do you identify who to get hold of. How do you get them on the job quickly enough to avert tremendous losses which are incurred as a result of major problems coming up in a very short period of time?

What I’m trying to get at is that I have had fairly regular contact with the operations in the Hamilton area and I know that the local fire departments, the volunteer fire departments, wouldn’t be able to do it. They would try -- there is no question about that -- but the chances are they wouldn’t be able to do both that and fight fires if the two things happened simultaneously.

If they don’t have an emergency operation to turn to, where do they go? Do they have to phone Queen’s Park? Who do they phone? Who does a person get in touch with when they have flood waters in and around their basement door? They don’t have any local people to turn to and they don’t know which ministry is in charge of that particular aspect of the operation. Do they call the local police, for example? Do they then get in touch with someone here who loads a truck with sandbags and trundles it down to the Niagara Peninsula to stop the flood waters from destroying the properties of those people?

It’s a concept, really, that sounds kind of ridiculous.

Mr. Singer: Did you ever try to get in touch with EMO over a weekend?

Mr. Deans: I get them. I have no trouble getting them. I want to say to the member for Downsview, I have no trouble getting EMO over the weekend.

Mr. Singer: I do.

Mr. Deans: I have no trouble at all.

Mr. Singer: I do. I have tried that number frequently. I just can’t reach them.

Mr. Deans: I don’t know about the number. I happen to know who runs the EMO and I can pick up the telephone in the area, phone the man in charge and within a few short minutes I can have a number of volunteers.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That is what is known as being well informed. That’s a well-informed member.

Mr. Deans: I must tell you that I don’t know if they called the local police, for example -- let’s look at the Cambridge area where a number of colleagues of ours come from. In the past two years there have been very serious problems with regard to flooding. I would like to think, from what I have seen and from the work I did in that area during both flooding periods, that the EMO did involve itself extensively in getting people together, making sure there were sufficient volunteers, making equipment available and operating it whenever no one else could; that kind of thing. Who is going to do that? The fire service hasn’t got the capacity for it and the police don’t have it either.

Mr. Singer: EMO didn’t, either.

Mr. Deans: What do we do? Maybe you can tell me how you are planning to operate it and who is going to be responsible for it? Who do we tell people to get in touch with when these things happen?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I felt I made myself clear the other night in this matter; perhaps I haven’t and I apologize to the member if I didn’t make it clear. One would have to identify the --

Mr. Renwick: My colleague was out of town on a speaking engagement.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am sorry. The emergency would have to be identified in terms of extent, type of emergency and so on. If it is small in nature, that’s the end of it; it would be handled locally obviously.

If it was a shoreline type of emergency which required substantial numbers of people -- particularly in your riding on Lake Ontario -- and a mile of shoreline had to be sandbagged, EMO, under its present constitution and makeup, probably couldn’t physically handle that type of job in any event.

But you want to know to where they turn. I would suggest that probably the people in that area, once their anxieties started to grow and they saw the magnitude of the emergency, whatever it might be, would immediately contact their municipal government or the fire department or the police department to find out what they do.

Mr. Deans: What do you do?

Hon. Mr. Clement: They will contact Queen’s Park and will be given assistance very quickly.

Mr. Haggerty: What will they do?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Nobody loads up a truck here with sandbags and takes them down.

Mr. Haggerty: Tell us what you are doing?

Hon. Mr. Clement: You would have to determine the type of emergency that it is. Is it a fire emergency of tremendous magnitude; is it a flooding; is it an acid spill; is it an air crash? The decision would be made here. I don’t wish to indicate that if there is an emergency in the northern Ontario area things are loaded into trucks in Toronto and trundled up to Cochrane or Kirkland Lake or anywhere else. I don’t think the member really suggested, even facetiously, that that happened.

Mr. Deans: No, I don’t think I did.

Hon. Mr. Clement: But that is the format it would take.

I am interested to hear your tributes to the EMO in your area. We heard the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) talk about a very serious situation in his area some years ago. He called the EMO individual in that area, who was at Loblaw’s shopping. This situation, as I understood his remarks, had been developing over a period of hours in terms of almost a tornado. That was the other type of situation.

Mr. Deans: I don’t want to get into the whole EMO thing again. I know I can’t, as the chairman would never allow it.

Mr. Singer: The member for Wentworth has been doing well.

Mr. Deans: Whether the member for Sarnia thinks it does a good job in Sarnia or not is of no consequence to me, I don’t care. I just happen to know what they do where I live.

Let me tell you about a situation and ask you how they respond to it. We had a major flood last year, of significant proportion. It was doing a lot of damage to a lot of properties. If the evaluative process has to be gone through, and if it is anything like the normal evaluative process that is used by government, the damn thing will be over before anybody has moved on it -- that is the normal evaluation, where somebody says: “Oh tell me about it;” then it takes from that point some days hence before anybody ever gets around to doing anything. That worries me.

I can remember looking for sand on the night the floodwaters were going into people’s basements and washing away the footings of houses. The one place I thought we might get it was from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications because they use sand quite extensively and because they have yards in the area. That was the last place to go, let me tell you.

Mr. Haggerty: They wouldn’t help us.

Mr. Deans: That was the last place to go because they couldn’t give it out. They had to get authority from Queen’s Park, damn it, and there was nobody here to give it. That’s what worries me. In the local area there was no one who had the responsibility to pick up the telephone and call the local quarry and say: “I’ll send you out a dump truck. Fill it up and have it delivered to such and such a place because we have an emergency situation.” That’s my problem.

I want to know whether you think it is possible that responsibility can be undertaken by either the fire department or the police department? Don’t put it on the local government because they, too, go home, and they, too, go to Loblaw’s and are not there all the time.

You have to have someone who is going to be there 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, who will be answerable and have the authority to deal with an emergency situation as it arises. He must have full authority, without having to phone Queen’s Park and get the okay and without having to go through the local council to get approval. We had to have an emergency meeting of the local council and I had to go there and demand to be heard in order to get them to buy sandbags.

When I look back on it it is a wonder the whole damn place wasn’t washed away before anybody moved. The EMO people were the only ones I could get to go down right away and begin the process.

Mr. Singer: That’s when EMO still existed.

Mr. Deans: I am really concerned about the situation if you take them away. Maybe they didn’t do a lot, I don’t know. You can evaluate things. If there was no emergency they didn’t do very much, quite obviously; but when the emergency arose they were there. What I want to know is who is it in every local area whom the citizens can call when there is an emergency; and who will be given the authority to do what in order to meet those emergency conditions?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think we can ever consider granting authority to each individual fire department and/or police department to order rock, order bags, order sand and this sort of thing.

Mr. Deans: Why?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Because you have absolutely no financial control on it. What might appear to be an emergency to you in Wentworth, in another part of the province may not be considered a serious matter and could be handled very quickly on a local basis.

Mr. Deans: Now you’ve really put my fears on the right line, I’ll tell you, because that’s what I’m concerned about. That’s exactly what worries me; that some guy sitting at Queen’s Park is going to be charged with the responsibility of determining, by a telephone call, whether or not there is an emergency in some part of the province.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Do you think that will take longer than calling your council meeting?

Mr. Deans: I think it will take longer than giving someone responsibility to proceed under certain kinds of emergency situations, and you don’t have anyone. They call the police and they say: “I’m sorry, we are not responsible for that. We don’t have the authority. Call the fire department.” They call the fire department, which says: “I’m sorry. We don’t have the authority.” “Who do I call then?” “I don’t know. Call your member of the Legislature; maybe he can help you.”

So the call comes back to us and we then have to try to find out who it is that can give the okay to do the work that has to be done. I then go down and I stand up to my backside in water and say: “Yes, this is an emergency.” Then I come back and I phone you in Niagara Falls and say: “John, would you mind getting on the phone to one of your colleagues who is responsible for this or that or something else; and would you mind asking if it’s okay to spend a few bucks to get some sand, to get some bags, to get some whatever it is that we need to do the job.” That’s silly.

Hon. Mr. Clement: How do you suggest it be done?

Mr. Deans: I suggest you’re going to have to decide which of the emergency services is going to have the responsibility and then give it to them; decide which of the emergency services is going to have the responsibility to administer in the event of an emergency. Then you’re going to have to say to them: “We consider you to have sufficient intelligence to be able to go to the site and to determine whether it is an emergency situation and to act accordingly.”

Are you telling me you don’t have enough faith in either the police or the fire departments of these municipalities to go out and make a judgement about an emergency situation? Are you telling me that some guy sitting here in the Queen’s Park offices is more capable of making that decision based on telephone calls? That’s what I’m asking you, because there is nobody who can make the decision. There is no way. You’ve got to have someone who can sit down and say: “Yes, that’s an emergency. Go ahead.”

Hon. Mr. Clement: What you might call an emergency and I might call an emergency might be worlds apart.

Mr. Deans: That doesn’t matter.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right, but I think you’ve got to realize that if some agitated householder calls into a fire department and says: “My God, I’ve got water in my basement. There’s an emergency here. Can you help me?” I would hate to think that the fire department says: “Fine, we’ll go and order some sandbags and we’ll do this and do that.” You have to check these things out, obviously.

Mr. Deans: Of course, and they do.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right. The fire department would check that out or the police would check that out, and if the magnitude of the emergency situation was such that it required more than local assistance -- I'm thinking in terms of flooding or a shoreline problem -- they would immediately contact Queen’s Park.

