Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to a group of students in the west gallery from St. Mary’s School on Portugal Sq., in my riding, accompanied by Miss Lydia Broda. I am sure the hon. members would like to greet them in their usual warm fashion.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I know that the members of the Legislature will want to join me in extending a very warm welcome to 26 outstanding students from the Sacred Heart School at Sioux Lookout, in the great Kenora riding; they are accompanied by Gerry Pinkess, Bev Kondra, and Maria Tripney. Again, Mr. Speaker, these students have been assisted in a nine-day tour of southern Ontario through the Young Travellers programme.

Mrs. M. Scrivener (St. David): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity of introducing 50 students from grade 8 at Deer Park Public School, who are with us in the west gallery with their teacher, Mrs. Petrulis.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Good for the member for St. David. That’s the most important statement she has made in the last two weeks.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): I was just reminded, Mr. Speaker -- I would otherwise have forgotten -- I would like to stand on a point of personal privilege, if I could. I didn’t know until I read Norman Webster’s column in the Globe and Mail this morning exactly what the member for St. David had been saying about myself and the New Democratic Party in the reservations we have expressed about the commission on violence in the media.

I guess what I’d like to say, Mr. Speaker, is that I’d like to congratulate the member for St. David on being the only person in Ontario who has divined the Machiavellian plot which underlies the NDP strategy. She has a rare wit and insight and I might say, Mr. Speaker, that --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is this a point of privilege which the member wishes to raise?

Mr. Lewis: It certainly is and I want to finish it, if I may, without an interruption from the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Then you should state it please.

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Come on now. Get to the point.

Mr. Lewis: The point simply is that I would like to --

Mr. Roy: Five miles yesterday --

Mr. Lewis: I would like to say to Mrs. Agnew from St. David --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: -- that now she has dispatched the official opposition in the New Democratic Party, we await her imminent attack on the effete Liberal press. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I thought we were supposed to be the ones who were over sensitive?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can take this opportunity to ask the members to join me in welcoming a distinguished visitor from our sister Province of Quebec, the hon. William Tetley, Minister of Financial Institutions, Companies and Co-operatives, who is visiting us this day.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

LAKE ONTARIO SWIMS

Hon. B. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, last October my col league, the Minister of Community and Social Services, appointed a committee to study --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Which portfolio did the minister have then?

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- the problems presented by individual attempts to swim Lake Ontario and to suggest ways that these efforts could be made safer.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): There has been a lot of water under the bridge since then.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The committee has now reported to me and I have deposited copies of the report with the Clerk for tabling at the appropriate time today.

It is clear from the committee’s investigation that Lake Ontario presents a very special challenge to marathon swimmers and that many will likely attempt to swim it in the future. It is also clear that a good swimmer, properly coached and adequately assisted, can safely swim across the lake with some success representing a very substantial athletic achievement. The problem we face is the possibility that swimmers who are incapable, poorly coached or unsupervised may also attempt to swim across the lake and their efforts often result in personal tragedy.

Unfortunately, I am advised there is no legal restriction against swimmers in Lake Ontario unless they interfere with navigation and there is little we can do to prevent foolhardy attempts However, a group quite interested in marathon swimming and water safety is attempting to meet the needs of qualified swimmers and has now formed the Ontario Association of Solo Swims.

The association is developing a programme for testing the capacity of swimmers to withstand the strains of Lake Ontario and will help to arrange for assistance and supervision during attempts which it sanctions. My ministry has agreed to provide them with financial and other assistance and they will also receive help from the coast guard, the Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine at Downsview, the department of psychology at the University of Toronto, the Royal Life Saving Society, the Red Cross, and various other boating and swimming organizations. They will also work with authorities in New York State where, as you know Mr. Speaker, many swim attempts originate.

The chairman of the association is Arthur Dufresne, one of the leading figures in marathon swimming and water safety in Ontario. I am pleased to announce that he, along with Cliff Lumsden, a former long-distance swimming champion, are both in the gallery and I introduce them to the House as part of this statement, Mr. Speaker.

The association has the full support of my ministry and I am urging swimmers, coaches and sponsors of marathon swims in Lake Ontario to seek some assistance from the association and to be guided by its advice. The association plans to recognize all successful swimmers on the completion of their swims and the government also will present certificates of accomplishment at the sports award dinner to any successful swimmers from this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Signed by the Premier (Mr. Davis) himself?

Hon. Mr. Welch: In this way, we can continue to support marathon swimming while at the same time contributing to the safety of this very challenging sport.

ASSISTANCE TO WHITEDOG AND GBASSY NARROWS RESERVES

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, on June 12 a question was asked in the House based on an editorial which appeared that day in the Toronto Globe and Mail. The editorial was concerned with government assistance for the Grassy Narrows and the Whitedog Reserves.

The Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler) indicated in reply that this matter would be dealt with on my return to Toronto today. On behalf of my colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development as well as myself, I would like to take this opportunity to correct some factual errors and some mistaken interpretation which appeared in that Globe and Mail editorial.

The editorial said the Ontario government was not fulfilling the promise made by it to members of the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog bands along the English-Wabigoon river system north of Kenora, whose normal supplies of fish had been cut off because of mercury contamination.

The editorial also said the freezers we promised for the storage of fish caught from nearby safe waters were being held up because the government could not decide which ministry should pay for the freezers.

This is a distorted view, based apparently on misinformation and misunderstanding. I would like to set the record straight.

After the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development and I visited these bands in late April, we waited for the band council resolutions which confirmed the acceptance of the assistance we had offered -- freezers, fishing gear, buildings and so on. As my colleagues are aware, the band council resolutions are necessary to grant permission to install any facility on reserve land. We received the resolution from the Grassy Narrows band in mid-May. The resolution from the Whitedog band did not reach my ministry until last week, and the Whitedog band council resolution asks only for assistance toward fishing at this time. The band council is still trying to decide what form of freezer assistance it wants. We will be meeting further with them on this point.

In the meantime, the Grassy Narrows band decided on its own initiative to begin fishing in a limited way in certain lakes near the reserve. As the band members planned alternative work for themselves, a project coordinator was needed, and the Indian community secretariat of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, which has been close to the situation all along, approved a grant for a member of the band, Bill Fobister, to act as project co-ordinator on the reserve.

The first project under way is called “fish for food,” which in its initial stages involves fishing in these waters. In order to expand this particular project, the Grassy Narrows band requested financial assistance.

On June 5, a meeting was held in the Kenora office of the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Those present were Chief Andy Keewatin, Bill Fobister and Tom Keeswick of the Grassy Narrows band, Dr. Peter Newberry, the physician at Grassy Narrows, as well as Miss Commandant, assistant to Mr. Fobister, and a field representative of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and of the Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation’s Indian community secretariat.

An interim budget in the amount of $25,000 was presented for the bands fish-for-food project, and the sum of $10,000 was requested for immediate funding.

The Globe and Mail was wrong in thinking this money was for the community freezer programme. As mentioned, the $10,000 requested was for expanding the Grassy Narrows band fish-for-food project.

At the Kenora meeting, the provincial representative agreed that the province would supply the $10,000 requested.

To expedite this programme, we have agreed with the Grassy Narrows band council that we will replace the funds from its own band account that it required immediately to get the programme under way. This is the $10,000 referred to. It is only the beginning of the costs of the programme. It is not the final cost. We will spend, Mr. Speaker, whatever is necessary to protect the health of the Indians on these reserves.

We have been advised that the usual home type of freezer would be wholly inadequate. The bands require the storage of large supplies of fish. What is needed is a much larger walk-in type of freezer with considerable capacity and a quick-freeze capability so that large amounts of fresh-caught fish can be properly stored for the non-fishing periods of the year.

Early reports suggest that one large walk-in freezer would cost about $35,000 installed on a reserve. We are going ahead and putting in one freezer of this type at Grassy Narrows. Fabrication, delivery and installation, we are told, can be accomplished before late summer, as requested by Chief Andy Keewatin. After this one freezer has been operating for some time, the possible need for further facilities will be determined.

We will move as quickly as possible in the Whitedog reserve situation, as soon as the needs are decided and reported to us and we will involve the band leaders in the process of determining the best sites for the freezers, as well as making sure proper operating techniques are understood by all involved.

In addition, we will follow through from my ministry and with the support of the field staff of the Indian community secretariat to ensure that all aspects of this programme are thoroughly discussed and planned with the band representatives on both reserves. Provincial government staff have met five times with representatives from these two reserves since April.

The Globe and Mail editorial writer was wrong in saying freezers were needed up there right now. At the present time, all fish caught is being consumed and there is no need for volume storage. I am informed that the surplus fish now taken is being put away in individual home refrigerators and the freezers purchased last week when it is not being eaten immediately.

As I mentioned, the receipt of a band council resolution is necessary for us to give this sort of assistance. I might explain that this is because the Province of Ontario does not have the jurisdictional authority to make capital investments on Indian reserves. We had to be invited to participate and we are pleased to have been invited.

Finally, while on the subject of action taken since our visit to Whitedog and Grassy Narrows, I should also mention that we have been making progress in other respects toward improving the general conditions in these communities.

We have cleared up the problems which the Whitedog band perceived with regard to its timber licence, and will be providing $25,000 for a rights-of-way clearing project employing about 10 people from that community.

The Ministry of Culture and Recreation has been asked to provide assistance and guidance with regard to both co-operative stores, and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities has been asked to do the same thing with regard to retraining programmes in these two communities.

Also, we have contacted the federal Department of Indian Affairs concerning 10 community wells, drilled but now dry, with the suggestion that prompt action be taken to correct that situation.

Mr. Speaker: Before we start the oral question period, I recognize the hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House some 40 students, together with their teacher, Mr. Lawson, from Collegiate Ave. School in Stoney Creek, accompanied by a number of parents whose names haven’t been given to me, so I can’t introduce them.

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

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Premier, can the Minister of Energy indicate what communication between the government of Ontario and the government of Canada has taken place today regarding energy pricing, the petroleum pricing, since the Minister of Energy indicated that the Premier and the Prime Minister would be in communication Monday morning?

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, when I last saw the Premier earlier today, at about 1:30 p.m., he had yet to hear from the Prime Minister.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I had understood from the minister’s statement that the Premier was going to initiate the communication. Is there a plan for a consultation of this type, or what is the stance now?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will know that the Premier and the Prime Minister spoke on Friday afternoon, and my understanding is that the Prime Minister said he would call the Premier back today.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is there some plan to communicate to the Legislature the gist of these conversations, or what?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m sure it’s the Premier’s intention that once he has heard from the Prime Minister he would, either to the House or in some way, make public the results of that conversation.

JAILING OF 16-YEAR-OLD GIRL

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Attorney General, the acting Solicitor General, and the Provincial Secretary for Justice --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): And the Deputy Minister of Housing?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Or any of them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Can the minister make some statement to the House about the circumstances that led to the jailing of a 16- year-old girl in the city this weekend when it was found that she had not responded to a bench warrant?

Mr. Roy: Eight months earlier.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, the facts, as I understand them, up to the point where she ended up in the police station, are correct. She was taken into custody as a result of the warrant for failure to appear last August. She requested the officers not to contact her parents. In view of her age, her parents were contacted -- her mother was contacted, so I am advised.

Mr. Singer: When was that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That was on Saturday morning around 1 a.m. The sequence started at about 12:30 am. Her mother was contacted and advised the police not to contact her father in that he did not know of her involvement with the law last summer. A JP arrived at about 3:30 a.m. arid the girl refused to speak to him. He identified himself and advised her of the purpose for which he was there. There was a certain amount of cursing and swearing on her part and he left. The same conduct continued through part of the night.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): I don’t blame her for swearing I

Hon. Mr. Clement: In the morning, when the jail matron provided her with toast and coffee, she threw it on the floor and refused to converse with the matron. She just cursed and swore.

She was transported to the court and refused to speak to duty counsel, who identified himself to her and the purpose of his being there -- to be available to her. She refused to discuss it or give any information whatsoever to the presiding judge -- one provincial Judge R. Graham. The warrant had not followed her up into that courtroom and he didn’t have the particulars before him. He asked her name and she refused to disclose any information. He said: “In view of this, in any event, I took the position that, perhaps, this young lady should have a psychiatric examination.”

The documents were eventually located and it was felt that she should appear before a presiding judge. Judge Graham, as I understand it, was not available at that time and Judge Cloney then had her appear before him. Not being advised of the prior appearance earlier in the morning before Judge Graham, again the same reaction occurred in that she refused to discuss it with him or give any information.

Mr. Singer: Did this all happen on Saturday?

Hon. Mr. Clement: All Saturday morning. Oddly enough, these two judges acting individually and without knowledge of the action of the other, Judge Cloney likewise made the same recommendation that she have a psychiatric examination, and be remanded the matter formerly until today, June 16. I don’t know what disposition was made on the matter this morning. I’m waiting to hear.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Would the Attorney General indicate what the circumstances would be in that there had been no effort to execute the bench warrant over these many months -- and then, when the girl comes into the recognition of the police, they slap her into jail when she approaches them voluntarily on another matter? Surely there’s something crazy about both sides of this story.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I inquired as to that. As I understand it, there had been some discussions on it. She was known to be residing with her parents. That fact, apparently, was known at the time she failed to appear. Under the circumstances -- her age and so forth -- it was felt that the warrant should not be executed at that particular time.

Mr. Singer: She voluntarily went to the police station and there they executed the old warrant.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Quite recently there was a direction made to execute the warrant, which had only recently come into the hands of the police prior to her appearing at the police station early on Saturday morning past.

Mr. Roy: That was eight months ago.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce indicated that he wished to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Minister, we hear the blaring of the horns outside against another stupidity of our judicial system. I want to ask the minister, as a parent, if his daughter or my daughter, or any citizen’s daughter were to be handled like this by complete stupidity, would he take action against the system? Is he going to have these stupid officers before the court and have them answer for their actions?

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): What stupid officers?

An hon. member: There’s nothing stupid about them; it’s just stupid.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather peculiar, because as I recall, the other day either the member for Grey-Bruce, or one of his colleagues, objected very strenuously to bail being granted to a 16-year-old charged with a very serious offence.

Mr. Sargent: I asked the minister for the surrounding circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think the member must realize this: Before a young girl can be released out into the public again, on her own recognizance, on cash bail, or any other type of arrangement, the person who is going to make that order has to satisfy himself that the person has possession of his or her mental faculties, physical faculties, and so forth.

Here is a young woman who appears, who will not communicate with anyone -- starting with the justice of the peace, the police, with duty counsel, with the judge -- there is just no one she communicates with. There is the incidence of cursing and swearing, which indicates to them a rather unusual behaviour in one so young. For her own protection she was remanded for a mental assessment. I can make no observations other than that.