Mr. Deans: Who? Queen’s Park; the operator downstairs?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, the switchboard here. Ask for the Ministry of the Solicitor General, because we are responsible for all the police forces and all the fire departments. I’m not suggesting for a minute we don’t have faith in the fire departments or the police departments, but neither am I suggesting that we can, by any stretch of the imagination, in effect give every officer on duty at any particular time of the day a blank cheque to pay out funds --

Mr. Deans: I was not asking about that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- for what he might consider an emergency. As soon as we’re advised we’ll check with our people down there and ask: “What is the situation? Describe it to us; what is it?” Then we’ll say: “All right, you go ahead and make the arrangements; get the stuff.”

The trucks won’t go out of Queen’s Park with the sandbags. The sandbags will be acquired in that area right away. We’ve got agencies from one side of this province to the other and from month to month, by virtue of the nature of the ministry, in that police and fire departments are under the one ministry.

Mr. Deans: I understand. I mean you and I might look at something and one might consider it an emergency and the other might not. I’ve done this kind of work, as you may have done it too.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I haven’t.

Mr. Deans: Well I’ve done it, okay? I've earned a living at it. I want to tell you that the people who do these jobs are not stupid. They know the difference between something they can handle locally and something that requires assistance. The people who are in charge of the various departments, whether it be the police department or the fire department, in most municipalities are quite capable of determining whether or not they can handle the thing and get it done with their own force.

They don’t want your help unless they absolutely have to have it. But they also don’t want to be put in the position where, if it’s a small flooding situation, they begin to handle it themselves and then they find that it gets worse -- the storm which was supposed to abate at 2 in the morning gets worse at 1:30 and the situation they were faced with, which looked like being under control, is completely out of control -- they then have to start the whole process of telephoning the Ministry of the Solicitor General and asking: “Who do I talk to about getting some help?” Then they wait until somebody, somewhere, who is at Loblaws, gets home, phones back and says: “What’s the problem?” Or the person is on vacation or is away for the weekend -- for some reason or other these things don’t seem to happen in the middle of the day when offices are staffed. I don’t know why but they always seem to be at their worst in the middle of the night and on the weekends when there is nobody available.

I am telling you you have to have faith in those people. These people fight major fires. They conduct major investigations into crimes. They arrest people. They put them in jail, for heaven’s sake, but you won’t trust their judgement on whether something is an emergency or whether it isn’t.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am not saying that at all; but can the member just visualize the problem? Let’s say you have a sandpit and I walk in and say, “I am from the Wentworth fire department;” or “I am from the Wentworth police department and I want you to load up my trucks with sand.” Do you know what you are going to say? “Fine; where’s your money?” I say, “Well, I have blanket authority from Queen’s Park to do that and you send the bill to Queen’s Park.” The guy is going to say, “Fine, when I get the money, you get the sand.”

That is where the problem lies. It is not a matter of who you have to do it at local level. It isn’t a matter of my saying the police or the firemen don’t have this jurisdiction or discretion.

Mr. Deans: They don’t.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Listen, there’s no magic to it. You have to have someone clothed with the authority so that the person who supplies the sand knows exactly what the situation is.

Mr. Deans: Do you think for one minute that if some guy running a quarry gets a telephone call and the person at the other end says, “This is John Clement from the Ministry of Solicitor General and I am sending a truck down for sand. Send the bill to Queen’s Park;” -- do you think he is more likely to send it out under those conditions? Do you?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think so.

Mr. Deans: You are out of your mind.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have a good credit rating in Hamilton but I couldn’t get the same in Niagara Falls. Seriously, your problem is in talking in terms of major emergencies.

Mr. Deans: I am talking about that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right. There aren’t that many major emergencies and I hope there are never any more. We share that common ground. A major emergency isn’t something that just comes in and goes away, usually. It develops like your flooding situation. The storm did not abate. All right, it isn’t so localized that we won’t know about it even by listening to the news, in terms of hearing about it.

There has to be some chain of communication, communicating that situation to someone; and it always starts at the local level. Surely your fire and police services, when they see the magnitude of it, are going to say, “We cannot handle this.” Even if you had an EMO there, it might not be able to cope with it because of the sheer magnitude of the problem.

Mr. Deans: It might not.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right. What would you do if EMO was still in existence, for example?

Mr. Deans: I’ll tell you.

Hon. Mr. Clement: What would you do?

Mr. Deans: I will tell you what to do.

Hon. Mr. Clement: You would have someone from EMO make contact with the Ministry of the Solicitor General saying, “Look, here is the situation.”

Mr. Deans: I want to tell you the difference between what you are doing and what you once had. You are talking about people whose primary function is other than in emergency situations of that kind -- normally they are in the prevention of crime or they are fighting fires -- they don’t have a great long list of volunteer people they know who will come out at a moment’s notice in the middle of the night and do the work. That was the one thing the EMO were able to do. They were able to co-ordinate those people who had a great deal of civic pride and who had a great sense of their responsibility to other people; they were able to mobilize them very quickly to get work done. There is a volunteer radio operation, too -- I forget just what it is called at the moment.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Ham operators?

Mr. Deans: Yes, it’s a ham operation but I forget exactly -- there is a mobile radio operation in the Hamilton area at least. The EMO co-ordinated with them and with other volunteers throughout the area, and they were able to go out and help so that in a major emergency situation they were able to do it.

They did, in fact, act as the catalyst. The person in charge went down, looked at the situation and from that point on they were in charge; they went ahead and they made whatever arrangements had to be made.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, the whole thing is out of order.

Mr. Deans: What I am asking you is, who is now going to do that because there is nobody else who has been given the responsibility for it.

Let me turn to something else anyway, since the member for Downsview is a little upset that I am raising this again.

Mr. Singer: No, I am not upset.

Mr. Deans: Important though it is -- it may not be important in Downsview, but it is important in Wentworth.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on! On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deans: Let me just turn to another matter --

Mr. Singer: The EMO vote was carried two days ago; surely this is out of order, whether I think it’s important or not.

Mr. Deans: Oh, I see. Okay. Now let me talk to you about something else, as the member for Downsview is exercised a bit.

Mr. Singer: When you make stupid remarks I get exercised.

Mr. Deans: I learned most of what I say from you.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Singer: The smart things, yes.

Mr. Deans: That’s why they are not stupid remarks.

Mr. Singer: All right. I will run a course for you again in an hour.

Mr. Deans: Okay. Now, let me carry on for a moment. You know that I have been concerned about the lack of sprinkler systems in buildings, particularly in apartment buildings but also in other public buildings or buildings that could be considered to be public buildings.

Has the Ministry of the Solicitor General reviewed the propositions put forward by a number of fire administrations asking that there be mandatory sprinkler systems in buildings over three or four storeys high -- depending who you listen to and who you read about -- to try to make sure there aren’t repeats of the kinds of fires that have occurred in a number of high-rise buildings here and in other parts of the world?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I believe you introduced a private bill, perhaps a year ago, with reference to making sprinkler systems mandatory in buildings in excess of 45 ft.

With regard to the type of construction that is mandatory today in high-rise buildings, the information I have is that most of the fires that occur in high buildings are indeed contained in a particular floor. There is very little transfer of the flame itself from say, the 19th floor to the 20th floor or the 19th floor to the 18th floor; rather, it is contained in the floor where the fire started.

There is concern about smoke, as I understand it. You know more about this than I do, but I guess smoke kills more people in a year than flames do. The mandatory installation of sprinklers in a building would not alleviate the dangerous situation created by the smoke --

Mr. Haggerty: Where there is smoke there is fire. If you have sprinklers in a building, they’ll work.

Hon. Mr. Clement: As I understand it, installing sprinkler systems as a mandatory requirement in high buildings is economically not feasible. This is the situation as I understand it. I am quite willing to hear the hon. member’s observations on it. I have not read his bill, but I understand his interest in this particular matter.

Mr. Deans: If you tell me that you can’t afford to do it, I don’t suppose there is much more I can say about it. If we are going to make the determination as to the safety of people on the basis of whether or not someone building a building can afford to put in a sprinkler system, then I guess that’s the measure of the government’s commitment toward the saving of lives.

It’s true to say, as you did, that the new type of construction, generally speaking, does keep fire contained within the area in which it started. In fact, it is even more true to say that most of the fire can be contained right within the unit, never mind within the floor. You are right when you say the majority of people don’t burn to death; the majority of people die from a variety of different causes associated with heat or smoke -- not being able to see, fear, etc. -- but generally speaking they don’t burn to death. I don’t know of anybody who has burned to death, although there may have been some who have.

What bothers me is that if the sprinklers or the heat actuators are working properly, they will identify the area in which the fire is located very quickly. They make it that much easier for firefighters to get to the scene of the fire because they are not caught up in the hunt through the smoke -- and they have as much difficulty getting through the smoke as do other people -- they are able to get right to the scene of the fire much more quickly and thereby cut down on the problems that confront people who are either on that floor or who are on floors above. Because of the ventilation systems in the new buildings, the smoke is carried right through the entire building in a lot of cases; and that is where the problems arise.

In some buildings baffles are put into the ventilating systems and there are electronic eyes that close the baffles, and keep the smoke from pouring out, but that is true in only the newer buildings. In the older buildings, or in many of the buildings that are currently being built, those safety features aren’t there.

I am not going to do it today, but I could show you any number of cases where, had there been sprinkler systems, not only would there have been a saving of life, which is very important, but there would have been a saving of property and thereby a saving in insurance costs and thereby a saving to us, the public. I think that is what has to be measured. I can’t remember what the cost of sprinklering a building is. I think it’s about five per cent perhaps or maybe not that high. Maybe it’s only two per cent of the actual building cost itself.

Mr. Haggerty: You’ve got to put in stand-pipes.

Mr. Deans: I don’t recall the exact figure right now because I hadn’t intended to speak on it. As to saying we can’t afford it, all you need is for one building to have a major fire, with the cost of reconstruction and the insurance costs that are levied against those people and all other people in a similar class, then very quickly you find that if the buildings had been properly sprinklered, you wouldn’t be running up these additional costs to everyone.

You can rationalize almost anything. What’s one life worth? I don’t know. I guess if it were me and I was the one that was dying it would be worth a lot, and I wouldn’t mind seeing them pay the additional cost. They can pay all kinds of costs for fancy glass. They can pay all kinds of costs for beautiful foyers. They can put in all kinds of waterfalls and nice fronts to the buildings, but they can’t put in something that will save money in the long run and perhaps save lives and perhaps save property.

I just don’t understand that kind of thinking. It would seem to me in a modern society you don’t run these kinds of risks where there are alternative measures available. And there are.

In downtown Toronto, let me tell you, if they had a fire in the higher reaches of most of the downtown office buildings or in many of the high-rise apartments, they don’t have a firefighting facility in Metro or a piece of firefighting apparatus that could reach to the top.

That is one of the difficulties and that is true of almost every municipality. They build bigger, higher and maybe not as well-built buildings all over the Province of Ontario and the majority of fire departments don’t have the apparatus that would allow the firefighter to get up high enough in order to do a job in fighting the fire in the first place. That is where the sprinkler system is important.

You should re-evaluate it because I don’t think on balance that if you had such a programme, given the numbers of buildings that are built in any year and given all the extravagant features that are built into buildings, the cost of providing fire safety measures -- sprinkler systems in this case -- would be out of line with the overall costs of building in this area or any other area.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member doesn’t think that I feel his suggested bill or his views on mandatory installation of sprinkler systems are ridiculous. I think it is a very valid submission.

I do point out that cost is one of the factors that obviously has to be considered. I would also like to point out that the building requirements now for highrise buildings do contain very special requirements insofar as the construction of the building is concerned. There must be emergency power and all this sort of thing. There must be two-hour fire-resistant separation in the floor and stair construction and so on.

The point I am trying to make is that it seems to be the impression that occupants of highrise buildings are under some particular type of danger by virtue of their living or working in such a building and that little is being done to protect these people from the dangers of fire. I point out what the requirements are, that they are very stringent requirements for highrise buildings, and I am advised it has not been demonstrated that the installation of a sprinkler system really substantially improves the risk factor insofar as the occupants are concerned.

The office of the fire marshal, the National Research Council of Canada and I think six of the Metropolitan Toronto fire departments have just completed a two-year study on fires in highrise buildings. The computer analysis won’t be available until this fall -- that is, the statistics from the complete study -- but some of these statistics are available at present, and I think since the member has indicated some interest in this he would be interested to hear some of them.

In the Metro area, over the study period, there were 2,490 calls from tall-building fires, predominantly apartment buildings, and of this total -- roughly 2,500 -- 438 involved fires in suites and 957 involved fires in other parts of the building. During this same reporting period, six persons died, all in the suites of fire origin. Of the 73 persons injured in that same number of fires, 42 were occupants of the suites of fire origin, one happened to occupy another suite, and the balance were non-residents or their status was not reported. Apartment buildings accounted for a total of 66 injuries. I just point these matters out.

We must also have some rationale in our own mind as to what we mean by highrise or tall buildings. The National Building Code defines tall buildings as those where the height from grade to the floor level of the top storey exceeds 120 ft for non-residential and 60 ft for residential. So we’re talking in terms of the study being reflective of those types of buildings.

I’m certainly aware, and so is the ministry and particularly the fire marshal, of the seriousness of fires in these types of buildings. We have seen some bad situations in the past year or two; the terrific hotel fire in Seoul, Korea, and one somewhere else in the world -- I think South America -- where people were jumping out of upper floors. An interesting commentary that I have read as a result of those fires is that the quality of construction of those buildings was tremendously inferior to what we require here in Ontario and, in many instances, the quality of the electrical installations was terribly inferior, which possibly accounts for the building just becoming an inferno in a very short period of time.

I don’t say cost is the only factor, but I think that if one was going to make sprinkler systems mandatory, considering the subsequent high cost of the installation, one would have to point to very valid statistics or experiences in other jurisdictions to show a saving in lives and a saving in terms of injuries. If one could only show that the real saving was only that of a property loss and not a saving in personal lives or injury, I don’t think you could really rationalize the justification for making it mandatory.

Mr. Deans: Yes, okay. I think it’s easier to make the argument if you’re talking about the saving of lives, but the fact is that the property is very expensive, insurance costs are very high and there --

Hon. Mr. Clement: That option is always open to the owner to install sprinklers.

Mr. Deans: You have to understand that it is not always open, because the costs borne by the municipality in providing the kind of training and apparatus that has to be available is high too. You’ve got to try to protect those people as well as the people who live or work in the building.

There are two fires that you should look at if you’re looking. There was one in New York City not so very long ago. There was a very nice film on it; if you want to see it, someday we’ll show it to you just for your own interest, or you may have seen it. The construction there may not be up to the standards of Metropolitan Toronto, but it’s not that much different from the construction standards in a number of parts of the province. There is another one -- I don’t know if you saw a movie in which there was a fire and an office party going on at the same time. It was actually a popular movie but I forget what it was called at the moment -- take a look at it some time.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): “Towering Inferno.”

Mr. Deans: It’s the panic which sets in when these things happen that causes the problem. Frankly, I think if they can afford to develop lavish, luxurious buildings and if there is a safety feature which can be put in which will save anyone’s life or will cut down on the overall cost it should be a part of the development process. If you did that, after a while the cost would be built in and it wouldn’t make any difference.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of comments on this vote. First of all, I would like to pay tribute perhaps to the retired fire marshall -- if I am correct -- Mr. Hurst, for the years of service he gave to this office. I think it’s been a low-profile office. Correct me if I am wrong -- I believe he has retired and at the moment I cannot recall his successor although he and I have had correspondence recently.

I think Mr. Hurst obviously has conducted this office over the years with a great deal of ability considering the problems, the same questions, that the fire marshal’s office has encountered in the Province of Quebec over the years and perhaps in other jurisdictions as well.

My specific question with respect to the office of fire marshal is one I have tried to follow up on other occasions. It comes simply from the usual last paragraph under the fire investigation services portion of the report. Of course, we have only the 1973 and the 1972 reports because we don’t have the 1974 one. The 1972 report states that of the 1,600 suspicious fires investigated in 1972, 1,004 were found to be of incendiary origin; 239 were accidental, and 357 were of undetermined cause. Criminal charges laid in 1972 totalled 495. The corresponding paragraph in the 1973 report is that of the 1,419 suspicious fires investigated in 1973, 875 were found to be of incendiary origin; 137 were accidental, and 407 were of undetermined cause. Criminal charges laid in 1973 totalled 433.

I have three specific questions for the Solicitor General.

What is the corresponding paragraph which will appear in his report -- that is, the 1974 report -- with respect to that problem? That’s my first question.

My second question is -- with respect to the criminal charges which were laid -- which is the only information conveyed in the Solicitor General’s report dealing with this problem -- how many resulted in convictions? How many resulted in acquittals? How many charges were not proceeded with? That is my second question.

My third question relates to my concern as to whether or not there is any pattern in those fires which were found to be of an incendiary origin, which would suggest that there is anything related to a syndicated or organized pattern to the fires -- which may be classified as resulting from the crime of arson -- to suggest there is any syndicate or group or groups which are involved in some kind of an incendiary fire operation for the usual purposes of either collecting insurance or for destroying evidence in other cases?

I would perhaps add an auxiliary question to that third question: Can we say that, along with the fire insurance companies which carry the risks on a number of these buildings, the fire marshal’s office, through the fire investigations services, is adequately dealing with and has the adequate staff to deal with the investigation of fires which are of suspicious origin, not only for the purpose of the initial investigation, but for the ability to follow through in the investigation and bring them to completion? In the two paragraphs I quoted and, of course, in the paragraph from the 1974 report, a substantial number of those fires are finally found to be of undetermined origin.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, the fire marshal’s office, of course, does not investigate every fire; it’s only when they are either called in or, by their own initiative, embark on an investigation.

Mr. Renwick: I am speaking only of what the report says -- those fires.

Hon. Mr. Clement: In 1974, the fire marshal’s office investigated 1,817 fires.

Mr. Renwick: Would this be suspicious fires?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Of incendiary origin. I will give you the breakdown --

Mr. Singer: Name a fire that isn’t of incendiary origin.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to prolong this argument, and I want to be sure that we’re talking about the same thing. I quoted two paragraphs; one from the 1972 report and one from the 1973 report. I would like the Solicitor General to couch his reply in the words of that report, which commenced, “Of the 1,419 suspicious fires investigated in ...” That’s the kind of language that I would like to know so that we can make some comparison.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right. I mentioned there were 1,817 investigations. Talking in terms of the member for Riverdale’s requirements, there were 1,534 suspicious fires investigated in 1974. Of these, 999 were found to be of incendiary origin, 116 were accidental, and 419 were of undetermined cause. Criminal charges laid last year totalled 441.

Now, your second question was to the number of convictions, the number of acquittals, the number withdrawn, and so on. I cannot provide you with those figures right now. I will be able, as this year proceeds, to give you a complete tally on it. Some of them are still pending. The 1974 list of charges have not yet been completed. I don’t have that information, but there would be no difficulty in obtaining it.