I have no reason to believe, one way or the other, that the girl was sick or anything else. I don’t know. But I tell you, as a parent, if I saw a youngster in my own home carrying on in the same way, I would not order that youngster from my home, but I would see to it that she was transported to her home, or some place where she could be properly looked after.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have two supplementary questions.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we should first allow a supplementary from the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask the Attorney General a question, because I fail to understand his comments. He would agree, would he not, that it could be a pretty traumatic experience to arrive at a police station voluntarily with good intent and find the execution of a bench warrant which had stood suspended for eight months? Presumably, that can inspire perverse human conduct. That’s not unusual. Let me ask him, though: Since the bench warrant is often issued under discretion and not immediately given to the police, but was at some point given to the police, how much time elapsed between the opportunity for them to serve the warrant and the abrupt incarceration which occurred? That period prior to the events at 12:30 Saturday morning is surely important.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I agree that it’s important. I don’t know the time lapse, whether we are talking in terms of hours or a very few days or months. I’m waiting for that information to come to my attention right now. I agree that that is quite pertinent. I should point out that because of the fact that she was known to be living with her parents at the time she failed to appear, no charge was laid. As the member may know, they can lay a separate charge for failing to appear, but no such charge was laid at that time. It is not unusual for the court to endorse on the record that, say, a bench warrant will issue but not be acted on until further direction of the court or certain other events occur.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, would the minister not agree, in view of the fact that the statements attributed to Mr. McKeown, who appears from the newspaper accounts to be the young girl’s solicitor, are so at variance with what the minister has told us today, that someone should have a closer look and advise us whether what Mr. McKeown said is entirely made of whole cloth or is factual?

Secondly, would the minister not agree that a bench warrant that sits for eight months and is suddenly executed in the middle of the night against a person who has voluntarily appeared in the police station would seem to imply that one appears in a police station at his own peril, and that this idea in the public’s mind should be got rid of almost immediately?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I certainly am aware of the statements given by Mr. McKeown whom I regard at a distance as someone of high experience and a very reputable trial counsel in Toronto. I don’t know the man individually or personally but I do recognize him as someone who certainly is well known and experienced in these areas, and I find his statement to be somewhat at variance.

Mr. Singer: It is absolutely contrary.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t know the source of his statement and I intend to find out. He may have been receiving the advice of the young lady for whom he is now acting. I am merely telling the House, as I must, about the preliminary report which was prepared by a deputy police chief of the Metropolitan Toronto police force.

Mr. Singer: Would the minister give us the medical report?

Hon. Mr. Clement: When I have that information I will be pleased to advise the House.

Mr. Roy: What about the bench warrant?

Mr. Sargent: What about the horns that are blaring now?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition.

REMOVAL OF AGGREGATE IN HALDIMAND-NORFOLK

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. Is he prepared to permit the continued removal of aggregate and gravel from those properties in the Haldimand-Norfolk region which are owned by the government of Ontario and which will be in the new townsite, simply because the rights to the mineral properties were not included in the purchase when they were undertaken by the former Treasurer and because the application of the pits and quarries regulations was so late in being brought to bear?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, we have no way of stopping the removal of that aggregate until the Pits and Quarries Control Act comes into force. I think the member is very much aware of that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Just to make it clear, the minister is saying, while he would like to stop the removal of this aggregate, he has no power to stop this imaginative entrepreneur, who seems to be several jumps ahead of the government and the enforcement concepts of the pits and quarries regulations, and cannot be stopped in removing this asset which should belong to the people and which should be used for the people. Is there any alternative at the municipal level through the utilization of municipal roads or provincial highways that could be brought to bear?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, we’ve taken the necessary action, by designating this particular area under the Pits and Quarries Control Act. When that comes into force, then we’ll apply the necessary regulations. Until then, we have nothing in force.

If the municipality has some other way of controlling this, I’m not aware of it. Maybe under the Municipal Act, they may be able to pass a by-law. That is something the Leader of the Opposition will have to take up with the Treasurer and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. McKeough).

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, with your permission Mr. Speaker: Since the regulations cannot come into effect for six months and since the minister is aware with this day and night operation going on there that a very, very large amount of the resource will be removed, would the minister undertake to contact the chairman of the regional municipality or some other appropriate official to see what could be done in concert with the authority of this government and, if necessary, this House, together with the by-law powers of the municipality, to stop this removal of the aggregate?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to have a look at the entire situation to see what can be done; if indeed something needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Chairman of Management Board why there is a delay in answering my question, which has been on the order paper for eight weeks, asking for the costs of the various advertising programmes the government ministries have entered into in recent weeks?

Mr. Roy: That might be embarrassing.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): No, it is not embarrassing. I have asked for the information, I don’t know why it hasn’t come forward. I’ll certainly look into it immediately.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: When is the Chairman of Management Board going to answer my questions which have been on the order paper for over a year?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, that is not a supplementary but I’ll say as soon as I possibly can.

Mr. Roy: And my question to the Premier about those guys going on trips? It’s been on there for a while.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West.

GRAVEL LICENCE APPLICATION

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, while we are on matters of gravel pits, could the Minister of Natural Resources indicate to me when he intends to respond to the question I asked on April 21 last regarding the gravel pit licence for a Mr. Sam Manetta in Pontypool? He said he had 30 days from the date of receiving the result of the OMB hearing which disallowed the pit to make a decision and he assured me he would make a decision within that specified period of time. Presumably that specified period of time has now passed. I don’t think the decision has yet been made.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I’ll cheek on that and report immediately.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

WORKING CONDITIONS AT CHROMASCO

Mr. Lewis: May I also ask the Minister of Natural Resources when he can reply to the question on Chromasco Corp. in eastern Ontario and the very serious allegations which were placed before the Ham commission about the levels of occupational health and safety in that corporation and the activities of one of the inspectors in this ministry? I asked the minister that some weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’ll also check on that reply Mr. Speaker.

ELLIOT LAKE JURISDICTION

Mr. Lewis: Could I ask the Minister of Natural Resources, as well, what is happening in the extraordinary confusion or difference of opinion which appears to have emerged in the last three or four days around who is responsible for what at Elliot Lake? Donald S. Macdonald, the federal energy minister, in reply to questions in the House of Commons, indicated the federal government was taking over the setting of levels both for radiation and dust emission and would enforce them at Elliot Lake in the absence of the provincial government. Has the minister had contact on that? Does he know what is happening?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any direct contact with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in the federal cabinet. I understand there has been an appearance before the Ham commission by the Atomic Energy Control Board. I believe it made some certain statements with regard to the working-level months which maybe are less than we are applying at the present time. I think we are using about four working-level months and the AEC is suggesting something like one. I think I indicated at Elliot Lake that this is a matter we would look into and I’m sure the Ministry of Health, which has particular responsibility for setting those guidelines and those standards, will be working very closely with the federal government in arriving at what should be an acceptable level.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Did the minister realize it is the federal government’s intention to establish its own standards and enforce them on the mining companies? I want to know whether there is any co-ordination between the two levels of government, because Mr. Macdonald was quite explicit about it in the House of Commons.

Hon. Mr. Bender: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Macdonald has not been in touch with me. We have always inspected the uranium mines of this province; we have licensed the federal inspectors, they have come under our total operation. If Mr. Macdonald has changed his mind, I have not been made aware of it.

Mr. Lewis: Could the minister pursue that at his end, as I will at mine?

NORTH YORK FAMILY COURTS

Mr. Lewis: Could I ask if the Attorney General has seen the submission from the inter-agency council in North York, representing I guess some 40 social agencies, on the crisis in the provincial court, family section, in North York; the waiting list backlogs, which now go to three months in most cases; the availability of only one judge at any given period of time; and what they call the viability of justice in North York being at stake? Has he seen the submission?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have not seen the submission itself. I believe it is in my ministry; I believe a copy has come in. I haven’t yet read it but will be reading it this week. I am meeting with the mayor of North York and several of his officials next Monday morning, I believe at 10 o’clock, on this particular matter.

Mr. Lewis: On this matter?

Hon. Mr. Clement: On this particular matter, and I will be reading the submission prior to that planned meeting.

Mr. Singer: Before or after he goes to the Tory nomination meeting? The member for London South (Mr. White) is his nominator.

Mr. Lewis: Since this has a very strong sense of urgency about it -- obviously they see it as a deteriorating situation in justice in North York -- can the minister make a report to the House about his response to it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can. I would like to point out that this situation in North York may not be peculiar to North York. I find, the more I am involved with this ministry and the higher demand there is on services provided by the courts, that I’m going to be back before this House in the not too distant future asking for rather substantial increases to my estimates in order to carry out and discharge the obligations I have.

Mr. Roy: Now the minister is starting to shape up.

Mr. Lewis: Good. It is a pity this had to happen first.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I want to make it clear Mr. Speaker, that this is not peculiar to North York; certain other areas -- certainly not all but certain other areas of the province -- have similar problems.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT REGULATIONS

Mr. Lewis: One last question of the Minister of Labour, if I may: When is the minister going to proclaim section 10 of the Employment Standards Act, which relates to the removal of discrimination on the basis of sex as it applies to pensions and related fringe benefits?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): The report has been out and I think the members have been supplied with copies of that. We’re presently in the act of preparing the regulations; it’s an extensive task to do so. I haven’t checked in the last few days as to how they’re coming along but as soon as the regulations are ready, they will go to the regulations committee and then the section will be proclaimed. I hope it will be soon.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

COURT CASELOADS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. It deals with some of the comments and some of the questions asked about the administration of justice, not only in Toronto but in this province. What is the minister going to do about the situation in the judicial district of York, which was highlighted in an article on the weekend in the Globe and Mail by Walter Fox, which stated that people really aren’t defended, they are bartered, and in some 80 per cent of the cases plea bargaining takes place?

Is the minister going to do something? I was glad to hear his statement about more money, but is the minister going to have an increased number of judges and Crown attorneys and do something about legal aid by adopting some of the legal aid recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, these matters touched on by the leader of the New Democratic Party and by the member for Ottawa East will not be resolved by money and individuals, because there are many facets to the problem. I read the article by Mr. Fox in the Globe and Mail and I agreed with some of the comments but I would be willing to debate others with him.

Mr. Roy: It was pretty accurate.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Starting with the question of plea bargaining, it would indicate that plea bargaining is an improper process and it’s just been recently discovered. I should point out that plea bargaining guidelines have been issued by the Ministry of the Attorney General for a number of years.

Mr. Roy: Agreed; but for 80 per cent of the cases?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The other thing, with reference to the family court matters touched on by the member for Scarborough West, could perhaps be resolved by a uniform family court situation. I have been in correspondence with the Minister of Justice in Ottawa and he knows our feeling on this. As recently as today I received a letter from him as to certain observations which he offered. He recognizes some of these things, too, because they are not inherent only to this province. We need more resources, that’s another way to resolve it.

Mr. Roy: This ministry has been neglected for 45 years.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There are many approaches to this and when the House rises, I know it will be one of the matters highest on my list of priorities to attempt to resolve this and many other justice-oriented problems.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): By way of supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary to the original question. We will allow the member for Ottawa East to go first and then the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Roy: Would the minister confirm whether he intends to film, in court No. 21, the proceedings of the court? Apparently the film is to be used for the criminology conference. Will the minister’s film show what goes on in a court -- for instance, plea bargaining or counsel being scolded by the trial judge for taking up too much time?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I understand a film is being prepared right now. As to what will be contained in that film, I don’t know. If it has been filmed, I haven’t seen it; if it has not yet been filmed, I don’t know what format it will take. Its anticipated use will be for the UN congress to be held here in early September.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’d like to ask a supplementary that has to do with the very foundation of the system of plea bargaining. Would the Attorney General consider issuing a directive to the Crown attorneys of this province to stop the practice of issuing duplicate and alternative charges where the circumstances permit such; and does the Attorney General -- by way of second supplementary -- agree that, from his experience, this is the very essence leading to the practice of plea bargaining?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’ll take that question under advisement.

Mr. Bullbrook: This is a matter of opinion, certainly.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t know that I would consider it right now. I may, upon reflection, Mr. Speaker, consider the proposal put forward by the member for Sarnia. I am always somewhat surprised by some of those who write or speak of plea bargaining -- I am not suggesting the member for Sarnia is taking this position -- when they make it appear to be almost an improper course of conduct. I suggest, and I say, that if it is done in a proper way --

Mr. Bullbrook: Right, right.

Mr. Singer: It is done all the time.

Hon. Mr. Clement: If it is done in the proper way and in accordance with the guidelines, it is to the advantage of all involved.

Mr. Roy: It can be so easily abused; that’s the problem. It can be abused. Eighty per cent --

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

STRIKE AT CANADIAN SALT

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour regarding the seven-week-old strike at the Canadian Salt Co. Ltd. in Windsor.

Inasmuch as the main issue is apparently safety rather than wages, would the minister consider making some use of his industrial safety branch in order to expedite the negotiations?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, if we can be of help, we’ll certainly be glad to be so. I understood this was safety underground. I just had a brief report on it before I came out today, so I am not sure whether it’s safety in the mines, or if it’s safety above ground. Anyway, I’ll make some inquiries and see what we can do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Simcoe East.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary; the member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: A supplementary on that, Mr. Speaker: Since it is safety in both the underground operations and in the plant operations that is at issue, would the minister perhaps use a fact-finder from the Ministry of Health on dust levels or the industrial safety branch on the in-plant operations; and perhaps a fact-finder, along with his colleague from the Ministry of Natural Resources, to investigate the underground conditions?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the suggestions made by the hon. member. I don’t know what techniques or what tools or what personnel we can use; I know that my ministry is looking at the dispute and that safety is one of the issues. If any of these other ministries can be of assistance, we’ll accept their support.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Simcoe East.

LAKE SIMCOE MARINA

Mr. G. E. Smith (Simcoe East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment.

Is the minister aware that a rather large marina development has been planned on Lake Simcoe near the city of Orillia, with facilities to accommodate some 500 boats? Under existing legislation the dumping of human waste is prohibited, but is the dumping of sink and wash water, which in many instances includes detergents and phosphates, also prohibited under the existing regulations?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, under our present regulations they must have holding tanks on their boats to deal with effluent discharge. I know most of the boaters in the Province of Ontario have holding tanks; and I would assume that most would put their wash water through their holding tank system. I would think that under our regulations as far as waste water is concerned, they would probably be polluting the lake. This would come under our Environmental Protection Act. If there is a specific problem of this happening, I’d be glad to look into it.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. G. E. Smith: I think the minister has partially answered the supplementary. But with 50 boats docked in rather shallow water, and with the increasing use of these shallow inland waters by the general boating public, would the minister give definite assurance that he will reassess existing regulations or the legislation to see if the quality of the water could be preserved?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is if they don’t come within the regulations or under the Environmental Protection Act now, and that is happening, certainly we will have to tighten up the regulations.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

FISH AND CAME MANAGEMENT

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Will the minister reconsider his dates for the closing of trout season and opening of the moose and deer hunting season in northern Ontario, as this appears to be going to work a hardship on the tourist operators? Can he give us any hard, factual information that this 11-day period is, in fact, going to protect either the trout or the deer and moose population?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have said on a number of occasions that we are fine-tuning our management of the resources of this province; and one of our desires, of course, is to make sure that the lake trout population is maintained, not only on a short-term basis but on a long-term basis. The same philosophy is being applied to moose and relates to our very extensive and enriched moose management programme.