We have no evidence whatsoever at this stage that there is any organized group moving throughout the province and, presumably for a price, setting structures on fire or causing fires. I’m saying, therefore, that we have no evidence of this. We don’t have any suspicions of this yet -- but we watch for this. There are other jurisdictions which have had this type of problem. We’ve read in publications about arsonists for hire.

Insofar as whether more staff is required for the investigative side of the fire marshal’s office -- yes, I think we are going to need two or three more people in the not-too-distant future. The investigations last year increased over the previous year by almost 11 per cent.

I am advised by the fire marshal that he is able to cope at the present time, but as more buildings are created -- if the statistics keep increasing -- we’re going to need some more staff in that particular side of the responsibility of the fire marshal.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I just have one further question. Would the Solicitor General consider in the reports for 1974 -- if that’s appropriate, or in subsequent reports -- dealing with this question of criminal charges using the figures, say for 1972, showing how many cases were instituted --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Good point.

Mr. Renwick: -- how many convictions were registered, how many acquittals, how many cases were withdrawn, how many are still pending before the courts? In that way we can relate from one year to the next year what has happened with those cases. Assuming you can readily get those statistics through the fire marshal’s office and so on, it may well be that that kind of information may be of further assistance on this next question of whether or not any pattern is developing with respect to fires which have resulted in these charges being laid.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think that’s a reasonable request. I can see some value in having that information before the members and, as you have indicated, even the ones that are undisposed of can just be shown as pending.

Mr. Renwick: And they would be picked up afterwards.

Hon. Mr. Clement: They would be picked up the following year.

Mr. Singer: Perhaps it might even come before the members before the estimates.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Riverdale have further questions? Any other hon. member?

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just want to follow along the thoughts that the member for Wentworth discussed with the minister concerning sprinklers for highrise buildings. I was a little bit alarmed at the minister’s reply that the cost was too much. That could leave an impression throughout the Province of Ontario --

Hon. Mr. Clement: I must rise. I didn’t say that. I said it’s a very important factor to be looked into. That is not the sole reason, and I hoped I made that clear. I will repeat it for the member, if he wants me to.

Mr. Haggerty: Well, you indicated that the cost involved was too high. Check Hansard. I am sure it’s there.

The point I wanted to raise with the minister is that there are municipalities that have passed bylaws now saying that any building above four or five floors must have sprinklers. I hope your answers to the member for Wentworth wouldn’t leave the impression you will overrule any municipal bylaw. I am well aware of some of the bylaws in the city of Toronto where they do have sprinklers in highrise buildings, particularly in the lower levels, in the garages for cars and perhaps where the boiler room is located.

I suppose one could continue with the thoughts of the member for Wentworth and say the minister should take into consideration that many of these highrises have restaurants built into them -- maybe up on the 10th or 12th floor -- which are a potential fire hazard with the kitchen facilities and the open fires and flames in a building. I suggest that perhaps you reconsider your approach and say that sprinklers should be in there.

The matter of lowering the insurance rates has been mentioned, too. For those tenants living in an apartment building, insurance rates would be much less and they would have that additional protection. I think the sprinkler system is a good system in fire prevention. It does get at the source of the fire at the first stage when fire breaks out.

Often I suppose if they get into a highrise building where the elevators aren’t working, it is quite a chore for firemen to be carrying equipment up on to the 10th, 12th or 15th floor. The problem is that they have to climb flights of stairs. There are standpipes with hose connections up there, but still the sprinkler system would perhaps reduce the fire potential or fire breakout in a building and would control it from spreading.

I think in your remarks you did indicate that the cost was rather high and that you wouldn’t go along with that cost. It was going to hurt the developer’s pocketbook. I think the most important thing is can you save a life by having a sprinkler system there?

The other matter on which I want to get the minister’s feeling is a Good Samaritan Act. He is well aware that the fire departments in the Province of Ontario have well-qualified persons. There are the members of St. John Ambulance emergency services and the Red Cross. I am sure he is aware that the police department, as indicated by this letter that I have before me here, will no longer provide medical treatment along the highways for any accident.

What is your feeling about the government bringing in a Good Samaritan Act so that those persons providing emergency first aid treatment will not be subject to the courts? There could be a lawsuit. There could be court cases or charges against them. Have you given any consideration to bringing in a Good Samaritan Act? It’s a matter of concern to the firemen that they’re the first to be called in any emergency, and who knows what they’re going to have to provide in emergency treatment.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Let us start with the highrise. I want to make the facts perfectly clear, if I am capable of doing it. The information we have is that in those areas where sprinklers are required, statistics do not indicate any substantial saving in terms of human life, or in terms of injuries suffered by people. There may be some saving, but not substantial saving in terms of property damage. Sprinkler systems do not significantly save lives.

I am not knocking them. I think it’s great if a person wants to put them in. But you have to look at the statistics. I think your colleague from Wentworth agreed with me that most of the damage, in terms of injuries and in fact deaths caused by fires, was caused by smoke inhalation. I realize the shorter the duration of the fire, the less smoke.

Mr. Haggerty: Less smoke. That’s where a sprinkler would come in.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right. I can’t argue that. That speaks for itself. But in those areas where sprinkler systems are, in fact, mandatory, the statistics don’t really vary significantly from what we have here.

Mr. Haggerty: How many fires have been in those buildings? If you’re going to use statistics, how many?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Do you want me to go through it again and review the number of fires that were examined over a period of a few years by Metro? I just went through this. Were you not in the House?

Mr. Haggerty: I was in the House. But you can take statistics and move them about to suit your own viewpoint.

Hon. Mr. Clement: If you are talking in terms of fires in tall buildings, I thought I had covered that. I want to make it clear, as you tried to put words in my mouth, that I am not saying I am concerned about developers.

Mr. Haggerty: I would never do that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am concerned about everybody, because I'm also concerned about people living in those buildings. I know you are too. If it is not going to affect any significant saving of lives or reduction of injuries in fires, there’s no point in making it mandatory. The approach has seemed to be, in a number of provinces in this country, to beef up the requirements as to the type of construction, so that if a fire is created, it is somewhat compartmentalized in that portion of the building where the fire originated.

Oddly enough, in those statistics I just read covering the period studied by the Metropolitan Toronto Police department and the National Fire Code people, there were six deaths. All were in the suite where the fire originated. There are two approaches to this, perhaps even more. I want to make that point clear.

Mr. Haggerty: They were probably dead before --

Hon. Mr. Clement: With reference to the Good Samaritan Act, to our knowledge there have been absolutely no actions brought against any fireman for alleged damages suffered by people who, in fact, have been treated by firemen. I think it’s recognized that firemen are trained in the application of first aid. They would be expected to maintain the standards a qualified first aid person would have to achieve.

You indicated the firemen are concerned. I would ask them to write to me and express their concern. I have heard of no concerns. I am not aware of any. I don’t know why we should single out any particular group who, in the course of their duties, should be completely absolved of malpractice by statute. I think that would be giving a particular group a blanket exemption. There may be a fireman who, in fact, was negligent in the way he treated someone. If he was negligent, I think that victim of his negligence should be entitled to recover. That victim is entitled to expect to be looked after insofar as first aid is concerned, certainly up to the standard required of someone possessing that level of qualification.

I don’t think we should ever absolve them because they happen to be firemen, any more than I think any court official should be absolved of liability if he, in fact, is negligent, or acts in bad faith toward the client group he serves.

Mr. Haggerty: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I should read the letter to the minister. It is addressed to Mr. Ellis Morningstar, MPP, Welland, with a copy sent to myself. It says:

“At the time we were advised by George A. Kerr, Provincial Secretary for Justice, that there was no need for such a bill. It has recently come to our attention that the regional police no longer are trained in, or will use first aid at the scene of an accident. Also, doctors have been known to have passed by the scenes of accidents and failed to give first aid to the injured persons.

“We, as active firefighters engaged in rescue operations, would strongly urge that some form of protection be considered for those of us who are called to accidents. We could presently be held liable for damages for injuries to, or the death of persons, alleged to have been caused by an act or omission on our part in rendering the first aid assistance.

“We trust that you will look into this matter once again and advise us what action we should take.

“Sincerely yours,

“Niagara District Fire Fighters’ Association,

“Don Johnston, Secretary.”

Of course, this is from the Niagara District Fire Fighters’ Association, but I am sure the Ontario Federation of Fire Fighters also have endorsed this particular resolution from the association asking that a Good Samaritan Act be passed.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Pardon me. Did you say that was from the firefighters? Johnston is the president of the regional police association, isn’t he?

Mr. Haggerty: No, this is Don Johnston, secretary.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Of what group?

Mr. Haggerty: That would be the Fonthill Fire Department.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, the Fonthill. All right.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes.

Mr. Singer: That Johnston, you know.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes; secretary, the Niagara District Fire Fighters’ Association, 29 Canboro Rd. E., Fonthill, Ont.

The firefighters in the Province of Ontario are concerned about this particular matter. They would like to see some legislation. The ambulance drivers, I think, have some protection there. They are protected by a law stating they would not be liable for any personal injury or possibility of mistreatment, or for that matter, even for first aid treatment.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Does that letter say the police are refusing to give first aid at the scene of an accident?

Mr. Haggerty: I will read it again:

“It has recently come to our attention that the regional police no longer are trained in, or will use first aid at the scene of an accident.”