Obviously, those who fish lake trout know full well that they are very vulnerable at that time of the year. My biologists tell me that the deadline is Oct. 1, that’s as far as you can go. Oct. 11 is not the opening date of the moose season, it is Oct. 4; I am sure the hon. member is referring to the non-resident hunting, because he referred to the tourist industry.

We strongly feel, of course, in our moose management programme -- and the biologists again gave me this advice -- that if we are going to manage those resources, cut down the number of hunters and cut down the overall take, we have to make it more difficult for the hunter to be successful by taking it out of the rutting season. This makes it possible, and is an overall part of the thrust of the ministry to manage those resources in a much finer way.

Mr. J. F. Stokes (Thunder Bay): It is not a bottomless pit.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur with a supplementary question.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Is the minister in a position at this time to tell us the full extent of the moose management programme? I am particularly interested, after having been to the minister, to the resources development committee and to the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, to find out if the minister has won the battle to spend the $440,000 on moose management that he publicly announced in February; and whether or not he is hiring, I think it is, three additional moose biologists in addition to the one he already has?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at an earlier point in this House, we have gone into a finer management of our moose resource; we have gone into smaller management units; we have increased the non-resident hunting fee from $125 to $175, plus a $15 trophy fee. We have also engaged four biologists who will be spotted in the four regions of northern Ontario and we will be working very closely with the pulp and paper companies in providing a better habitat for the moose of the northern part of this province.

While we indicated at an earlier time this year that we had hoped to enrich our moose management programme by some $400,000, a further review by Treasury Board indicated that at this point in time some cutbacks had to occur. We were granted the right to spend about $170,000 this year and, because of the lateness in the year in getting started, I doubt if we will spend more than $130,000. The four biologists are in place. The enriched programme is moving ahead and I am quite confident that next year and the year after the programme and the goals we are trying to achieve will be achieved.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT AMENDMENTS

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker: Inasmuch as the amendments he introduced to the Ontario Labour Relations Act on Friday last included dependent contractors as employees and hence eligible to form a union, would he now consider clearly including foremen as well, inasmuch as yet another group of foremen have applied for certification before the Ontario Labour Relations Board -- that of the Canadian Independent Automotive Union -- which in fact had its first hearing this morning?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, it was not the intent to cover foremen by this section, but I will take it under advisement.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

Mr. Sargent: A question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation --

Mr. Reid: Is he a smock or is he a jock?

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Super-jock.

Mr. Sargent: If my understanding is right, a large number of unsold tickets are left in the “mix” before the draw is made, compounding the odds against getting a large percentage of winners redeemed.

I would like to ask the minister if this is so, that there are large numbers of unsold tickets in the mix before the draw is made; and if so, what happens to the money that is not won? In other words, I think he is verging on running a sleazy carnival operation if he can’t get these things cleared up.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been asked, I believe.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): A sleazy operation?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I don’t --

Mr. Reid: Go ahead, P.T.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I don’t quite understand what the member means by unsold tickets being in some mix. It may be that, as he gets his supplementary ready, I will go to the other part of the question. Any unclaimed --

Mr. Sargent: If the minister doesn’t know that, he should not be running it. That is part of the whole lotteries operation, the mix.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: That is calling a spade a spade.

Hon. Mr. Welch: As far as unclaimed prizes are concerned, as the member knows, following the selection of the numbers according to the rules of that particular lottery, prize winners have one year during which to claim their prize so that moneys allocated for prizes during any particular draw are earmarked for that particular period of time. If they are not claimed after that, I am advised by the lottery corporation it goes out again as prize money. It is always there as prize money.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Welch: On the question with respect to the mix, it may well be that the member could explain further and if he wants some explanation as to what’s happened after each of the draws with respect to sold and unsold tickets, I would have to get that information from the lottery corporation. Furthermore, the minister does not particularly appreciate being referred to as a doughhead --

Mr. Sargent: I take that back. I apologize --

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- nor does he particularly like the use of the word --

Mr. Sargent: -- for that, Mr. Speaker. That is a lovable term --

Hon. Mr. Welch: I know; I know the member and I are good friends -- and nor do I like the use of the word “sleazy.”

Mr. Roy: Did that hurt the minister’s feelings a bit?

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. Bullbrook: Do members notice he hasn’t withdrawn that? He withdrew doughhead -- but he won’t retract sleazy.

Ms. Speaker: I think it was all-inclusive.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Sargent: It is very important to know if the programme is working. What percentage of the prizes offered are redeemed? Secondly, he should publish the odds to the consumer; what the odds are on the chance of winning.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): And what are the administrative costs?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think those two questions are very reasonable. I will get that information from the Ontario Lottery Corp.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary? The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: In relation to the unclaimed prizes, the minister says he waits for a year and then they come back. Is he going to have extra prizes the following year or is it just going to be put back into the kitty?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am told, from the experience of other lotteries -- for instance, the Quebec lottery -- that eventually we have extra draws to get the prize money out. The point is that after each draw, there is a certain amount earmarked for prizes which never comes back to the government. It goes out to the public in the form of prizes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

INQUIRY INTO DUMP TRUCK OPERATIONS

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Since I understand that the report of the commission looking into the dump truck industry in Ontario is now in the minister’s hands, I wonder if he might indicate when that will be tabled in the House?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, we received the report on Friday of last week. It is being reviewed -- the various recommendations -- and I would like to complete that review which should not take too long and then table it here in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: The member for -- supplementary?

Mr. Young: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister planning to take action, legislatively or regulation-wise, on the report to get rid of some of these problems before the end of this month?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We find some of the recommendations are good recommendations which we feel we can implement very quickly. Others will take a little longer but I think we can implement a number of them very quickly. We intend to do so.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York North.

NIGHT TRAFFIC COURT IN YORK REGION

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Attorney General; it is about a night traffic court in the region of York. As the minister knows, in the region of York, immediately north of this big Metropolitan area, there’s a situation in that a large number of our people find employment in Metropolitan Toronto and at the present time it is very difficult for those people if they get a traffic ticket -- it is a case of straight economics. They would rather pay it than take a day off work. All the municipalities within the region and the regional council have passed resolutions and sent letters to the minister asking for a night court; all we are asking for is one within the whole region. My question is when can we expect a night court in the region of York? That’s a simple question.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member can expect a night court in the region of York when the resources are made available to me which will provide the personnel and the other backup equipment required for such an operation. In the area where it has been working for, I believe, about a year and a half, it has been very successful, Mr. Speaker. It’s a matter which probably has a higher priority in an urban area as opposed to a rural area, but in any event when those resources are made available to me, that will be one of the regions which will have the benefit of that programme.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. W. Hodgson: Supplementary: When the minister says, “when resources are made available,” it would be interesting to know how much resources we are talking about for a traffic court two nights a week or three or four days a month? Are we talking about a large amount of money? When he refers to a rural area, I would like to point out that the region of York is not a rural area any more, it has 200,000 people and it’s very urban.

Mr. Sargent: Question?

Mr. Roy: The member for York North is as frustrated as we are.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have an answer?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, not only do we need resources in terms of individuals, we must have a justice of the peace to preside; we must have the clerical backup; we must also have the physical facility, a place wherein to hold it --

Mr. W. Hodgson: We haven’t got a courthouse; we need that too.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We must also have -- I don’t call it a computer arrangement -- the equipment programmed in which permits the instant recall of an individual’s driving record. In terms of dollars, I can’t stand here and say it would cost X dollars per annum. That information is available, I can get it for the hon. member, but I can’t tell him off the top of my head right now.

Mr. Roy: The member for York North should tell them that’s not good enough.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre with a supplementary.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: What is the actual extra cost in the city of Toronto in terms of operating night courts compared to day courts? And why can’t that same sort of facility be provided in York county, if it’s working here and is economical here?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the reason is that the Toronto experiment was put forward as a pilot project some two years ago, I think, and funds were allocated for that specific project. Now in order to expand that project, as has been suggested by the hon. member and by those from North York who have written about this in the past, I would have to have those sums allocated in my estimates. The hon. member will not find that I’m arguing with him -- I think it’s a good programme; it has worked well here --

Mr. Roy: Who’s running the show up there?

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- I’m just pointing out that I require those additional resources.

Mr. Bullbrook: Supplementary: If the minister did away with the portfolio known as the Provincial Secretariat for Justice and its concurrent cost, would he have any idea how many night courts he might be able to run?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, but I’m sure the hon. member would have some idea.

Mr. Roy: Ten courts.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I should point out that you’re getting a bargain now, because you’re only paying one cabinet minister’s salary, less five per cent, but you’re getting three jobs done.

Mr. Bullbrook: And worth every cent we pay him. That is, half of each.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York-Forest Hill.

METRO CENTRE

Mr. P. C. Givens (York-Forest Hill): A question of the Minister of Housing: Would the minister kindly tell us what specifically he’s doing with respect to preserving that aspect of the Metro Centre project which was going to permit the construction of thousands of units of rental residential accommodation in that project? Would it not be indeed a tragedy, having regard for the fact that it is so difficult to get cleared land in Metropolitan Toronto, if that project were to go down the drain as well? What is the minister doing about that?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I attended a meeting where the Premier and several of my cabinet colleagues were present, as well as representatives of the federal government. At that time, we discussed the fact that at a future date we would have the federal government and ourselves involved in a meeting, which would also involve Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Toronto, in regard to land use for that area in the future.

Mr. Roy: Is the minister still talking to the federal government?

Mr. Givens: Supplementary: Does the minister feel, from what he’s been able to examine thus far, that he will be able to construct as many units as they were talking about at that point in time, so that that part of the project will not go down the drain?

This concerns me, because it is so difficult to find cleared land in this area. Will the minister still be able to come up with that many units? Is that part of it still alive?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give any assurance as to whether it’s alive or not. We have not even discussed the project in detail.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, would that continuance of that project be affected by the conspiracy so frequently referred to by the minister’s colleague from St. David?

Mr. Roy: Dirty tricks.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would hope not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Singer: Maybe it doesn’t even exist. Ask the Treasurer about her when he comes back.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

SERVING OF BEER AT ONTARIO PLACE

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Can the minister explain why his ever-vigilant liquor inspectors descended upon Ontario Place at the end of last week to inform them that in future they must not serve beer in jugs but must only use mugs? Can the minister tell me why Ontario Place is being discriminated against in this particular regard?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t aware they had. I would have assumed that my colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), would have complained to me about it. I will certainly look into it and try to find out, first, if the occurrence did occur; and what the reason for it was.

Mr. Roy: Didn’t the minister tell them to serve pop down there?

Mr. Foulds: Being on Broadway keeps the Minister of Industry and Tourism too busy.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

Mr. Good: I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Can the minister ascertain at this time whether the expenses involved in the Wintario lottery have been in keeping with the 20 per cent projected by the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’d be glad to get that information from the lottery corporation for the hon. member.

Mr. Ruston: What does the minister do?

Hon. Mr. Welch: We supported it.

Mr. Ruston: Does he play the accordion?

Hon. Mr. Welch: We asked them to run the lottery and I’m sure we can get that information from them. In case the hon. member in the back row didn’t understand that when he voted for that bill, they run the lottery.

Mr. Ruston: The minister goes around playing the accordion. He is just going around in a chauffeur-driven limousine at the public expense and being entertained.

Mr. Speaker: We will have one supplementary.

Order, please. The hon. member for Wentworth.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Not by helicopter though.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Good: I have a supplementary to the original question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Good: When the minister estimated the expenses at 20 per cent of the take, how can he justify that in light of the fact that when anybody else but the province gets a licence from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to operate a lottery, the limit is 15 per cent for expenses, otherwise the police move in and want to see the books?

Hon. Mr. Welch: A part of that 20 per cent commission is to the retailer.

Mr. Good: It is the same with anybody else; they have retailers too.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’ll get that information.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; will the hon. member for Wentworth continue with his question?

Hon. Mr. Welch: When the hon. member for Waterloo North gets that information, then he can ask further questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: The minister should know.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re at the end of the question period. I had called the member for Wentworth earlier, so we will allow him to ask his question.

HOME OWNERSHIP MADE EASY PROGRAMME

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Housing who is hiding behind the member for High Park.

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): Get him to sit down.

Mr. Deans: Would the minister tell me who is this Peter Martin who works for the Ontario Housing Corp. of the Ministry of Housing, who thinks that moderate income people in the province earn $20,000 a year and who goes around saying: “Buyers of houses under Home Ownership Made Easy are fully protected under terms of agreements between Ontario Housing Corp. and the builders.” Who is this man who obviously knows so little about either income levels in the Province of Ontario or the terms and conditions that exist between Ontario Housing and the builders under the HOME programme?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Martin is a very capable, intelligent and very honest civil servant who is the director of the Ontario Housing Action Programme.

Mr. Deans: Does the minister agree with him in either or both of those statements?

Mr. Speaker: Is there a yes or no answer?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I was just going to say I didn’t hear all of the quotation because --

Mr. Stokes: Yes and no.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- of the noise. I’ll have to take it under consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Ewen from the standing administration of justice committee reported the following resolution:

RESOLVED: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations he granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976:

Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations

Ministry administration programme $ 2,913,000

Commercial standards programme 10,793,000

Technical standards programme 5,592,000

Public entertainment standards programme 6,154,000

Property rights programme 13,495,000 Registrar general programme 2,169,000

Hon. Mr. Handleman presented the annual report of the Ontario Racing Commission for the year 1974.

Mr. Roy: That is great, just when his estimates are over.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I may.

Mr. Speaker, today -- and I wish he were here now in the House -- the Minister of Natural Resources informed the House that he has in his budget only $170,000 for the moose management programme and that he is likely to be able to spend only $130,000 of that money. I would like to point out to you, sir, that on Feb. 21, 1975, in a public statement to the 47th annual convention of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the minister said categorically, -- and I will get to the point of order in a minute, if I may --

Mr. Speaker: At the present time I point out that there is not a point of order. There is nothing out of order. It is just a debate at this time.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, at that time the minister categorically said that $440,000 had been allocated for moose management. What I am seeking from you, sir, is how I, as a member of this Legislature, come to grips with this problem without calling the minister a liar and being named?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It would be an appropriate question to ask the minister. I can’t answer that question; I can’t take part in it.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking a question of the minister; I’m asking of you how that kind of misinformation can be righted in this chamber?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. It is more proper to ask the minister at the appropriate time.

Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 12th order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 100, An Act respecting the Negotiation of Collective Agreements between School Boards and Teachers.

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERS COLLECTIVE NECOTIATIONS ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware who had the floor last. Is it the member for Sandwich- Riverside?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): The member for Stormont (Mr. Samis) was next.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the member for Wentworth? Or is he finished?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I believe I actually did adjourn the debate, though I hadn’t said anything at that point, so I’ll be very, very brief. Maybe I won’t be very, very brief; it just depends how I feel, I suppose, as I go on.