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would like to look into that. I would feel they may well be under a statutory duty to apply first aid, if, in fact, they are qualified to do so.

Mr. Haggerty: The letter is Feb. 13, 1975.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will look into that, because if an officer is trained in first aid and he refuses to apply it because he thinks he is going to be subjected to a civil suit, I suggest he may well be in breach of his statutory obligation to assist. It’s different when it comes to the civilian doctor driving down the road. He can make the decision as to whether he is going to volunteer his services or not.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, that is too facile a dismissal of a very important theory.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I want to look into this.

Mr. Singer: The theory was put forward some time ago. It was first put forward to Arthur Wishart when he was the Attorney General. It was put forward in 1965 by me, in fact, and we had a draft bill about that time. Some very good articles have been written about a Good Samaritan Act by Prof. Linden at Osgoode Hall. It’s a matter that many legal thinkers -- perhaps I will wait for the Attorney General to come back, or the Solicitor General, or whatever he is.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member for Downsview give the member for Lambton the floor for a few moments, please?

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the member for Downsview would want to join me in welcoming a group of youngsters of grade 8 from Brooke-Alvinton Central School in Lambton County.

Mr. Singer: If the Attorney General wants to have a discussion, I will draw the chairman’s attention to the fact there isn’t a quorum. While the quorum bells ring, perhaps the Attorney General will have more to discuss.

Clerk of the House: There isn’t a quorum, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman ordered the bells be rung for four minutes.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, I see a quorum.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Downsview have any further remarks?

Mr. Singer: You don’t have to get rid of me, I have been sitting here all afternoon.

I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that this idea of a Good Samaritan bill has been put forward for a long time.

Mr. Stokes: You just said that.

Mr. Singer: I said that when there wasn’t a quorum and the Attorney General wasn’t in his seat. In case anyone missed it, I will repeat it.

Prof. Allan Linden of Osgoode Hall has had this in his mind for a long time. He has written some learned articles about it, and there is a very good case to be made. There are examples of this kind of legislation in some jurisdictions in the United States. We have gone some distance to provide compensation for victims of crime. Our legal aid bill is along the same lines. These are some steps we have taken to take care of people who get into a situation where they can’t otherwise be protected. There is nothing new in the principle.

I would like the acting Solicitor General and/or Provincial Secretary for Justice and/or Attorney General to think about this thing and perhaps talk to Arthur Wishart about it. I thought we almost had him convinced at one time.

An hon. member: All three could have a meeting.

Mr. Singer: Yes, and perhaps let us see a bill. My colleague from Welland has a private member’s bill, I think, before the House right now. It is a good bill. Maybe you could take it in that form or take it in your own form but it would be a step forward for the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to reply?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would just like to point out that I am not aware of any claims directed toward firefighters or people who allege they have been the victims of negligence. Therefore a Good Samaritan bill with reference to firefighters, as I see it at this time, would be legislation to fill no need.

If we in turn start to find in this jurisdiction that people are being subjected to suits of this nature, as unfortunately has happened in many jurisdictions to the south of us we could take another look. The situation is now reaching monumental proportions in the state of California insofar as the medical profession is concerned. I read the other day that the insurance premium for a surgeon there is about $22,000 per year.

Mr. Singer: That’s not what we are talking about.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right, you are talking about a Good Samaritan bill with reference to firefighters.

Mr. Singer: No, with reference to anybody who is a Good Samaritan.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am talking about the item about firefighters. If the member is talking about it in general terms I am not in a position to comment on it at present. But with reference to firefighters, to our knowledge there have been no actions brought. I think if I introduce such a bill the member for Downsview would ask if there is a need for it. If I said, “No, but we want to have it here,” then he might be the first to chide me.

Mr. Singer: I would be opposed to a bill that just refers to the firefighters.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring to your attention and to the attention of the hon. members of this Legislature that we have in the east gallery 33 students from the township of Orford, Highgate, Ont., and their teacher in charge, Mr. Aronson. They are here to watch the proceedings of this Legislature and I ask you to join with me to extend to them a very hearty welcome.

Mr. Haggerty: In response to the minister’s remarks, he has indicated there is no need for it at present. Perhaps there isn’t a need but suppose there is a court case. Do you want every fireman in the Province of Ontario to sit back and say, “Look, I will not assist any person to give emergency medical treatment”?

You don’t want that to happen, I am sure, but there have been cases in the Province of Ontario, from the information I have, when even nurses would not stop along the highway in cases of accident. In many cases firemen are called out to the scene. If there is a possibility of a lawsuit against the fireman for administering first aid, he is going to think twice about administering it.

Not too many doctors will go out travelling on a highway today or will attend an emergency call in a fire, as far as that goes, for someone who needs medical treatment. It is administered first by a volunteer fireman who is qualified to give first aid treatment. The public depends upon that person to provide medical treatment at the first stage until the person can be removed to the hospital. But if there is a possibility that person could be charged in courts, then I think I would sooner have a bill saying to the firemen, those persons who are giving first aid treatment at the scene of an accident, that they have protection. Don’t wait until after it happens; prevent it now by bringing in a bill.

An hon. member: Does insurance come into the bill?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t wish to debate the Good Samaritan Act. I am aware of its existence in terms of its having been introduced by the hon. member. I’ll just say this. There is no need. I would like to see some statistics as to how many times in the Province of Ontario people have, in fact, passed by.

Mr. Haggerty: How can you tell?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The difference between the fireman and the doctor, who is a private citizen, perhaps is one of statutory duty on the part of the fireman, certainly while on duty. We could debate this forever.

During the break for the quorum, I inquired of my officials the reference to the Niagara Regional Police. For your information, all OPP are trained in first aid. Everybody who goes to the police college in Aylmer is trained in first aid. All Niagara Regional Police are compelled to go to Aylmer.

Mr. Haggerty: Do they carry their St John Ambulance badge?

Hon. Mr. Clement: They are trained in the St. John style by St. John Ambulance people.

The letter Mr. Johnston wrote causes me some concern. It says, as I recall, that they are no longer being trained in it. I question that. That’s why I spoke to my officials. I also question that if a policeman came upon a scene and he was trained in first aid, and first aid was required, he would decline on the basis he might be subject to a lawsuit. He would be subject to a lot more than that if he didn’t apply first aid and someone suffered more injuries or, in fact, died.

Mr. Chairman: Any further remarks from the member for Welland South?

The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I want to go back to something that was raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Nickel Belt, about fire-fighting capability in unorganized municipalities. He presented the case well. I am not going to go back over any ground that he has covered.

I want to ask the Solicitor General if he would consider taking on a role of co-ordinating a service that is already in many areas in northern Ontario. I am not competent to speak about places in southern Ontario or eastern Ontario. I would like to comment briefly on an area I do know quite well -- the many areas in northern Ontario where the Ministry of Natural Resources has a fire-fighting capability. They have Wajax pumps. They also have thousands of feet of hose on standby to take care of forest fires, and to protect municipalities that may be seriously in danger as a result of a forest fire. The capability is there. The equipment is there. It’s a question of co-ordinating.

I am asking, will you undertake with people within your ministry to allow a small committee, and we have them in two or three areas, that will be responsible for co-ordinating the efforts, local versus the Ministry of Natural Resources, to utilize equipment that is already there? We were able to do this in one or two areas with the kind co-operation of certain personnel within the Ministry of Natural Resources. It doesn’t hold true in most areas. It has worked well in those specific areas.

I think it is worthwhile pursuing further so that you will make full use of ministry personnel who are already on the scene, on a continuing basis. The equipment is there. It’s just a question of co-ordinating it, and finding somebody in the municipality who will be responsible for keeping that equipment in good order, so that it will be ready to go whenever it is needed.

It is not a question of expending a large number of dollars. You mentioned in response to questions put to you by my colleague from Nickel Belt that the cost would simply be prohibitive to go to every small hamlet or settlement in northern Ontario and say, “Yes, we are going to provide assistance for a competent firefighting force.” But there are many areas where it is already there. It’s just a question of co-ordinating it through the Ministry of Natural Resources, and responsible people right on the scene. The equipment is there; will you undertake to do that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I can’t see any great difficulty in that. I think it’s probably -- I shouldn’t say probably -- it sounds to me it would be a very logical approach perhaps to looking after a problem which exists and concerns the member.

The point I would like to make is this and I would add this word of caution. Should such a programme be developed, I wouldn’t want the people in those areas to rely unduly on the quality of service they might expect. The people in Natural Resources are trained and trained well, of course, in fighting forest fires and that type of thing but are not necessarily trained in fighting fires within structures.

It may well be the subject of proper discussion between the fire marshall and the people in Natural Resources as to -- I am not going to say upgrading -- adding to the training they already ready have, if they were called upon to fight fires in structures, which obviously they would be. I would add that tail to it, otherwise we may have people come to rely on a standard of protection which did not exist.

I will ask the fire marshal, who is sitting here with me right now, to communicate with the people in Natural Resources. If the equipment is there for one purpose and not being used, surely it would make sense to make it available for fire protection in small hamlets and areas lacking fire protection.

Mr. Stokes: I appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman: Any further remarks from the member for Thunder Bay? The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: He is looking up the word forensic; he is looking up the word virago. He is going to be here all afternoon.

Mr. Renwick: It is the wrong volume.

Mr. Lawlor: It is the wrong volume. A couple of questions. What have you done about a revised fire protection technology course at the fire college at Gravenhurst?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am sorry; I didn’t hear the question.