Like every other member of the Legislature, over this weekend I received a great number of communications from teachers. I received letters and telephone calls, they came to my constituency office to meet with me, and they’ve expressed some reservations about the bill which, frankly, I think are justifiable and I don’t see any reason why they ought not to be paid heed to by the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells).

My understanding over the last 1½ years was that the ministry intended to bring in legislation which would create a more harmonious relationship between teachers and boards, and that it would regularize collective bargaining within the field of education in the Province of Ontario. I think that to a great extent -- and the majority of people agree with it; I think most teachers would agree with it -- the bill has begun to do that. The content of the bill does, in fact, regularize collective bargaining and it is likely, given a chance, that much of what’s contained within the bill will make the relationship between boards and teachers, and teachers and the Ministry of Education, and boards and the Ministry of Education, much snore harmonious.

There are some boards around, mark you, that still cling to Neanderthal thoughts. The Wentworth board is a good example. The Wentworth Board of Education is still living in the dark ages; if not all of it, certainly some of the members. There was a recent report in the Hamilton Spectator attributed to two of the more prominent members of the Wentworth board, Mr. Ridge and Mr. Henry, and they indicated that they didn’t think teachers ought to have the right to strike. I think it flies in the face of all reason and every sensible approach to collective bargaining, and I don’t quite understand how people who hold those kinds of views can continue to be elected year after year, but that’s a problem for the electorate in that area I suppose.

I do think, though, that the Ministry of Education has perhaps missed the boat in a couple of areas. I think if it is going to establish a more harmonious relationship then it should begin by understanding that it can’t establish that if the first act of the bill is to divide teachers. It worries me; I’ve thought about it over the weekend; I spoke to the minister, in fact, on Friday evening when both of us were at the same function; and I thought more about it on Saturday and on Sunday, and I hesitate to say it, but it seems to me that the ministry is either purposely or inadvertently creating a confrontation where no confrontation need exist.

By removing principals and vice-principals from the terms of the bill which gives them the same rights as all other teachers, the ministry creates a situation where it will have a definite chance of discord and a lack of harmony within that school. Now, the minister can imagine what would happen in a school if it ever got to the point -- and I hope it never dues -- where there might be a strike. He can imagine how long it would take to re-establish the good feeling, the sense of co-operation that may have developed, and ought to be there, between the principal, vice-principal and the remainder of the staff if the principal and the vice-principal were compelled by law to go into the school, to cross the picket line.

It may be, although I doubt it, that in the course of time, if any strike situations develop, you might find it necessary some day to take some other action. But it would seem to me, in the first instance, if you want to establish a good relationship, then we vest in all of the employees the same rights; that we guarantee principals and vice-principals the same rights as all other teachers in the system. And one hopes that by virtue of all of the other clauses in the bill that deal with the methods of collective bargaining, that we will never have a strike. If, indeed, a strike situation develops, we would then make an evaluation of whether or not it would have made sense to have had principals and vice-principals in the school -- but we don’t do it in advance.

What we do now is to set out the broadest possible terms, the broadest possible conditions and we give those rights to as many people as possible -- and that includes those other people, principals and vice-principals. We try to ensure that there won’t be any discord or lack of harmony develop.

So, what I’m really urging the minister to do is to look ahead and to recognize that if a strike should develop that difficulties will arise; that there will be a loss of contact between the principals and vice-principals and teachers. By legislation, the minister will have put them on opposite sides of the fence. By legislation, he will have required one to cross the picket line of the other. He will have created unrest. He will have created a situation in which trust is deteriorated, and he ought not to do that.

The minister should give it a chance; let it work the other way first. Make available to all people the opportunity to strike if they feel that conditions are so unacceptable to them that they must withdraw their services. Put don’t, for heaven’s sake, under the guise of trying to create a better system, create a confrontation within the system that currently exists.

In all fairness, it is bad enough to have the teachers in confrontation with the board, but that is understandable. It is bad enough to have the teachers in confrontation with the Ministry of Education, but that is understandable. But don’t break it down to the point where half a dozen or a dozen teachers in one school are faced with the possibility of setting up a picket line, and two of their colleagues are required by law to cross that picket line.

Don’t set it up in such a way as to make it necessary for the principal to become simply an administrator and no longer part of the teaching team. Don’t set it up in such a way as to deprive those people of the opportunity of developing over a long period of time a good relationship and then destroy it because of one misunderstanding between the board and the collective bargaining agent for the teachers.

The principal and vice-principal, if they are required to go into the school, can do very little anyway. They certainly can’t undertake to teach the children. Since the government has given teachers the right to strike, the schools are not going to continue to operate during the strike period. Therefore, to create a conflict in a situation for which there is no reason doesn’t make sense to me. And I would ask the minister to give it a trial. Put it the other way. Allow the principals and vice-principals the same rights as the remainder of the teaching staff, and see if that won’t work better. The minister is then guaranteeing himself that he is not going to be creating conflicts where no conflicts need have existed.

I also want to suggest that the whole matter of extracurricular activities -- I think the minister understands what’s going to happen. Teachers, because he has included extra- and co-curricular activities in the context of the bill, are going to be extremely reluctant to involve themselves in that aspect of their lives; they’re going to be very reluctant. Particularly in years when negotiations are taking place and in years when there may be the possibility of a conflict developing, it will be very difficult for the teacher even to volunteer at the beginning of the year to involve himself or herself in any of the things which would be considered to be extracurricular at least.

It will be hard to get teachers to volunteer to take on the drama club; to take on the basketball team; to take on the extracurricular physical activities related to the growth of the children in the area and that school. Therefore, what is likely to happen is that rather than making it easier, the minister is going to make it more difficult. The teachers are going to be faced with a decision on day one as to whether or not they will volunteer their services and their skills for other than the things for which they are being paid. They recognize that the minute they volunteer and the minute they involve themselves, at that point, they’re locked in and if they choose for whatever reason to withdraw from that particular involvement, they will be considered to be withdrawing services under the strike clause.

That’s what the interpretation is and I think in all fairness, if that isn’t what the bill says, let’s try to make sure it’s very clear.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Some people say it is that by --

Mr. Deans: Okay, let’s be fair about it. If there are people who interpret it that way, let’s rewrite the section so it makes it abundantly clear that’s not the intention.

The minister can see what I am saying. If that were to be interpreted that way, the likelihood of any person in the teaching profession involving himself in extra- and co-curricular activities -- I think we have to have a clearer definition, by the way, of what is considered extracurricular and what is co-curricular. I think we have to have that clearly defined in easily understandable language so that any person, whether in the school or out of the school, required to interpret the action of a teacher or a group of teachers in any given situation, can interpret it in keeping with the intent of this Legislature rather than interpreting it, sort of willy nilly, across the province.

The other matter which seems to be of some major concern -- and I understand that -- is termination date. Everything has a termination date, there is no question about that, but I think, aside from the fact there is a sense among the teaching profession of some kind of uniformity being established -- some kind of lock-step operation as they put it -- another problem arises. If the minister is going to have all the contracts expire on the same day, he is going to put a very heavy load on his conciliation and mediation operations. Over the Province of Ontario, given the vast number of boards which negotiate, if the minister is going to have a conciliation and mediation service which will be able to meet, reasonably expeditiously, the demands of the various boards and teacher groups for assistance, he is going to have to have a very large operation if he has them all terminate on the same day. It would seem to me that the suggestion of my colleague is a very valid suggestion -- that it he staggered twice a year, perhaps, to ensure this will work the way we intend it to work.

I don’t know how many boards there are -- how many boards arc there?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): There are 175.

Mr. Deans: If all 175 -- or even, let’s say half -- of the boards found themselves in a situation requiring the services of mediators or conciliation people, it would severely tax any reasonable structure set up for that purpose, to enable them to have people available out in the field and doing the job they’re being paid to do in every case. There would be undue delay and the undue delay would cause unrest and it would likely lead to strikes rather than help to avoid them.

I really do urge the minister to give some thought to that, that we should perhaps set two dates for the termination in order that we don’t overtax the mediation conciliation services and in order that we don’t do the very reverse of what we are hoping to accomplish, delay unnecessarily any decisions or any available assistance in the whole negotiation process. If that were to be the case, then I think it fair to say that that would prove to be much more exasperating and would likely be conflict creating rather than conflict avoiding. I think the minister has to bear that in mind as he goes through the sections of the bill.

I don’t know whether the minister gave a lot of thought to those three sections. Perhaps he did. Maybe he has very good and sound reasons for having put forward the suggested legislation that he has, but I would certainly be interested in hearing what that is.

I would like to know clearly how the minister thinks it possible to maintain that good relationship among all of the staff if he is going to hive off two or three out of the total number and make them walk across the picket line in the event there’s a strike. I would like to know how he then hopes that those relationships will be re-established in the way that they were previously -- that the good feeling between employees will be re-established.

I would like to know more clearly what the minister’s interpretation is of the extra- and co-curricular activities, in order that we can clearly understand them. I know, for example, I spoke at some length with one of the teachers who teaches in the physical education department. She said to me that she is already having some real difficulty in getting people to volunteer. She is having trouble getting volunteers for a number of extracurricular activities that are carried on in the various schools in the area. She said if there is any question at all about their volunteering for extracurricular activities, meaning that that then deprives them of the right to stop for fear of that being considered some form of striking, she just won’t be able to get anyone at all. I think she needs that clarified, and so do I.

As I say, I do think the minister could create a lot of controversy and a lot of hard feeling and he could, in fact, create a tremendous burden on the staff he is going to have to employ if he has his termination date one day during the course of the year. I argue the minister to consider those aspects of it, because I think that they are probably real, they mean something to a lot of people; we are all eager to see harmony, we all want to see the system work well; we want to try to avoid the pitfalls before they occur.

We want to look ahead and try to imagine what might happen within the system, given that it came to that ultimate point when a strike was inevitable -- and I think every one of us in this House hopes that that will never occur although we understand realistically that there will be such times. I think you have to look ahead and try to imagine the situation then and how the people in that situation will respond to the legislative dictates of this House in this bill. I think it’s fair to say that the way I put it to you is likely to be the way that it will occur. And let’s not create any conflict if we don’t have to.

There are other things in the bill to be dealt with during the discussion in committee, but I think otherwise the majority of people who have spoken to me are fairly happy -- happy that teachers should have the rights that other people in society enjoy. And I don’t think for one minute that teachers will abuse those rights. I don’t think so.

When I look back and I think of what has taken place over the last year, there has been a great deal of exasperation shown, but I think it has really been that they have been upset by the fact that they couldn’t really come to grips with what were the major problems confronting them.

Maybe we have helped to solve those things in this bill, but I always like to feel this about it, Mr. Minister: When I trust my children to those teachers, then they are intelligent, sensible and sensitive people. They understand the impact of disruption of the service. They understand the effect that it has on children and they don’t take it lightly -- and they have never taken it lightly and they are not going to take it lightly now. I believe they’re going to fulfil their obligations just as other sectors of society fulfil theirs. I feel we might inadvertently create problems where we need not, and I ask the minister to consider changing the legislation along the lines I’ve suggested.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I just have a few comments to make on this bill. I suppose by this time that whatever anyone says begins to become repetitive, but I would like to express my thoughts in regard to Bill 100.

Certainly it is a breakthrough in providing a type of negotiations which has not existed before, and providing a means by which those negotiations can take place between the teachers and the board. For the last two years in particular, there has been a growing need for some type of legislation and there has been an expectancy not only on the part of the teachers and the boards, but of the general public as well. The minister has added to that expectancy about every three months by announcing that the bill was coming within a week or two, but we kept waiting and waiting. Finally, I suppose, it becomes almost a political necessity either to bring in the bill now, or have some other minister bring it in later on.

In fact, the bill in many areas is supportable and there are some innovative procedures that are part of the bill that certainly the minister can be proud of. Once they’re put into place and are working, I believe they will be taken up by other parts of government, in particular the Ministry of Labour, where some of these innovative methods may be placed within the Acts that govern regular bargaining in other areas.

The two most controversial issues that have arisen have to do with principals and vice-principals not being included with the teachers in the right to strike. I, for one -- and as expressed, I presume, by the previous speakers from my party and the party to my left as well -- see the principal not particularly as an administrator within the school.

I think we have an administrative staff in every board of education across this province. They are all paid big money, in the $30,000 and $40,000-bracket, for providing the administration for the boards of education. I believe that these are the people who administrate the school system. Obviously, if there are two layers of administration, one which is centralized usually in an office where they seem to go around in circles and try to find things to do to administrate, and another that is spread out into each school itself, consisting of principals, I think one develops a situation where there’s an overlapping of service, to put it as mildly as I can, and a waste of money that is almost incomprehensible when one looks at the salaries that are paid to the people who are supposed to be the administrators and the superintendents and whatnot in the school boards that have been established.

Beyond that, there are ministry regional offices where there are usually 18, 20 or 30 people involved -- there are 30 people, I think, in a rather small one that I know of -- in administration of the school system. Many of the principals and the vice-principals I have talked to have had some difficulty finding those people at times. It’s very difficult to see how that system fits in with the present administrative staff at the local level.

We thought when the government formed the regional boards that this would ultimately do away with what used to be called provincial government inspectors, but now are called some other name such as --

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Supervisors?

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Superintendents?

Mr. R. S. Smith: No, supervisors. They give advice to people on how to do things and all these kinds of things. Really, the bureaucracy has grown beyond itself --

Mr. J. R. Smith: Will the Liberals close them all down?

Mr. Deacon: The Liberals will get these people working right in the classroom.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The Liberals would reduce the staff in those areas considerably, I’m sure. The member asked the question; I gave him an answer.

The minister knows that there was some question about closing down an office in my city. Of course, if we are going to have them, we are going to have them in every area; and that is the case right now. Not only is it the numbers that are spread across the province, but it is also the amounts of money that are spent in these offices, because when one looks at it, it amounts to a total administrative cost that has more than tripled over the past five or six years within this ministry. Therefore, to consider the principal or the vice-principal as further parts of the administration of education is almost ridiculous.

The principal and vice-principal certainly are a part of the teaching staff of the school. To have it any other way, I believe, would cause a disruption within the school, particularly after a period where teachers may choose to withdraw their services legally under this Act. At that time, if the principals and the vice-principals were by this Act not included within that group that are able to withdraw their services, after negotiations had come to a conclusion and the schools had reopened or the teachers had gone back to work, I think there would be an untenable situation between the teacher principal and his colleagues within that school to the extent where the minister may find himself having to shuffle principals and vice-principals around from school to school to find where they could work in co-operation with the teachers in that school again. Therefore, I think that section 64 can lead to nothing but disruption.

The second area I want to cover is the same area that most other people are covering; that is, section 1(1) (iii), which reads: “Discontinuance of the co-curricular or extracurricular programmes in a school or schools.”

On the weekend, I met with a number of teachers in my area, as well as a number of vice-principals and principals, and many of them were unaware of the term “co-curricular”. They certainly understood what extracurricular was. They don’t know where the term co-curricular came from, unless it was from one of those people who’s being paid so much money to come up with ideas that they have extracted a new term from somewhere and included it in this Act.