Mr. Lawlor: It was proposed a year or two ago that you were going to have a revised fire protection technology course at Gravenhurst. Have you initiated it? Is it launched? Have you got a manual for it? What are you doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The course has now been reduced from 21 to 15 weeks in the study of fire protection technology. The course consists of five weeks of lectures and demonstrations on fire protection; five weeks of fire ground leadership; five weeks of management training. The students at the course can take it in one year or complete one unit of the course -- that is the equivalent of five weeks in one aspect of the course -- over three successive years.

The previously used 22-week course, with two eight-week units and one six-week unit, really posed time constraints on the students since courses had to be somewhat concentrated and reduced into the shorter period.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s the same course material, though?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It is the same course material. The member may be interested in knowing last year, in 1974, there were 79 graduates from the course, which brings the total up to 405 since the course was presented in 1967. This year there are 353 students from 86 different departments across Ontario registered for the course. They anticipate there will be close to 100 graduating this year. Course classes, you may be interested to know, cover a 40-hour week over a period of five days and the facilities include the teaching buildings, student residence, staff house for visiting instructors and several fire demonstration buildings. The director and building superintendent have residences right on the premises.

Mr. Lawlor: Permanent?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Permanent residences on the premises. The full-time teaching staff consists of four; there are three people on the administrative side and eight on the maintenance staff. They also have part-time instructors obtained from the private sector, government departments, universities and so on. That is the situation at present, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: Just two other points -- and I will try to make them brief; we have never been so long on the burner regarding this particular matter in any previous year that I can recall in any event.

First, I would ask the minister to advert to or to look at -- he is probably not aware of it -- the city of Toronto bill that went through recently and gave expanded powers to that specific municipality with respect to fire routes, with respect to gaining access through private roads and all that sort of thing.

As the minister of a previous department, you embodied certain clauses in the Condominium Act when the crunch in the condominium situation was getting very bad indeed. The parking facilities were such as to preclude the access by fire vehicles into fire rescue operations touching condominiums, and we had to insert that into the legislation.

The other piece of legislation that we passed a week before last in the private bills committee for the city of Toronto was because of their exceeding great care and concern that the proper preservation wasn’t made and that the municipalities of the province didn’t have the jurisdictions and powers to control the parking arrangements and the problems of access which I have mentioned.

I just bring this to your attention so that you may get more pervasive legislation; and not restricted to the city of Toronto, because it is no doubt highly useful elsewhere -- isn’t it possible to have a private joke in this place? What’s wrong with you people? -- so you can get it across the board and bring it to the attention of the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. McKeough), who has primary responsibility -- not you -- in this particular area.

The other thing I wanted to mention -- perhaps it has been mentioned peripherally or even less than that; maybe I wasn’t listening -- is that there has been a great spate of rooming house fires in Toronto in the past few years. There is a deplorable and even tragic condition of housing fires elsewhere in the province, particularly in some hamlets where buildings are largely constructed of wood and are in such lamentable condition that whole families get burned in the process.

I would like some response from the ministry as to precautionary measures and what was done with respect to the rooming house situation in the urban centres, because I don’t see that there has been the kind of impact in the past year that there was in previous years. What preventive measures, if any, were introduced to produce such curative effects and were they responsible for the cutback?

Secondly, what nostrums does this ministry have touching the housing situation in ulterior parts of the province and the wood stove concept? When fire strikes in such a situation, then the effects are catastrophic indeed in terms of human lives.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I thank the member for the remarks he made on the fire route legislation. I was not personally aware of it. My officials were made aware of the bill, of course, and were asked for their commentary. It may well be that this type of legislation may become of general legislative value, particularly in areas such as downtown Toronto. I thank the member for his observations in drawing that to my attention.

With reference to rooming house fires last year, there were 14 in 1974, and 10 of these resulted in 14 deaths. The city of Toronto commenced a study on rooming house accommodation. Legislation to permit rooming houses to be licensed has been introduced and will be completed shortly. Last December the city of Toronto passed legislation compelling the installation of fire alarm systems within a building licensed as a rooming house or lodging house. We understand that all of these premises have now been inspected by the city to ensure that the bylaw has been complied with.

Of the 14 fires last year, the member may be interested to know the determination on them. Three were accidental, two were of undetermined origin and nine were incendiary in nature.

Mr. Lawlor: Again, would you stop right there? What does incendiary mean?

Hon. Mr. Clement: They were set -- arson. There were nine and there have been charges too arising out of those nine. I can’t give you the specifics but this is the sort of thing your colleague, the member for Riverdale, mentioned in suggesting that for the estimates next year we indicate the status of those who have been charged.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Lakeshore have further remarks? The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Chairman, I’d like to raise with the minister an issue that has been discussed now for some time. More recently I have had personal involvement in it. I’ve seen some experiments in that field that have caused me some concern.

I understand that last year there were something like 1,300 electrical fires in the province. As I understand it, the fire marshal’s office is not in a position to say how many of these fires were caused as a result of what is called aluminum wiring. The minister knows there has been a great debate on this issue. Hydro has a report on it. I’d like to bring to the minister’s attention some recent developments in this field.

Mr. Chairman, last weekend I had occasion to visit with a scientist who worked in conjunction with the National Research Council in Ottawa. He performed a demonstration of what the problem is with aluminum wiring. The problem is not the wiring running through the house but at the outlets, the terminal where you join it up with an outlet. He gave a demonstration of how once you put it on the outlet and have so many hours of use on it there is a problem with aluminum in that it oxidizes; and when it oxidizes it causes resistance. The wiring and the connection become loose and it builds up heat and a fire can result.

He gave a demonstration with an outlet that had just been on for a few minutes. He poured water on it and it all blew into steam. I think this particular outlet had been used about 1,000 times.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, Ontario Hydro and GSA have to some degree approved the use of this. As I understand, and I’ve not seen the release, apparently Ontario Hydro has sent out a directive in a release today -- and I stand to be corrected on this because I got it second-hand -- stating Hydro is against the use of the connection which has aluminium wiring with these outlets.

The concern is this: For instance in Ottawa last week, Bob Campeau, who is a large developer and is developing Harbour Castle and Harbour Square here, had a major fire in his house. He has a very luxurious home in Ottawa. The source of the fire was related to aluminum wiring and he’s having his house checked over and done over.

My concern, to the minister, is this field of public safety programmes we’re going to have to undertake if this experiment is accurate, and it’s apparently been supported to some degree by the National Research Council. The first problem is that with aluminum going into the terminal of the outlet, where the problem is, heat is built up. The second problem is that some plugs were sold with metal screws on them. They were brass plated but had metal screws and that’s contrary to Hydro directives and the CSA. Unfortunately, it had the stamp on it. The CSA is the Canadian Standards Association. Once you get their stamp of approval the Hydro approves it and so on.

We’re left in a situation -- if I’m accurate about the directive sent by Hydro today in their release -- whereby there are thousands and thousands of homes which have aluminum wiring and have this type of terminal. It causes some concern following the experiments made by Prof. Jerabeck in Ottawa -- which show there is a problem. He demonstrated it for me.

We should be in a position, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, to give some satisfaction or assurance to homeowners who have aluminum wiring about what can be done to correct it if there are deficiencies and if there is a possibility of fire.

As I recall a pamphlet from the fire marshal’s office, there were 1,300 electrical fires in Ontario last year. Of course, the problem with aluminum wiring is the longer it’s on, the more wear there is and that’s when you get the most oxidation, the most resistance and then most fires. I’m very concerned about that problem.

I’d like the minister to tell us if the fire marshal, through his public safety programme, is in a position to give some assurance to the homeowners who have aluminum wiring that there will be an inspection procedure set up; or something will be done to give them some assurance that over a period of time a fire will not be started because of this wiring which went in with the approval of the CSA and with the approval of Ontario Hydro -- if Hydro has sent out a directive now that it might be dangerous and not to use it any more.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I’m in a bit of a dilemma here. I don’t know whether the member for Welland South pinched your speech or you pinched his. While you were out this afternoon he expressed the same concerns almost in the same wording.

Mr. Roy: It gives you an idea of the cohesion of the Liberal Party.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I can see that.

Mr. Stokes: Or the duplicity of it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will tell you, as I told him this afternoon in our earlier discussions on this subject, the Canadian Standards Association and Ontario Hydro set standards for the types of connections and the way the installation must be completed in order to satisfy the safety requirements of both of those groups, that is Hydro and the Canadian Standards Association.

The fire marshal, the insurance industry and Ontario Hydro have no statistical information which indicates that aluminum wiring causes any special hazard if it’s properly installed. I am not aware of the directive you have referred to as having been issued today.

Mr. Roy: Apparently today.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am not aware of that, so I should make no comment on it. We will look into it to find out, of course, the subject matter of that directive. I think that’s about all I have to say I on this subject, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to see a copy of that directive and we will look into it. We will know by tomorrow, of course, what the anxiety is. I think that probably all of those who know about installing wiring are aware of the dangers in the installation itself. I don’t think there is any question about the ability of the wire to bear the load. I was not aware of the Hydro directive.

Mr. Roy: I could tell the minister that I kept up with the debate from a distance a while back, till I saw, in fact, this weekend, an experiment by this scientist, Jerabek. It is just like Nassau, going down into his basement. He has dials and the whole bit down there. We took with us another individual who could test the accuracy, because I don’t know about the installations and how many volts are going through. He had all sorts of dials, and everything else.