In the Act there is no definition of co-curricular or of extracurricular, and of course without those definitions that section could become almost oppressive in its application towards individuals or towards teachers as a group within a school or within a system.

I have looked at it, and the minister has apparently indicated outside of this House, although he hasn’t indicated here, that he is asking the teachers’ federations and their separate groups, particularly OSSTF, I suppose, to provide to him something that would be workable and could take the place of section 1(1)(iii).

I would suggest to him that they have all been trying to think of this and to come up with some other suggestion, but the only plausible suggestion that seems to come forward, since there is really no description of co-curricular or extracurricular which could be universally acceptable to boards, teachers and to the public as well as to the ministry which, in this case, really should come last. It is not governing for itself; it is governing for the people in the province for a change. The only solution to the problem as I see it and as I would put forward is the complete removal of that part from the Act.

I believe the teachers and the trustees across this province are prepared to live with things as they are in that area. They have lived with things as they are for a good long time and I think there is goodwill on both sides, particularly with the introduction of this Act. It will bring back goodwill on both sides which will be acceptable. If this section is removed the extracurricular programmes will continue in our schools and the teachers, because of their professionalism and the position they have taken in the past, insofar as the students are concerned, will continue to provide those extracurricular activities necessary for the functioning of any school.

There is no doubt that a school can’t function properly without extracurricular activities because the students are not only being educated in the narrow sense within our system but the extracurricular activities which take place are perhaps as important in the broad sense of education. I believe the teachers and the boards are able to continue as they have in the past without the restrictions placed on that co-operation by this Act.

It appears to me the minister is taking the stand in this section that teachers will cause slow-downs or withdraw their services as a method of abuse rather than as strike action during those periods when it is allowed. I believe this in itself is an indication of the mistrust which has grown up between this ministry and those it serves, including the public. I believe the inclusion of this part in the Act is saying to the teachers, “We don’t trust you to operate within the other constrictions this Act will impose. You will go and find some other way to create havoc within the schools or within the system.” I believe the minister has a responsibility to remove that to show his good faith, insofar as his bargaining or his agreements with the teachers through the boards and through this Act are conceived.

Those are the two things I would suggest very strongly to the ministry. I would suggest it is the intention of our party to have amendments in those two areas when the bill goes to committee.

There are a number of other areas I won’t touch on because other people have spoken about them, including my leader, in regard to the right of teachers to control their own profession. I think this is a very important step which has to be taken in the very near future because it is one of the few professions left without any form of self-control and in which government intervention controls the profession itself. I don’t think, when one looks at the freedom the other professions have, even though in the last few years restrictions have been placed on them by the inclusion of public input on their boards of governors, that the same method could be used for the self-control of the profession.

Those were the only few remarks that I had to make, Mr. Speaker. I’m sorry that most of them, I suppose, were repetitive. But I think that after the first two or three speakers in this debate, most of it has been repetitive.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Stormont .

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and at the risk of further aggravating the repetitious aspect of this debate, I would like to make a few comments on this bill.

I have somewhat personal involvement in this bill, having been a teacher for the past seven years -- until last Oct. 17, when the people of Cornwall decided to send me to Toronto. I do have rather fresh and vivid memories of 1973 with Bills 274 and 275. I want to commend the minister for having replaced the three Rs of those two pieces of legislation with the three Rs of this one. As did most teachers in Ontario, I thought the Rs in Bill 274 and Bill 275 repressive, regressive and repulsive.

Let me say that if the minister is going to accentuate rights, reason and responsibility in their place, as a teacher and a member of this Legislature I wholeheartedly welcome the change in attitude. Instead of trying to spite or avenge a particular group, or isolate them in society, I think this bill represents a tremendous change in attitude on the part of the minister and the government I congratulate him for trying to take a constructive and a positive approach towards the difficult and rather complex question of teacher-board relations in the Province of Ontario.

Before going into the actual bill, Mr. Speaker, and some of its provisions, I temper those congratulations with certain press comments I have noticed, especially from pseudo-sophisticated, self-anointed Solons of our society who parade under the banner of the Globe and Mail. I refer specifically to an editorial on Saturday, May 31, 1975, immediately following the introduction of this bill.

As I said, I think the minister’s intentions were good and he is taking a very constructive approach in this whole field. But it gets rather monotonous and aggravating for teachers, as well as legislators, to have to listen to the constant reminders of the 19th century, the reactionary voice of the editorial board of the Globe and Mail. I’ll just quote a few of their statements, which I think indicate their attitude and which I regard as anything but constructive in contrast to the legislation.

They use such expressions as, for example: “What it does is codify confrontation.” Further clown in the editorial, they say: “Instead of caving in to the teachers, Mr. Wells should have commissioned his fact-finders to find alternative methods to a strike for achieving fair settlements.”

They say that teachers have a monopoly and that the public has no alternative to their services. They talk in terms of teachers having an absolute monopoly, with no control whatsoever. They wind up the editorial by saying: “What has been done is wrong in principle and will turn out to be wrong in practice.”

Mr. Speaker, that is the last sort of thing we need in this debate, in trying to improve the situation in Ontario, this uncompromising, unrealistic, rather regressive reactionary attitude is personified by the commentators or editorialists of the Globe and Mail. I am glad to see that the Conservative Party has not succumbed to the editorial influences of the Globe and Mail. Instead, it is trying to do something constructive for the good of all the people of Ontario, and not just the editorial board of the Globe and Mail.

There are certain positive features of this bill, which I think have already been outlined by our educational critic that we welcome. Giving teachers the right to strike. Obviously that scares some people, but it is something we in this party believe, not as a question of opportunistic electoral politics but as a matter of principle.

Teachers deserve the right to strike. Teachers are part of our society. It has always amazed me that most people don’t begrudge other sectors of our economy or society having the right to strike. It always amazed me that the perennial put-downs in our societies, garbage collectors or ditch diggers, had rights that I, as a teacher, supposedly a professional, was denied because I worked in the public service via the school board. So all this bill is doing in that respect is giving teachers equal rights with other sectors of our society; something that is long overdue and something they richly deserve.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that teachers are not reckless, irresponsible and strike-prone people. Teachers realize the implications of a strike. They feel it in their pocketbook.

I would dare say most teachers are extremely reluctant to resort to the strike weapon possibly more so than other sectors of our society. This is because of their conditioning, because of the constant emphasis on professionalism, and possibly because of a certain anti-union bias which sometimes comes through among certain segments of teachers. I would say that when teachers are given this right, I think we can expect they will respond in a manner befitting the responsibilities of a teacher and a professional.

The second thing I welcome in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is giving teachers the right to negotiate conditions of work. I think, again, this is something long overdue. It always amazed me, being a teacher, that for the so-called perennial garbage collector or ditch-digger or anyone in a mill or a factory or most jobs, it was considered an inherent right to negotiate conditions of work as well as salaries; whereas we, as teachers, were always told it was beyond our prerogative or beyond our rights within society to negotiate such things.

That’s a lot of bunk and I’m glad to see the minister has recognized it for exactly what it is and has given teachers the rights they so richly deserve. If we’re really interested in the quality of education, surely such vital issues as the size of our classes, the number of periods a teacher is expected to teach and basic conditions in the school are negotiable items. If this is a team effort in terms of education, surely the teachers have had input and surely the teachers can be constructive in that. I’m glad to see the quality of education, as personified in the conditions of work, now becomes a negotiable item.

The third thing, I think, which is constructive in the bill is the new method introduced by the minister with reference to the question of withdrawal of services or a strike. I congratulate him for introducing such ideas as the fact-finder; the Educational Relations Committee; and final-offer selection. The minister has shown some degree of initiative and originality in trying to cushion the effects of a possible strike, in trying to delay it and trying to make it something a little more difficult than the general public would assume.

I would only hope the people on the Globe and Mail and some of the sensationalist members of the media would take note of the fact that it will not be easy for any teacher to go on strike, or any group of teachers to resort to the strike weapon. It can be quite difficult; teachers will obviously have to think twice between secret ballots, fact-finders, final-offer selection, the cooling off period and all these various other steps. It won’t be easy for teachers to go on strike and they will obviously think twice about it.

I think these features of the legislation, which give the public some degree of assurance, are reasonable. I congratulate the minister for doing that, although obviously he can go a little too far if he interprets it to the extent that he just wants to frustrate the teachers.

However, I do have some reservations about the bill, some of which have already been spoken about before, and no doubt will be spoken about afterwards as well. The basic one, obviously, is the one I’ve received the most mail on; that is denying principals and vice-principals the same rights as teachers in section 64.

Having been a teacher, it is obviously important that if the principal is going to have the confidence of his staff, and vice versa then they’re going to have the very deep feeling they’re working together on this; it is a joint effort, or team effort, within the confines of the school.

Other speakers have already mentioned the whole concept of a head teacher. I think that’s widely accepted in education. Other speakers have mentioned the possibilities, if this bill goes through as it, in the event of a strike; that is the educational impact of having the teachers on one side and the principals and vice-principals on the other side. Obviously, it is going to divide the staff bitterly.

I think it’s very unfair to the principals themselves. They have a tough enough job as it is but it will be further complicated by always having that spectre raised at negotiation time, as to whether the principals will be on the other side, will not be with their teachers. They are in the same bargaining unit, they belong to the same teachers’ federation; they should have the same rights as the teachers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record some mail I’ve received from principals outlining their objections, and I think they’re very well founded. One is from a high school principal and I’d like to read a portion of his letter:

It’s difficult to reconcile the stated purpose of Bill 100, “the furthering of harmonious relations between board and teachers,” article 2; with article 64(1)) of this bill which, in my view, is aimed at destroying the harmonious relations between principals, vice-principals and their teachers by separating and dividing both parties at a time of crisis, strike or a sanction. If the most important and basic unit of the educational system is the school and if mutual trust and truth and a congenial atmosphere is to be maintained in that basic unit, then the principals and vice-principals ought not to be considered only as essential employees at the time of a strike -- the management in other words -- but ought to have all the rights, privileges and responsibilities accorded to their colleagues under that Act.

That was from a high school principal; I have one from a grade school principal which expresses the same view:

As a principal I am adamantly against section 64 which separates principals and vice-principals from teachers and gives them a solely management role.

If the principal is to function successfully as the co-ordinator of a theme which is working for the educational benefit of the children, then he or she must not be set apart from the teachers, as this legislation proposes to do. Of what benefit will membership in a branch affiliate be to a principal or a vice-principal if he or she is denied the right to vote.

It is hoped that these matters will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Education so that necessary changes can be made in the legislation.

I have one interesting one, Mr. Speaker, from a teacher commenting on this aspect of the legislation. He says:

As a teacher, I view my principal first as a fellow teacher, than as middle management. He’s a member of my professional affiliate. This section effectively separates him from the ranks of teachers and can lead to deterioration of the school harmony that we now enjoy.

The principal can appoint a responsible person to ensure the safety of children in the event of a strike. This was the case in 1974 and I believe it was handled satisfactorily.

That is a teacher commenting on this particular thing. Here is one final one from a sister who is also a school principal. She says:

I deeply regret that Bill 100 had to be formulated in order that collective bargaining could he carried out between teachers and school boards. Since the word “strike” has entered the vocabulary of the teaching profession I question why principals and vice-principals are not allowed to do so. A principal is only as good as his staff is. If he is set apart as the bill states, he can no longer function effectively.

All I would say, Mr. Speaker, is that if principals feel strongly -- and I am sure they do, all across the province, in all 117 constituencies -- that the bill is going to compromise their effectiveness within the confines of their own school and as people participating in the educational process, I would ask the minister seriously to reconsider that particular clause of the bill, taking into account the effect it is going to have on education. I realize some of the political ramifications involved, but I ask him to consider the educational ramifications in the school with the teachers and with the principals.

The second feature of this legislation that we in the NDP have reservations about, as already expressed, is the idea of a uniform terminal date for all contracts. I think it has already been pointed out by several speakers that this is rather unwieldy. It puts greatly undue pressure on the mediator, the fact-finders and the entire staff within the province. I think to a certain extent it also reduces the local autonomy within the confines of the school board and the bargaining committee, because if we have almost uniformity as to Aug. 31 in terms of trying to settle, then obviously the bigger boards will set the pace and the smaller boards will drag along and in effect lose some of their autonomy.

I think diversity is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, in terms of educational policy; diversity in bargaining, I think, is a good thing. There certainly are different conditions in the north as compared with Metropolitan Toronto. There are some variations in eastern Ontario as well that should be considered. Again I would ask the minister to reconsider the idea of this type of uniformity for all of Ontario. We can have diversity and yet still have a form of unity within the confines of the legislation with suitable amendments.

I would hope we are not evolving toward some system of provincial bargaining as well. As a teacher I am rather concerned about the possible implications of provincial bargaining, having seen how the teachers in Quebec suffered so badly from provincial bargaining. There the provincial government used its power in every possible way to defeat and to pretty well destroy the teachers’ federation in the late 1960s. I wouldn’t want to see that happen here in Ontario. I don’t think that is the intent of the bill. I would hope that if we amended this clause we would get away from even that possible confrontation or showdown. I am sure the teachers don’t want it; I am sure the government doesn’t need it; and I am sure the taxpayers don’t want it.

I have a final reservation, Mr. Speaker, about the whole question of defining what is a strike, as already alluded to by the member for Nipissing. I would object to the idea that a slowdown in the performance of one’s duties is on the same level or equivalent as a withdrawal of services, because it certainly isn’t. I would dare say that the Ontario Legislature would frequently be defined as being on strike, if we applied that definition to some of the proceedings and some of the procedures we endure here in the Ontario Legislature some days.

More important, obviously, are extracurricular activities, and a variety of speakers have spoken on that as well. Again I would like to express, as other members have said, that it is a voluntary thing. Any teacher who wants to get involved in sports, drama or anything else is doing it on a voluntary basis. It shouldn’t be part of a negotiable contract whatsoever. It should be left on a voluntary basis. I would ask simply that the minister withdraw that clause altogether.

I think the principals, the school boards and the teachers would be far better served if that particular clause were withdrawn totally from the bill and if we were to leave it on a voluntary basis so that those who wanted to get involved would do so because of a personal commitment to the students, to the activities, to the schools or to their own particular interests. If we start bringing it within the realm of a contract, or some degree of negotiation, I think we are compromising the personal commitment a teacher makes when he gets involved in voluntary activities.

I have also had numerous letters expressing some degree of concern about the appointments to the Education Relations Commission. I would hope the minister, being the responsible and honourable person that he is, would give suitable representation to all viewpoints. I realize the idea of a 2-2-1 split obviously has very basic perils involved in it. The member for Port Arthur has suggested five eminent people of the type and character he thinks would make good members. I would obviously endorse his recommendations, but I would also ask that we exercise those responsibilities and powers with great caution and care because of the potential power of that commission.

I was also asked by a member of the federation in my own constituency about the real value of the arbitration proceedings if all this is to be done within the confines of spending ceilings. If we are going to have true arbitration, is it really arbitration if we still maintain those educational spending ceilings? I would hope that would also be considered.

In conclusion, I welcome the basic changes in the bill. I hope that amendments or modifications are made in at least three areas. I would say that if the minister is really serious about imposing rights, reason and responsibility as the basic philosophy behind board-staff relations for the next five years in the Province of Ontario, we in this party will heartily endorse the change. As I say, I am sure that in committee my colleague from Port Arthur will propose a series of amendments, not to slow down the passage of the bill and not to be obstreperous in any way, but to make this a better bill and provide a better deal for the teachers of Ontario. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Most of what I have to say has already been said, but I think it bears repeating. It’s rather interesting that it’s some 18 months since we were first told in this House that we were going to have such a bill. It has been a political football, batted back and forth, by the minister particularly, for some 18 months. I must admit I find I have to say something nice about the minister --

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): And that’s not easy.

Mr. Reid: -- even after he has put it off for 18 months; but at least he has shown himself capable of flexibility in changing his mind and performing a 180-degree turn in this matter.

We in the Liberal Party support the bill because we feel it’s going to improve the quality of education in the Province of Ontario. Some of us, at one time or other, have been school teachers, myself included, so I think some of us speak with some experience in this matter.

Before I speak to the principle of the bill, there is one matter in particular that bothers me somewhat; it’s the method used by the minister -- at least he has to accept responsibility for the presentation of the bill, supposedly to the teachers and I assume also to the trustees.

We all read the news reports about the bill being left in a room in the Royal York, I believe, and how one of the reporters just happened to have seen the bill. Of course, we saw the trial balloon come out in the papers and everyone, including the minister, was looking very smug about it and saying: “My goodness gracious me, how did that ever happen?” Of course the minister, without putting his neck on the line, got public reaction to the bill without taking too many political chances. If that wasn’t the case, the alternative is that there are very sloppy people in the ministry who supposedly can’t even keep track of one copy of a bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Not in my ministry.

Mr. Reid: It wasn’t that ministry. One thing bothers me somewhat -- and I must say this is a conundrum I haven’t been able to get straight in my own mind -- and that is the need and the requirement to discuss with the people most directly affected by legislation what we are going to do; to get their ideas and feelings on it before it is actually presented to the Legislature. And, of course, the antithesis of that is that it’s been the practice and tradition in the Legislature, the House of Commons and so on, that the bill is presented to the Legislature first and that we, as elected, responsible members -- elected from the whole province and responsible to the people -- should give our views on that particular piece of legislation.

I find it almost an abrogation of the privileges of the Legislature that in this particular case this bill should have been made available, whether on purpose or otherwise, to people who are not directly responsible to the people of the province. I received a communication, as a matter of fact just today, from one of the school boards stating they were most upset because one of their teachers came to them and said, “I’ve seen a copy of the bill and this is what is in it;” whereas the trustees on the school board were not aware of what was in the bill.

At least this was their comment; perhaps it was because the trustees weren’t told by their board what was in the bill. But I think there’s a very delicate and sensitive question there and I think the minister should make some report to the House on just how this particular event happened. As I say, I agree with the principle of discussing with those people what should be in the legislation, but it seems to me an abrogation of the privileges of all of us in this House that the bill itself, or a draft copy of the bill, should be made available to others before it is presented to the House.

Mr. Speaker, the two things I want to mention particularly, and they’ve been touched on by pretty well every speaker so far, are the clauses dealing with the principals and vice-principals. It seems to me that by the legislation the principals and vice-principals are really neither fish nor fowl. In section (a), I believe, it says they are going to be part of the bargaining unit, and yet in section (b), in the case of a strike or lockout, they are management people for the intents and purposes and spirit of the Act. On the one hand the bill is saying that as far as collective bargaining goes, as far as the relationship of principals and vice-principals to the teachers and the school goes, they are part of that bargaining unit; and then we turn around and say, but in the case of a strike or lockout they are, in fact, management people.

I would say to the minister that this is an ambiguity that can’t be allowed to remain in the bill. It must be clarified and I think it must be clarified in the respect that if the principals and vice-principals are part of the bargaining unit, they have all the rights and privileges, therefore, of the other teachers in the bargaining unit, and that in the case of a strike or a lockout they are part of that bargaining unit that is on strike.

I say that for a number of reasons. The leader of this party, the member for Brant (Mr. B. F. Nixon) went through the historical connotations of this last Friday, when he stated that the principals originally were the driving force behind OSSTF. They feel and they consider themselves part of the bargaining unit, and that’s the way they want it and that’s the way they prefer it. It seems to me their desires and opinions in this matter should be respected and that, in fact, they should be part of the bargaining unit; and if there is a strike or lockout they are, along with the rest of the teachers, either on strike or, if the case may be, they are locked out; but in any case there is a unity there between the principals and the teachers. It has been said that the principals and the vice-principals are the premier teachers if you like, Mr. Speaker. I must say from my own experience, I did teach for two years in the Province of Manitoba on a letter of permission and for two weeks in the Province of Ontario before the election was called, so I have a little experience in this matter.

Mr. Roy: Vast experience.

Mr. Reid: I want to tell the minister what my experience was in the Province of Manitoba. I taught in a small school where we had a principal who was not, let us say, the best. He considered himself to be a little bit better than the teachers under him. To make a long story short, I won’t go into the details, but very bad feelings developed between the teachers and the principal. As a matter of fact, it got to the point where some of the teachers, myself included, did something that I would think is almost unheard of, probably, in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Roy: They went into politics.

Mr. Reid: We did those things too, but we won’t go into it. What we did was we wound up going to one of the board members to tell him how bad the principal was. As a result, finally the board fired that particular gentleman as the principal in that particular school and he left that teaching division. The point of that is that while this enmity and bad feeling were going on between the teachers in the school and the principal, the ones who suffered were the students. I can remember, and I think we were responsible people at that time, there were constant meetings among the teachers. It got to the point where complete co-operation broke down between the teachers and the principal. We were at constant war with each other and the administration of the school and the quality of teaching just went down the drain.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, this is what is going to happen if, in the case of a strike or a lockout, you have the principals and vice-principals on one side and the teachers on another. You’re going to get into this kind of enmity, this kind of bad feeling that is going, at some point or other, to lead to a downgrading in the quality of education because the cooperation, the mutual respect and the mutual appreciation of each other are not going to be there.

I’ve been involved personally in a number of strikes. lit doesn’t matter if there is prolonged strike, those feelings build up. It’s a natural consequence of the strike itself.

Mr. Speaker, if you place the principals and vice-principals on the side of management against the teachers, it’s going to be a long time within that school or that school board area before there is going to be cooperation and good feelings between the teacher’s and the principals and vice-principals. I would strongly urge the minister to reconsider that section and to put the principals and vice-principals completely in the bargaining unit and say they are entitled to all the rights and privileges the teachers share in the case of strike or lock-out.

I must temper my comments, Mr. Speaker, with the indication that on the other hand I understand the position of the school boards. It’s my impression that the school boards tend to look upon the principal as management’s man in the schools. I can understand and appreciate their feelings and their problems in this regard.

I think, however, again I must say from my experience it’s in the long-run interest of the students and the quality of education that the principals and vice-principals be part of the bargaining unit 100 per cent, particularly because they consider themselves so to be.

Many principals and vice-principals now are going back to teaching. Perhaps the minister has statistics. I know at least one case in my area of a principal who is going back to being a teacher. If he is put in the position or had been put in the position of being on management side, it would be extremely difficult for him to go back to being a teacher and being accepted on an amicable basis by his colleagues and peers.

The other matter I wish to speak on, Mr. Speaker, is the clause dealing with the voluntary activities within the school. This is a problem and I appreciate that. I can appreciate some of the thinking which has gone on in government circles or at least within the ministry. Surely the concept of people volunteering to do extracurricular activities, whether it be a drama club, chess club or the English teacher coaching the football team or the soccer team, whatever; these activities are done on a voluntary basis and they are done without remuneration. That is the first principle. The principle of volunteering must mean one can join in and one can opt out.

In other words when I was teaching English I volunteered to say, “I will be the director or producer or whatever for the drama club and provide as much guidance and direction as I can” -- that was an interesting experience but I’m sure the minister doesn’t want to hear about it. The point is that I volunteered; I had no remuneration for that particular activity. If I volunteer I should also have the opportunity and the ability to opt out of the programme.

It bothers me to see the provision that if these services are withdrawn this will be considered a strike. First of all I would think this is going to lead to the problem of people not volunteering for these extracurricular activities; or secondly, requiring a veritable minutia of detail within the contract by which these services are no longer completely voluntary but are voluntary in the sense that somebody says: “All right. I will coach the soccer team but I am going to put in X number of hours; I am going to be paid X number of dollars; and I will have all the rest of the perquisites and restrictions and requirements which go into any other labour contract.”

I think it is going to destroy completely that sense of spirit and co-operation within the teaching profession if this happens. I would like to suggest that I think it is one of the strengths of the teaching profession and our educational system that teachers who are involved with the students, who want to donate their time, do it on a voluntary basis, without remuneration. I think the minister is going to completely destroy that kind of approach and attitude on the part of the teachers if he keeps this section in Bill 100.

Again, I have had personal experience with this matter. Speaking from my experience, I would hate to see this being done. I would suggest as strongly as I can to the minister that he is going to destroy one of the better aspects of education in the Province of Ontario if he continues with that section of the bill.

Primarily, that is all I have to say on second reading, Mr. Speaker. I want to emphasize that we in the Liberal Party feel this bill is going to improve the quality of education. We feel that the quality of education has been downgraded in the past due to a number of factors. We feel this is one step in the right direction toward improving the attitudes and the co-operation between the teachers and their school boards. We feel it will obviate many of the problems which we feel have been brought forward into public display for no reason at all other than the foot dragging of the government and the Minister of Education. We will support the principle of the bill and hope to see the quality of education in the province of Ontario improve at the elementary and secondary levels.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few remarks to the principle of the bill, not at any inordinate length because obviously so many members of the opposition are in agreement with the essential principles that I needn’t prolong it.

It’s hard to discuss this bill -- Bill 100 -- without some kind of context, some kind of perspective, and the perspective which strikes me most strongly and strikes my colleagues I think is the remarkable reformation which has occurred within the Conservative Party over the last 18 months. No one who took part in the historic debates of December, 1973; or who was at the Maple Leaf Gardens rally or on the steps of the Legislature; or who wandered about the province over the last intervening period of time -- and I guess all members of the Legislature have done that -- no one could have believed then that this bill would be here now.

It speaks to an astonishing shift in attitude on the part of the government, which is largely laudatory, largely to be commended. I tried to ask myself why it has happened. I don’t know whether the Minister of Education has assumed a sudden stature in the cabinet which he didn’t have before, and, by sheer relentless persistence managed to overcome the resistance to change that existed. I don’t know whether the minister was, himself, converted. I don’t know the internal machinations of the cabinet, but there were only two basic motives which might have brought us from December, 1973, to June of 1975, to a complete, and unexpected, volte-face.

One motive is that the government understood and appreciated how important collective bargaining really was for teachers; were enlightened by the intervening events; were persuaded by their advisers and by the Minister of Education and, in good faith, came to the conclusion that responsible, legitimate and full collective bargaining for teachers was the only alternative. They were persuaded by logic, argument and reason. That is one possibility.

There is, of course, another possibility. They were persuaded, also, by the objective political truths. They sat in cabinet. They weighed the advantages and disadvantages.

There were those in cabinet who wished to hard line it. There were those in cabinet who saw the isolation of the teachers, and the denial of rights to the teachers, as an effective, if crude, political weapon. There were those in cabinet who said: “When you have 110,000 teachers mobilized, with a great deal of contact with the children and the parents; and when their cause has about it an elemental justice, we shouldn’t take them on.” In the struggle between the kind of hard-hat view of the world, and those who recognized the teachers were a force to be reckoned with rather than manipulated, happily the brighter members of cabinet, those with the more enlightened political views, won out.

I suspect, Mr. Speaker, it really was a combination of the two. There is, amongst some of the members of the staff of the Ministry of Education, and the minister himself -- this is just an incidental aside; I always felt the minister carried the can -- is that the phrase? -- on the legislation in December, 1973, involuntarily.

He’ll never admit it, of course. He’s a loyal Tory into the breach, come what may. But I always had the sense that the Premier (Mr. Davis) and others were directing the minister to do a job of work which he didn’t like very much, which he didn’t handle very well because the pressures were just unrelenting, and which resulted in an enormous amount of difficulty and discomfort for the government. They made a series of what was then critical errors.

Somehow, sanity has been restored. I’d like to think, because the man has been maligned enough, that the Minister of Education had something to do with that restoration of sanity. I think the evidence is mounting that a realization that good-faith collective bargaining was the way you handled teacher-board negotiations, plus the political sense that it was wrong to drive the teachers to the wall as a device in a pre-election period, that those things together resulted in this startling change of attitude.

All you have to do is go back to Hansard, Mr. Speaker, and read the words of those Tories over there, one after the other, with hands on heart attesting forever that the teachers would be denied the right to strike; that it was morally wrong to give them the right; that there would be chaos in Ontario; and that they had to be dealt with severely.

Mr. P. C. Givens (York-Forest Hill): That was on December, 1973.

Mr. Lewis: When one thinks of December, 1973 -- my Liberal colleague for York-Forest Hill holds the Hansard in his hand. Talk about words coming back to haunt you, Mr. Speaker: Very few of us are so uncharitable as to read back to the members what the government said on that occasion.

Mr. Givens: They said: We think that binding arbitration is the way to settle this particular matter.”

Mr. Lewis: Those were in the days of darkness when they were all ensconced in Valhalla, and now that they’ve crept to the edge of the tunnel -- mind you, Mr. Speaker, they won’t be re-elected -- but now that they’ve crept to the edge of the tunnel and there are a few rays of light blinding them, they have come around.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: I’m not going to dredge up all of the rhetoric of the past, but my goodness it must be embarrassing. I mean, surely those bound volumes of Hansard will disappear from the shelves one day, never to be restored, lest historians wish to exhume them for footnotes.

The teachers are to be commended -- this is important to say -- for the battle they have waged over the 18 months. The New Democratic Party hasn’t always agreed with them, and we’ve said so. We’ve often been impatient with them. My colleague from Port Arthur has often said so. But we’ve respected the battle they fought and what they have won.

There are very few other examples in recent Ontario history of a particular group taking up the cudgels for itself and responsibly, but tirelessly, changing the government’s mind. That the teachers have done; and I think that members of the opposition have done it as well. It just shows, doesn’t it, that the parliamentary system works. There is fantastic frustration on this side of the House over many matters, but it really does show that the combination of the public pressure, plus the legislative opposition, can make this system work.

Believe me, this bill is a living testament to the way in which the parliamentary apparatus, for opposition and public alike, can bring even a massive majority to a sensible frame of mind. I was going to say to its knees; they won’t be there until later in October.

Hon. Ms. Wells: How much does the member want to bet on that?

Mr. Lewis: I’m not a betting man, thank God; I always lose.