The point he made was that it doesn’t matter what sort of connection. That is the point Hydro was making. If it’s properly installed, there should be no problem. The problem is in the composition of the metal. Aluminum oxidizes much faster than copper. Resistance is created as it oxidizes. That’s what causes a loose connection. Hydro also says if it’s put on right it’s okay. You can’t supervise 1,500 electricians in this province to make sure they are going to put every connection just about right.

And the other issue that has to be raised, and will be raised in this House if I can accumulate the material, is that it is getting to a point where CSA approval doesn’t really mean very much because CSA is dominated by the industry. As the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations you will appreciate this. There are very few, if any, consumer representatives on the CSA. I am afraid Hydro, to some degree has been delinquent in that field, too. If I am right about their release of today, and, as I say, I got it second hand, they are saying they are concerned about this. I say Hydro has been nothing short of delinquent. They have let the matter go on for thousands and thousands of houses around Ontario.

I mentioned a comparable experience. It’s really ironic. Campeau, one of the major housebuilders in this province, probably in Canada, has built home after home with aluminum wiring. He is going to get his checked over, but what about the thousands of houses that he has built? Of course, he said, Hydro should be the one to go out and make the inspections.

I raise it now, Mr. Chairman, because I think the full story has not really been told in depth. All throughout this debate it’s always sort of blocked up because you always say, it’s got CSA approval, or Hydro is in favour of it, and therefore the consumer is protected. I suggest to you maybe that is not the case. If the experiment by this professor over the weekend is any indication, I tell you, anybody with aluminum wiring in their house has reason for concern.

Hon. Mr. Clement: One thing I did overlook mentioning was your comment that you can’t supervise the work of thousands of electricians. In fact, you can, because you cannot get Hydro service turned on in a new building until it has, in fact, been inspected, and a certificate issued. If you look at the new building code you will find that applies to Hydro and the quality of construction in a municipality. If you build a house, you can’t get Hydro service turned on except for temporary service, and of course construction, until it has been inspected.

Mr. Roy: Do you think that Hydro goes and looks into every switch box and every terminal?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I think that Hydro does, in fact, look at the switch box. They don’t look at every outlet and take the plate off to see if the wires are, in fact, attached to the back of the plate.

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: If you are suggesting there be a corps of people who, in fact, go around and rewire, following the electricians about, then you are getting into a pretty expensive programme.

I also want to say, I am not going to identify with the remark that the Canadian Standards Association really isn’t very good because it is predominantly operated by the industry. The industry has a very direct and a very positive role in making sure the tests it does impose are of a high quality with public safety in mind, because it has to have the support of the public. They have to be impartial on the testing of whatever goods they are testing or whatever things they are sampling, because if public confidence is shattered in that organization then who is going to do it, government?

Do I want to be standing here next year looking for $100 million for my research centre? If you are prepared to give it to me, I am prepared to take it. I tell you that the Canadian Standards Association -- and I only speak of them because of my prior identification with them -- as far as I was concerned, acted in a very responsible way. I would hate to think they are industry-dominated and therefore in effect will clear or prove anything just so they can put it on the market. I really sincerely question that. I don’t accept that.

Mr. Roy: I can show you some correspondence about the CSA. I am not for a minute suggesting that this is the case with the CSA in the past or on the majority of the products they test. The public can feel satisfied that they are using a product that is safe. I don’t question that. I am saying something on this issue here.

I am building up a file on it and I intend to go further into it. I recall reading a letter written to the CSA which said in effect: “How come some of these outlets have metal screws on them?” They were just brass-plated, which is against Hydro regulations and against CSA regulations. They said: “They were short of metal in the US or wherever they are doing this and even though it is against our regulations, we sort of tolerated it.”

I am saying to you that no matter how good an organization or a body is there is always an area of weakness. We are dealing with human beings all the time. I am saying that in this case when CSA allowed the use of these metal screws it was not following its own directive or the Hydro directive.

I am not prepared to accept you as the minister standing there and saying that whatever has CSA approval is okay. I am prepared, as a representative of the public, to question anybody or anything. I think the way we keep our institutions functioning at their highest capacity or most efficient capacity is that we are always wary and we always have safeguards on every institution. As Solicitor General you look after the police which is a body for which we all have respect, but we know we need checks and safeguards even when it involves the police.

I am saying to you that in this particular case I really question the approach of CSA and Hydro to this problem. I think, as this matter unfolds and more evidence comes out about aluminum wiring, many among the public will really question the role played by CSA and Ontario Hydro in this.

Mr. Chairman: Any further remarks on item 4? Is item 4 carried?

Item 5, coroners’ investigations and inquests. The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have, really a couple of specific inquests that concern me somewhat, not because of the results of the inquest or the decision of the jury, but because of a couple of matters which came out in the course of them. I’d like to comment about two of them extremely briefly and then ask specifically whether the problems that arose in those two inquests have been dealt with.

Then, in a more general sense, I would like to ask the minister if he would describe to me what the process is for collecting the decisions of the coroner’s inquest, and the various recommendations and what the procedure is by which they are sorted and sifted and valuable information or recommendations implemented and carried out.

The other question I would like to ask is from my colleague, the member for Lakeshore, who had to leave. He was concerned because last year he was advised that while the province is divided into nine districts, there were only supervising coroners at that time in two of them. He asked me to ask the obvious question: Is the province still divided into the nine districts and are there supervising coroners in all of them? That is the area of the comments that I’d like to make, and I want to keep them just as brief as I can under the circumstances.

Mr. Singer: Is that going to take you until 6 o’clock?

Mr. Renwick: I would doubt if it would and I would particularly like you to stay, but feel free to go.

The first matter concerned me because the widow of the man is in my riding. I refer to the inquest which was held following the death of a man by the name of Richard Lindsay on July 27, who was shot and killed by Metro Police Constable Douglas Diplock. The coroner’s jury, of course, quite rightly and obviously on the evidence, exonerated the police from any responsibility in connection with that particular death. During the course of it, Mrs. Lindsay, the widow of Richard Lindsay, who had been killed by the police constable, was at the inquest and Mrs. Lindsay was granted the right to cross-examine all of the 36 witnesses under the new Coroners Act.

Mr. Singer: Is that personally or through her counsel?

Mr. Renwick: That is my problem. Mrs. Lindsay was given this right but she had no lawyer. She was a poor woman of straitened economic circumstances. She told the reporters she applied for legal aid but had been rejected because she was in no danger of being charged with a crime. It had been an obviously painful ordeal for her. She had frequently broken into tears and often had to ask Coroner Donald Bunt for help in phrasing questions.

In any event, that went on for some time and it was a distressing situation for everybody concerned. I am sure it was distressing for the coroner; I am sure it was distressing for the jury; I am sure it was distressing for the Crown attorney who was in charge of the inquest.

As a result of that I wrote to the director of the Ontario Legal Aid Plan, Mr. Andrew Lawson, on Oct. 9, setting out this particular information. I discussed this with the Deputy Solicitor General at the time and I sent him a copy of the letter.

The substance of it was that everybody agreed with the distressing nature of the situation which had developed. Everybody also agreed that under the Ontario Legal Aid plan as it now exists there was no room for discretion to be exercised and a certificate issued for her to be able to retain counsel to the extent that was necessary.

Again, all I am simply saying to the Solicitor General -- and perhaps in his other capacity as Attorney General -- since it came up in an inquest, would he please make a note of it and when the review is made of the Ontario Legal Aid Act, as a result presumably of the recommendations of Mr. Justice Osler in his inquiry into that Act, will he recall this comment I have made now and the correspondence which I had with the Deputy Solicitor General and provide within the statute some method by which discretion in special situations like this can be exercised and a legal aid certificate issued. I have not read Mr. Justice Osler’s report to determine whether or not the report addresses itself to this particular problem but I wanted to draw that to the minister’s attention and ask him to take it under consideration.

The second inquest which bothered me considerably was the inquest into the death of a man by the name of John Henry Doyle.

If I may just advert momentarily to that last comment I made on that particular inquest, the report I referred to and quoted from was reported in the Toronto Star on Thursday, Oct. 3, 1974. Nora McCabe, in writing about that particular Lindsay inquest, made those comments about the distressing nature of it.

This next report deals with the man who died as an alcoholic. The report appeared in the Globe and Mail on May 24, 1974.

“John Henry Doyle, having some years earlier suffered a serious head injury, died an alcoholic on March 20, 1974, in the drunk tank floor of 55 Division, a police station in Toronto.

“The coroner’s jury ruled yesterday that Doyle died of natural causes.”

I’m not going to go on with the rest of the medical reasons for his death. This is the part that rather concerned me:

“Doyle had accumulated 215 convictions for drunkenness and vagrancy by the time of his death at age 42. More than 200 of these dated from 1970. He had been unable to work since his accident and suffered from occasional spells when he couldn’t think clearly.

“The inquest found nothing unusual about Doyle’s death. Coroner Donald Bunt said pneumonia [and so on] caused by aspiration of food caused his death, which is a common cause of death for alcoholics.

“One conclusion that did emerge, although not in the jury’s recommendation, was the shortage of detoxication centres in Metro Toronto. There are three detoxication centres in Metro, each has 20 beds and all three are in the downtown area. Each unit is a satellite of a nearby hospital with access to additional beds [and so on] in an emergency.”

Mr. Singer: Who was it that announced that detoxification centres be the answer? Was it the member for Halton West (Mr. Kerr) or somebody else? New world, greatest in the world.