The beauty of the legislation is the way in which it is designed to reduce confrontation. And that is an appeal that all of us have put to you, Mr. Speaker, throughout the 18 months; that what the government was bent on was a course of confrontation which could result only in ill-will and destruction to the educational system. What we were bent on was a collective bargaining apparatus which would induce moderation, good faith; would cool out the adversaries, cool out the combatants. That is what this legislation has done.

Mr. Speaker, as I stand here may I say to the Minister of Education that had this legislation been in place in December, 1973, there would not have been a strike in Thunder Bay and there would not have been the strike in Ottawa -- sad, difficult and unnecessary as it was. Any discomfort and inconvenience to the pupils at the Lakehead or to the students in Ottawa is the result of the absence of this legislation, because the government has now seen what can be brought to intervene.

Mr. Speaker, the principles of the bill, then, are worthy of support. The principles of good-faith bargaining, of fact-finders, of the educational relations commission, all of those things are worthy of support -- and we do so with enthusiasm.

The one thing that I’ve said, and my colleague from Port Arthur has said, and I think all members of goodwill have said, is to request of the teachers and the boards to make it work; to give it a chance to work. To read into the bill not frailty, not the possibility of clauses being used somehow to handcuff the participants, but to read into the bill goodwill, to read into the bill the possibilities of collective bargaining in the teachers’ sector quite unlike anything we’ve had for years. That’s the way I think it should be approached. It should be approached in the spirit of making it work.

There are obvious details that are a worry. How the Education Relations Commission will be struck and how it will be made to work are a real concern. Perhaps when the minister replies be can indicate to us the kind of people he’d like to name to that commission. Maybe he can give us some examples, so that all of us will have a sense of the unassailable integrity of those who are appointed.

The whole fact-finding procedure is different and it will he under some strain. How it will work will be a measure of the success of the bill.

The question of all of the contracts terminating on the same date will put the Education Relations Commission under enormous pressure as well, and I’m not sure that’s an intelligent provision. I think there should be some negotiability over contract termination or contract extension. One of the ways that Owen Shime solved the Thunder Bay dispute was by having that kind of flexibility.

But those are trifles in the bill. Those are details which honourable people can work out. What is important is that the bill gives the chance for enlightened collective bargaining for teachers and boards. It is more enlightened in its specifics than any other piece of labour legislation in Ontario, That’s worthy of applause and that’s worthy of support, and we don’t hesitate to give it.

But the government couldn’t do it all, could it? When the chips were down, it couldn’t bring everybody all the way. There always has to be a holdout.

One of the things that’s so endearing about the Conservative Party, one of the things that makes me positively feel affectionate from time to time, is that invariably, just short of winning total public applause, it does something to immolate itself. Just on the threshold of a totally logical piece of legislation, the government inserts something to invite and incite the opposition of the groups whom it hopes to appease. It’s absolutely predictable.

The government never goes whole hog. It always manages to leave for the public that gnawing doubt, that sense of lacking confidence in the government. It has done it again with one of those clauses which no one in the world needs to have, that is the clause on principals and vice-principals.

If the bill didn’t have that clause, then OECTA wouldn’t have wanted to have a march on the Legislature, and the OSS wouldn’t be publishing federation up-dates taking the government to task. The teachers generally wouldn’t be worried about the effects on the educational system.

The minister had to give the trustees a sop. He had to give certain of his cabinet colleagues a sop, so he inserted one truly offensive clause which undermines the integrity of the bill.

The government always does. The magic that used to be true of the Conservative Party in the days of John Robarts is no longer there. It can never do something with full heart and total coherence. It always has to undermine it at the 11th hour, and it has done it again.

As a matter of fact, not only has the government given the teachers another very modest rallying cry -- nothing akin to what they had in December, 1973, but still enough for some good political education -- but it has also done something which is essentially inconsistent with the principle of the bill. Many people have told the minister, many opposition members and many members of the public have said to him, it’s wrong to divide the teaching profession into management and employees by virtue of this bill; it’s wrong to take away full collective bargaining rights from principals and vice-principals who are members of their various federations and associations; it’s wrong to deny them those simple civil liberties. Many people have told the minister, and my colleagues in this caucus have told him, that it’s silly anyway.

Is the minister suggesting that in any given strike situation, should it occur again, that he has to force the principals and vice-principals back to the schools by law? Is he truly trying to suggest to the Province of Ontario that only on a mandatory basis will the principals and vice-principals feel enough responsibility for the system that they will return to their schools and keep things under control? I can’t believe that. The minister surely has a higher opinion of them than that.

Teachers don’t desert schools willingly. Principals and vice-principals don’t desert schools willingly. If there are problems encountered or problems anticipated, they will handle them voluntarily. The minister doesn’t have to abrogate their civil rights and force them back in advance. That’s the same kind of principle he has rejected in the bill by allowing full and free collective bargaining.

But I will tell him even that doesn’t move me personally as much as a completely different factor. I just think it violates everything we know about an egalitarian educational system. I think it violates everything we know about alternative schools, community schools, open schools -- just a friendly, legitimate, reliable, even loving educational system. The principals and vice-principals are a part of that educational experience. They are teachers; they have to be seen as teachers, They have to be called by first name in the corridors and they have to share the experience with every other teacher in the classroom. Under no circumstances do we isolate them. If we isolate them in law this way, we undermine the system.

For a variety of reasons, my wife and I in the last number of months have had occasion to look closely at the educational systems in North York and in Toronto, and to examine and visit individual schools. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, every school that has strength, every school that endures, every school where the kids arc alive is a school where the principal is an extension of the staff, not a separated principal-administrator. In every instance, the strength of the school lies in the principal being seen by everyone as part of the educational process, not a special hierarchical component.

What the minister is doing in this legislation is creating a class system amongst the teaching profession in the schools of Ontario that is self-defeating and entirely unnecessary. It means that a great many of the ministers cabinet colleagues just don’t understand what education is all about. They just don’t understand it. It’s particularly destructive at the elementary school level, and that’s why OECTA is up in arms; they face it more than many of the other federations.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is just so systematic that I swear if you took a random sample, it would perform 100 per cent on predictability: If we have an elementary school that’s working well, where the kids are happy; we have a principal who is seen as another teacher with a little more authority and that’s all. But if the minister creates this class distinction in our school system, he is inviting trouble.

A lot of schools will resist it, and a lot of principals and vice-principals fortunately will laugh at the minister for it; it is an unnecessary component of the bill and it deserves to be defeated, and that’s why the principals and vice-principals feel so strongly about it. The minister really never learns. Here he is taking a regressive step in the face of many other portions which are first-rate.

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the principles we most strongly reject. We wouldn’t vote against the bill because of it, because it’s a good bill; but I really appeal to the minister to think it through again. One of the strengths of a system which has many weaknesses is that principals are more and more seen as principal teachers. What the minister is doing in this bill is turning it right around for reasons of a sop to the trustees and a sop to his Neanderthal colleagues. That’s just silly, that’s just senseless; because it doesn’t have to be done on any other basis. There is no protection of rights and there is no wanton danger to the public; and there are no other reasons for putting provisions in this bill.

One final commentary, Mr. Speaker, because I have dealt only with those matters which other members have dealt with. The teaching profession has really been educated through all of this, haven’t they? What the Tories have managed to do in 18 month’s probably couldn’t have been done by any other group of politicians in the country in a similarly short period of time. The teaching profession has developed a level of political consciousness, thanks to the Conservative government, which no others of us could have achieved.

The beauty of the profession is that now it has won on the collective bargaining front, it will now move to meet the government on the quality of the system, the reforms which have to be made internally. The question of reduced class size; the question of greater psychological supports; the question of parental involvement; the question of community schools; the question of alternatives; all of these things become central to education.

For 10 years, those people over there have managed one of the most astute diversions of educational debate they could have undertaken. They forced us into a debate on numbers, on statistics and on dollars throughout the 1960s, in the Premier’s era. In the early 1970s they moved us into a debate on ceilings. In 1973 and 1974 they moved us into a debate on collective bargaining. At no time has this Legislature really had the opportunity, in terms of the objective, historical conditions, to debate the nature of the educational system -- the transactions which occur between teachers and kids in the classroom -- except in estimates.

We do it there from time to time, in estimates, but every time it is done, there is another fracas over ceilings or there is another strike in Ottawa or there is another question of whether or not such and such a building has frills. Now, by great irony, by unimaginable irony, the Tories are the authors of their own downfall and a totally new appraisal of education in Ontario.

By doing what they did in December, 1973, they created, overnight, for the teaching profession a sense of self-worth, of self-respect and indignation which it never had before. The teachers have carried it through with a great deal of public support -- some public ignominy, but a great deal of public support -- until they’ve got this bill.

Now we can transfer the basis of educational debate to where it belongs -- a discussion of what happens in the classroom; and why and where the government is failing in that regard.

That is where the concern is felt. It is felt by Liberals and New Democrats alike, and I suspect it is felt by Tories as well, whether it’s the parental anger, the kids dropping out, the teacher frustration, the boards’ impotence; it’s felt everywhere. Now we are getting a chance to bring it onto dead centre. Only the Tories could have done that. Only those people could have made a mistake so decisive that it opened the door to a new kind of educational debate in Ontario, not confined purely to estimates.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Maybe we can involve the Premier in that debate.

Mr. Lewis: That will be a novelty.

Mr. Bullbrook: Since he is the author of some of the facts which should be debated.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: No. We have our differences, but I remember the frustrations -- I shouldn’t prolong this because there are so many who want to speak -- I have never understood education the way Walter Pitman did and the member for Port Arthur does. I don’t pretend to have understood it that way or to have felt about it the way they do.

I can remember being education critic in one year for my party and reading all the material I could and coming in here for a lead-off and setting it all out in terms of the social philosophy of education. When I had finished, the then Minister of Education, now the Premier, condescended to say, “Those are American authorities. They have no application to Canada or Ontario”; and that ended the debate.

I was dealing with Goodman; I was dealing with Friedenberg; I was dealing with Holt; I was dealing with Illich and we were dealing with all of the recognized educational sociologists and reformers in the western world; but for the Premier, because it wasn’t something he comprehended at the time, it was so much irrelevant claptrap.

I never tried it again. One learns too quickly. What the devil is the point? But now it’s changed, and happily this minister has changed it.

We support the principle of the bill. We object to the one truly offensive clause. We congratulate the teachers and the politicians and the public on forcing the change of mind in the government. We understand the extraordinary political consciousness-raising which the teachers have experienced and which we believe should now be focused on the quality of the system since we resolved this matter of collective bargaining.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present in the House when this bill first came in for second reading, so I didn’t have the opportunity to listen to some of the debates. But having listened very intently to the debates here this afternoon, I would say that most of the members are in support of this bill; many of them have expressed their own personal views, and I am sure most are expressing the views of the people within their own ridings, particularly the teachers.

Having taught for a number of years myself, I could express my own personal views, but I am not going to do that. I simply want to indicate to the minister that I have received a number of telegrams and I have received a number of letters, so I have taken one typical telegram and one typical letter and I would like to quote from them just to show the minister the various concerns the teachers have. It seems to me they have two concerns; one being the denial of the principals and vice-principals from having full participation in the negotiations, and the other has to do with that section of the bill which deals with strikes and the discontinuance of extracurricular programmes in a school.

I will just take a minute to read a letter which was sent to me by the chairman of the district executive council, district 45 of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation. The letter reads:

After a lengthy discussion at a district executive council meeting on June 9, 1975, we in district 45 of the OSSTF are writing to indicate our basic support for Bill 100, An Act respecting the Negotiation of Collective Agreements between School Boards and Teachers. Over all, we find this bill most acceptable in its intent; however, we do have several reservations concerning two particular aspects of this bill.

Firstly, we in district 45 are concerned that the section of the legislation restricting the right of principals and vice-principals from joining their fellow OSSTF members in the right to strike will tend to break down the particularly good relationship which exists between these principals and vice-principals and their teaching staffs in the five secondary schools in our county. [“Our county,” being Huron; one of the best.]

At the moment, we in Huron county, pride ourselves on the good relationships which exist between the school board, the administrators and the teachers, and we feel that the proposed legislation as it pertains to principals and vice-principals could upset this harmonious feeling.

[Their other area of concern is, and I continue to quote:] We in district 45 are also greatly concerned about the wording of section 1, subsection 1, having to do with strikes and the discontinuance of co-curricular or extracurricular programmes in a school.

While we do not disagree with the apparent intent of this section, we are concerned about the possible misinterpretation or possible misuse of this section against teachers who are not in breach of the original intent of this section. We are confident that it is the government’s intention to clarify this section so far as to protect those teachers who are attempting to fulfil their responsibilities as conscientious teachers.

We trust that the government will consider these two areas of concern before this otherwise progressive legislation on negotiations between school boards and teachers becomes law.

A typical example of a telegram, Mr. Speaker, is one which was sent by the executive of the Huron-Perth unit of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association. The telegram urges:

THAT THE GOVERNMENT SEEK TO AMEND ARTICLE 65, BILL 100, WHICH PRESENTLY DENIES PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS FROM FULL PARTICIPATION IN NEGOTIATIONS. WE FEEL THAT THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION IN ONTARIO WILL BE SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED BY SUCH A DIVISION OF SCHOOL STAFFS.

I also want to make another suggestion to the ministry which I think is worthwhile. In section 60, duties of the commission -- “manner of conducting.” I think that’s vital to the teachers’ understanding of things. I think the commission should make the result of the vote public. It doesn’t really spell that out. I think that is one thing that should be in there. As well as giving it to both sides of the issue, I think it also should be given to the public.

This seems to be the general area of concern of the teachers who have expressed their views. I can’t say I’ve heard the views of the trustees, or the trustees’ association. I have talked to some of them. I can’t say any have expressed the view that the principals and vice-principals should be managers and have no participation in negotiations.

I hope the minister will give favourable consideration to the views which they have expressed and, perhaps, amend those two particular sections of the bill. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word or two on this.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I understand there is a member of the NDP and a Liberal --

Mr. Lewis: You always refer to us first.

Mr. Speaker: I usually go that way. The member for Victoria-Haliburton, please.

Mr. R. C. Hodgson: I don’t care, if they insist. They can talk all day as far as I’m concerned.

Mr. Bullbrook: The member would talk all day.

Mr. R. C. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, my point is this. In section 3, subsection 2 of this bill, the area I represent has had such a peaceful resolution of these difficulties over the years, I would like the minister to take a look at that section to see whether it isn’t possible to have these unofficial discussions we have been so used to in our area, not be barred by the “shall be” wording. I think it’s vital the type of arrangement we’ve had shall be allowed to carry on rather than shall be prohibited.

I think that’s an important point with the teachers in my area. I’ve certainly appreciated the teachers discussing these things with the principals and vice-principals over the several years I have been a member. It hasn’t just started, or just ended.