Mr. Renwick: A new world; yes. The report goes on:

“Dr. Bunt told the jury that Doyle would almost certainly have died the night of March 20, even if he had received immediate hospital attention. Doyle was placed on his side in the drunk tank at 8:40 p.m. The police checked his condition periodically in the next hour and a half and found it normal. Shortly after 10 p.m. they discovered he was not breathing. Attempts at artificial respiration failed and Doyle was pronounced dead at 10:25 at Toronto East General Hospital. I am sure if he had been taken to a detoxification centre he would have died there also, Dr. Bunt said.

“But William Peterson [For whom I have a very high regard], the provincial co-ordinator of detoxication centres, said he wouldn’t be so sure. Mr. Peterson said patients in Toronto’s detoxication centres receive constant medical attention, while police may check their drunk tanks only every 15 minutes or so.

“Mr. Peterson, who wasn’t at the inquest, said the three operating detoxication centres are 100 per cent full at all times. He said three-quarters of the patients are drunks picked up in the downtown area. The police divisions in Metro’s outer areas [and that is the first time I have ever heard of 55 Division in my riding being considered in the outer areas] have been less able to make use of the centres. Investigating officer George McGivern told yesterday’s inquest that 55 Division cannot normally send drunks to centres because the downtown police divisions and other community societies have already filled all the available beds.”

There was a further recommendation that while there was no formal act of drunk tank supervision in Doyle’s case, a more formal schedule for surveillance should be adopted by police to prevent any possible confusion. They also recommended that Doyle’s case was clear evidence of “the need of additional research in alcoholism and treatment facilities.”

That’s an extremely sad case, when you consider 200 convictions for drunkenness or vagrancy between 1970 and 1974; and then to have him die in the drunk tank at 55 Division.

I would like the minister to comment on each of those two situations I have raised; then I would like to generalize a little bit and ask the minister to tell me just what process these recommendations of the coroner’s inquest go through to decide whether or not the recommendations have merit, or no merit, or some merit; should be studied should be implemented, should be carried forward.

For example, were the comments of that jury and the tragic nature of the case of John Henry Doyle brought to the attention of the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Foundation? Are there any plans as a result of that to implement the obvious shortage of detoxication centres in the Metropolitan Toronto area, particularly in the downtown area?

I was not being facetious when I said that 55 Division is hardly considered in the outlying parts of the city of Toronto, because 55 Division, if my recollection of the boundaries is correct, extends from the Don River east to where 55 Division is now located, up on Coxwell Ave., and further east to Woodbine Ave., which is really an eastern-central part of the city. Those are the only two matters that are of concern to me and I would appreciate it if the minister would make whatever comment he deems appropriate.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have listened with interest to the matters touched on by the member for Riverdale and hopefully will be able to respond positively, to most of his inquiries at least. I think there was a feeling -- I know there certainly was when I was taking legal training a number of years ago -- that a coroner’s jury recommendation was really just window dressing and nothing ever came of it and it just fell back into the files, but I can assure you that does not happen today.

A follow-up programme was instituted about 13 years ago on dealing with verdicts by coroners’ juries. Each inquest verdict is reviewed by the chief coroner personally, then it’s given to a senior staff member who follows up the recommendations and observations. They send the recommendations on to any institution or ministry which may well be affected, for its commentary, and they then decide, on the basis of the information which has come back and their own assessment, whether the recommendation is feasible for one reason or another, or is practical or not.

I have some interesting information for the member in terms of statistics, if he’d like to have it. About 75 per cent of the recommendations of coroners’ juries over the past year or two have, in fact, been acted upon and implemented.

The comments that I have had from my staff in preparing for these debates and estimates are that coroners’ juries’ verdicts are, in fact, very helpful and very rarely is there a perverse coroner’s jury verdict. I think this speaks well for the layman sitting in judgement under the statutory obligation of being a coroner’s juror.

I will deal with 1974. The number of inquests in 1974 totalled 306. The 306 inquests engendered 937 recommendations. Of those recommendations, 495 were implemented, 58 were not implemented, and I presume the balance are verdicts that contained recommendations that in fact have already been implemented in the past and are echoing the concern of prior coroners’ juries in various matters which arose in time gone by. I think it’s rather significant that almost 500 recommendations were implemented out of 306 coroners’ inquests held in this province last year.

There are nine regions within the coroner system, and each region will be headed up by a senior pathologist, a coroner. Already, two of these vacancies have been filled, one is pending and six have yet to be completed.

With reference to the deceased Richard Lindsay, that is a case unknown to me. I take it that the member for Riverdale was really expressing his concern about the inability of Mrs. Lindsay to obtain a legal aid certificate and that he was not really criticizing the coroner at all.

Mr. Renwick: In neither case was I criticizing the coroner. I think they felt this situation was as distressing as the press reported it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t have information about this specific case, but this has happened once or twice before, and apparently there is no discretion in the legal aid committee under those circumstances -- I think you touched on this -- to issue a certificate; which speaks ill of the system as it’s presently constituted under the kind of circumstances when someone cannot afford counsel and yet has to appear in a public forum if they want to inquire, as is their right, into things that are certainly very basic and very important to them.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, she was granted standing to cross-examine.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Dr. Cotnam has just indicated to me that some of his coroners have indeed expressed their concern that they are distressed to see people in this situation, and although they feel their hands are somewhat tied, they try to be as helpful as they can be.

I think what we are really saying is that if Mr. Justice Osler’s report doesn’t touch on the legal aid system -- and I can’t tell you, because I have not completed my reading of it -- this may well be something we should take a look at, and I will certainly direct my staff to remind me in my other capacity to discuss this with the legal aid officials. This might well be a situation where an exception might be made, assuming the other criteria are present; i.e. impecuniosity and that sort of thing.

Mr. Renwick: It may be a matter for the area council, rather than the judicial district legal aid director.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes. Regarding your inquiry as to Mr. Doyle, I stand to be corrected, but I think the detoxication centres are so designated by the Minister of Health and have to be concurred in by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations before a portion of a hospital can be designated as a detoxication centre.

I guess what the member for Riverdale is really saying is that because of the natural burdens that are placed on the downtown hospitals in Metropolitan Toronto, when playing the numbers game, the outlying areas -- if Riverdale is considered an outlying area -- find that there is no accommodation for those who would ordinarily or hopefully might be transported into a detoxication centre downtown.

Mr. Renwick: I wouldn’t want any inference that we need one.

Mr. Singer: No, he doesn’t want any drunks in Riverdale.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think we are really playing the numbers game. For those of us who travel downtown in, say, the Gerrard-Jarvis area in the warmer weather, it is simply amazing to see the large numbers of derelicts sleeping on the grass, on benches and indeed on the sidewalk --

Mr. Renwick: The nice thing about winter in Canada is that you don’t see them.

Hon. Mr. Clement: You don’t see them, with one exception. I should point out to the member for Riverdale, if he ever decides to embark on this kind of a career there seems to be a very popular spot on the north side of Osgoode Hall. I was walking through there one cold evening some few weeks ago, when there was much snow on the ground, and I thought I had stumbled on the bodies of obviously two murder victims. It seems there is a hot-air outlet on the north wall of Osgoode Hall.

I notice the member for Downsview watching very closely and I can give him written instructions in greater detail later on.

Mr. Singer: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There is this hot-air outlet which is about one yard square and the bottom of the outlet is even or level with the surface of the ground. As I was walking from University Ave., between Osgoode Hall and the court building, over to the little park by city hall, I looked and I saw the two bodies there late in the evening -- 7 o’clock in the evening -- and it was bitterly cold.

I walked over and I got about a foot or two from them when I realized what was going on. Warm air was coming out of there. It must have been a balmy 78 degrees and they were having their Miami holiday just east of University Ave. in February. It had obviously been somebody’s birthday because there were about eight vine bottles around there. If you find yourself caught short on a cold night downtown I just point that out. You may have some status being a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

Mr. Stokes: Were they QCs?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t know; they were having more than that probably by the time they got done.

This chap Doyle -- I don’t know anything particularly about him but I see some of the statistics the staff have provided me with about people dying in institutions where, of course, inquests are mandatory.

Some of the alcohol readings from those people are phenomenally high. I couldn’t believe it when I was reading over the weekend the alcohol content of some of the blood levels. The highest, I think, that I’ve seen so far -- and Dr. Cotnam can advise me; he’s probably seen very high ones -- was 4.77 in one of the unnamed deceased who died in an institution. I would say that is surely high. That’s got to be six times the level referred to in the Criminal Code.

Mr. Singer: What kind of car was he driving?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, this man died in one of our provincial institutions. I really thought that was about the highest I’ve ever run across.

I don’t know if the member for Riverdale is suggesting in his comments -- do you have any detoxication centres in Riverdale? I'm not saying there are or there aren’t; I don’t know. I’m wondering if the fact is that the downtown hospitals cannot accommodate those who would require the services of a detox centre; and whether perhaps an institution or some institutions which at the present time don’t have detox centres might well consider them. It is not an involved procedure, as I understand it.

Mr. Renwick: This is a problem. May I just make a couple of comments about it? First of all I’d like to advert, if I may, to the comment I made in my opening remarks when I followed my colleague from Lakeshore about the Police Act.

The regulatory power under the Police Act provides for regulations to be made governing lockups and providing for their inspection. Obviously there are no regulations for that purpose. The recommendation in the Doyle matter, by the jury, was that while there was no formal lack of drunk tank supervision in Doyle’s case, a more formal schedule of surveillance should be adopted by police to prevent any possible confusion. I would think that was something which should lend itself very well to regulation for the lockups, because that’s where it takes place.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member have several more remarks?

Mr. Renwick: I don’t have several more but I think perhaps we could wait until 8 o’clock, yes.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.