The other thing I think is important, and that has a different connotation, is section 60, subsection (h). It is the duty of the commission to advise the cabinet when a student’s future curriculum might be in jeopardy. I think that advice should also be given not only to the cabinet, but, to the teachers and the board. I see no problem that would be created by the advice of the commission given to cabinet in this matter also being given to the other two participants. That, I think, should be looked at.

Also, I’m quite concerned about section 63, subsection 1(d). This is about the board and its offer. It seems to me it should be a bona fide board offer. It should be spelled out by the whole board by having it voted upon because, in the past, some of these things have been done by the committee. The board itself would have found a resolution, but the committee, being straight-laced or argumentative about it for some reason or other at that point in time just won’t move. The board itself would resolve it. I think it should be spelled out that it’s a whole board agreement. It should be mentioned there.

The other thing regarding principals and vice-principals is their dual role of managers and teachers. In the educational system they have had to be a teacher first. Some of them continue to be teachers even when they are principals. Others do not.

One of the things that really worries me is the fact the negotiating group, or the bargaining group for the principal’s rate of pay, may be out on strike to prove what they are asking for the principal or the vice-principal. At the same time, the principal or the vice-principal will be in the school, getting his pay. If he is being part of both management and teaching bodies, how can you relate it? It may well be he should be receiving only half his pay while a strike is being conducted -- or no pay at all.

Mr. Foulds: Maybe they shouldn’t send them in.

Mr. R. C. Hodgson: I think there is some reasoning for the situation, but --

Mr. Foulds: I haven’t yet heard of any.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: -- I simply say I think that one will cause some problems with the teachers, and how they feel about things in particular, than anything else. I think it should receive further study.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the minister for some far-reaching points of view, and a general change of philosophy in this bill.

I also think the Conservative Party deserves a lot of credit.

Mr. Samis: What, for Bill 100 or 274?

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: You know, gentlemen, it hasn’t been all the work of the opposition. The best opposition to some of this has been within our party. I thank you for this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, because of the stricture of time, and because I am not going to be able to be here this evening, instead of making a speech of my own at this time, and saying some of the things on my mind as well as the minds of others, I’ll let two principals speak to the minister via correspondence which I received. One letter from a principal reads, and I quote:

I have been a principal of a school with the Metropolitan separate school board for some 10 years and from this position, and from these years of experience I write with alarm about certain provisions of this bill.

In the first place, although I am to remain a member of the OTF, paying full fees and bearing full responsibilities, I am denied the rights given to other members of voting on sanctions and participating in those sanctions. In other words, my I membership rights are out of balance with my responsibilities.

More serious than these are the devastating consequences to staff relationships which may result in the implementation of these provisions. For a school community to prosper, there must be a unity of purpose and a common commitment to the welfare of the school on the part of all the teachers. In times of stress, such as confrontation between the board and teachers, the strain is greatest on the relationships between the school leaders, principal and vice-principals and the other teachers.

The principal has management responsibilities which he must fulfill while still maintaining the trust and confidence of his teachers. This has been a difficult but not impossible task in the past. However, in the future the principal will be arbitrarily separated from his fellow teachers, placed in the board camp, forced to cross his colleagues’ picket lines, possibly forced to refuse entry to his fellow teachers in the event of a lockout. This can result only in divisions among our teaching staffs which will be very difficult to heal and detrimental to the co-operation and co-ordination of effort laid on as a duty of all teachers in the education Act, 1974.

I sincerely believe that the well-being of many schools may be terribly jeopardized if these provisions are enacted in the law.

[Signed by] D. Cartlidge, Principal.

The second, from 125 Verobeach Blvd., Weston.

I would like you to oppose certain aspects of education Bill 100. I believe that one item especially is detrimental to the educational process.

I have recently been selected as a principal of an elementary school. My philosophy of administration is based on co-operative decision-making with members of my staff. Bill 100 imposes significant burdens on our relationship especially as it relates to our joint concern about working conditions and our welfare. We become eunuchs as far as effecting change within the process. When all has been said, and it’s time for action, our only response is: I can’t do it. The law doesn’t allow us. You suffer for me.”

Yours sincerely,

Bernard Gelineau.

Mr. Speaker, these two letters, I think, sum up the attitude we in this party, and certainly a host of people out there -- not only on the staff, but principals and vice-principals -- have expressed to us through correspondence and phone calls.

I bring to the minister’s attention this significant factor in the whole situation and these final words, particularly where a principal says: “I can’t do it. The law doesn’t allow it. You go out on strike and suffer for us to get better pay and better conditions.” They don’t want that. They want to be part of the team. I plead with the minister, as others have done, to change this section of the bill at least, so that the teaching team can be one team.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich- Riverside now. Would he care to introduce his remarks, and then, in a couple of moments, move adjournment of the debate? You can have the floor afterwards. Thank you.

Mr. Burr moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBER’S HOUR: SAFETY COMMITTEES ACT

Mr. Haggerty moves second reading of Bill 11, An Act to provide for the Establishment of Safety Committees.

Mr. B. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill itself is self-explanatory, but I wish to read it into the record.

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the legislative assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

1. In this Act, “minister” means the Minister of Labour.

2. Every industry shall establish a safety committee which shall have equal representation from both the employers and employees in the industry.

3. Every safety committee, upon the request of the minister, shall advise him respecting the safety of workers in the industry which it represents and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, inquire into and advise him upon any laws respecting the safety of workers in the industry with a view to the improvement, clarification or extension of the existing laws or the enactment of new laws or inquire into and advise him upon any matter designed to co-ordinate the functions of all bodies concerned with the safety of workers.

4. Where an accident or injury occurs on a job site, the foreman or person in charge of the job site shall forthwith notify the safety committee representing the particular industry that an accident or injury has occurred.

5. Where a safety committee receives a report concerning an accident or injury on a job site, the committee shall report in writing to the minister that an accident or injury has occurred and outline any recommendations it may have as to the future prevention of a similar accident or injury.

6. This Act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

7. This Act may be cited as the Safety Committees Act, 1975.

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal whip, the hon. member from Guelph asked me if I was agreeable to debate the bill in the private members’ hour on Monday, I said, by all means. It is an excellent opportunity to debate the bill. It couldn’t have happened in a more opportune atmosphere as the bill relates to the present state of government affairs concerning its inability to reduce the number of personal occupational injuries in Ontario’s working force.

The latest workmen’s compensation report for the year 1974 informs us there is still one fatal accident every calendar day of the year; in fact, the total is a percentage point higher.

There are approximately 1,124 accidents occurring every day, and no doubt there are some not reported. A cost in benefits amounting to $214 million, an increase in four years amounting to $183 million, almost as much as that awarded in the year 1973, $186 million. This alone indicates a poor record and the lack of security and well-being of Ontario workers -- an increase of six per cent in accidents in Ontario in 1974.

I suppose if we look at the increase of six per cent, if we were dealing with unemployment I think everybody in this House would be up in arms complaining that we must do something to create employment in the Province of Ontario. This applies outside the Legislature too -- the unions, management -- something must be done to correct the six per cent.

A large measure of the responsibility for it must fall on the negligence of this administration of the government. The record speaks for itself of the lack of government supervision and safety measures and health and security in the mining industry, particularly the uranium mines in Ontario. This government has failed miserably to seek a great measure of health protection for miners in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I can well recall the Mining Act, Bill 2, and its numerous amendments and the debates which followed the introduction of Bill 2 in February, 1970, and continued almost though the month of November in the same year, 1970. There were many lively and heated discussions during committee bearings and as a member of that committee, one can readily come to the conclusion that all the amendments to the Mining Act failed to provide programmes to assure year-round safety measures for improving in-plant environment and health conditions throughout the mining industry in Ontario.

The bill itself could not provide effective measures to improve healthier working conditions and it became rather frustrating to the opposition members to attempt to have the minister responsible yield to the many proposals put forth by the opposition members which would improve the working environment of the miners.

On a close look, the bill provided more permissive, or a withdrawal of safety measures than one could shake a stick at. The 422 separate provisions relating to safety of the workers can be suspended in their operations by one person -- the engineer of mines -- whose authority lies directly with the Minister of Natural Resources. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that with the stroke of a pen or a phone call and without any consultation with employees in the industry, their rights to safer and healthier working conditions can be removed? No wonder this caused some deep concern to the opposition members. It became apparent then and even today that the employees were not consulted on safety matters nor had actually any input in matters of good industrial hygienic practice.

I am well aware that there are a number of managements in the related industry of Ontario which have excellent or at least good working arrangements with their employees in promoting plant safety, but there are others in the industry which have a rather poor record of safe working conditions for their employees. That is why it was of great concern to the members of the Liberal Party in 1970 when this amendment to the Mining Act was introduced and why we have been requesting the government of the day to bring forth a new occupational health Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is worthwhile if I quote the remarks of the Minister of Mines at that time, Mr. Allan Lawrence, who, in my opinion, was negative to any approach to provide a healthier working condition for the miners. As I said his comments are worth quoting:

The philosophy, the concept, behind this Act [dealing with the mining bill] is that the management must be responsible, legally responsible, in a matter in which they can be prosecuted and responsible in such a manner that much upgrading can be done within the mines as far as equipment, qualifications, personnel and facilities are concerned and in no way do I believe that this amendment will come anywhere near to helping that situation.

It is rather disgraceful at the present time that nothing has been done in the period of five years.

Today we have the Ham commission making a study of the mining industry in the Province of Ontario, perhaps as it relates to silicosis particularly, and lung cancer in the mining industry around the Elliot Lake area. What is going on today is rather distasteful.

The point of the bill is that every industry shall appoint a safety committee -- and I say industry for in my bill I have moved from the Mining Act to include every industry in the Province of Ontario. The committees must include equal representation from employees and employers. They must provide, and follow, the present safety laws readily available to industry in the Province of Ontario.

If we want to reduce the number of injuries in the Province of Ontario, I think the government must move in this direction and provide some type of input of labour and employees in industry so they can have a voice in safety matters. Without that voice in safety matters, I think we are going to have a continual increase in the number of accidents throughout all industry in the Province of Ontario.

I don’t say the bill is a cure-all for all injuries in the Province of Ontario, but it will help assist in the reduction of injuries.

I mentioned the Ham commission; the study being carried on now throughout the Province of Ontario. A number of hearings are being held throughout different localities in the province. One can pick up the paper and see, “Violated Safety, Finn Fined: “Sequel to Worker’s Death.” Do you know what the penalty was, Mr. Speaker? It was $3,000.

“Two mishaps per worker in 1974 at Inco,” says United Steelworkers of America head. This was a brief they submitted to the Ham commission.

Another report: “Asbestos Count Factor in Strike: Death Risk High in Peterborough Plant.” You can go on and on. Different articles report the number of accidents in the Province of Ontario. Many of them are a needless loss of life and limb.

What is this government doing at the present time? They have established this commission. All of a sudden we will see different reports come out. There will be statements by the different ministries in the House and outside the House. I would like to read some of them.

Here is one, April 21, 1975, by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman). He goes on to say:

Recognizing that employers, workers, unions, and community groups and government are all responsible in achieving successful protective and preventive measures, we are establishing an advisory council on occupational and environmental health matters.

We are 20 years late in bringing in that type of legislation. He goes on to talk about “occupational health education; the encouragement of workers in accepting health standards and procedures; and the right to participate meaningfully in the development of acceptable safeguards.”

This is what this bill says. It gives those persons employed in the industry the right to a voice in safety matters concerning occupational health. The bill is that simple.

You can go on and read another report. This is from the Ontario Mining Association. This is a good brief, and of course it’s a rebuttal to United Steelworkers’ brief to the Ham commission. There are some recommendations in here.

I can recall again sitting in that committee meeting, back in 1970, where we discussed safety matters, particularly with the mining industry. We didn’t get too much co-operation from the industry. They said they were doing an excellent job. Even the government at that time, the minister responsible, Allan Lawrence -- thank goodness he is in the federal House, because he was useless here -- said there was nothing wrong, “They are living by the law.”

All of a sudden, in this report the Ontario Mining Association put on my desk within the last week -- May 28 to be exact -- it recommends:

Recognizing that co-operative evolution will make the role and activities of such committees more constructive and permanent than any set of rules imposed by legislation or regulation, the association nevertheless recommends that the establishment of a joint health and safety committee at each mining property be made mandatory now, it’s mandatory. You couldn’t reach them before, but now they want something that is mandatory. Each to consist of an equal number of representatives from management and employees from the company’s work force at the property. The nature and extent of the committee’s activities to be determined by its members.

That such committees have the right to make inspections of working areas and that an employee, from the company’s work force at the property and designated by his peers, be given the right to accompany the district engineer of the Ministry of Natural Resources during any official inspection tour of the operation.

Well, that is quite a change from the debates that took place last year during the Ministry of Natural Resources estimates concerning mining operations in the Province of Ontario and particularly the Elliott Lake uranium mines. There were a number of heated discussions there. I know at one stage I almost lost my temper, I was going to pick up the minister and all his assistants and drive them against the wall to get some common sense into them. I wanted to say that there is a problem there which they have ignored over the years; that is, the hazardous conditions that exist in in-plant environment.

When you boil it down to a few words, you can say there was no mining inspection done by the ministry responsible for them. Everything was being rubber-stamped by the company or by the industry itself.

When one reads the minister’s statement of May 21, 1975, what does it say? He’s a little bit alarmed now; he says we have this study going on. Perhaps, though, he is trying to cover up or back-track a little bit when he says to the industry in Ontario and to the employees, “We are doing an excellent job. We are concerned about health in industry.” His statement goes on to say: “As indicated ... by my parliamentary assistant, the government intended to introduce a new health hazards section to the mines engineering branch.”

We went after the minister very seriously last year, saying that there wasn’t enough input by employees and there was enough on the books to say that we must have a new Occupational Health Act. He said: “We have done this, and I am happy today to announce we have been successful in attracting Mr. William A. Bardswich, a professional engineer and former professor at McGill University whose specialty is ventilation and dust control.”

I can well remember getting into that debate last year; perhaps I can say that, following the questioning of the persons responsible for mine ventilation in my own opinion there was very little done in mine ventilation in the Province of Ontario. Perhaps they had electric motors, and ductwork, but whether ii was doing the job was questionable. It couldn’t have been doing the job, because the fact that a number of those men now have silicosis and lung cancer can only indicate that ventilation was rather poor in the mines in the Elliot Lake area.

He goes on to say that he is going to appoint a special committee. He said, “The urgency of this review at this time is clear and it is my intention that the membership of the committee will be drawn from labour, management and government.” That was the amendment we proposed to the Mining Act back in 1970. The NDP had a similar amendment too. But, for some unknown reason, the minister at that time was not listening. He said everything was well within the mining industry in the Province of Ontario. The employees were being well looked after. We had all the protection there.

One reads all these different things, then all of a sudden there’s another catch-all statement reported on June 5, headed: “Proposals Made To Force Mine Health Co-operation.” I would like to read some of these into the record. This is from the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) who goes on to say:

He said the government will not enact the proposed code into law while commissioner James Ham is still working on the report, but said he will try to get the mine owners to accept it voluntarily in the meantime.

So he is indicating there is a serious problem. He goes on to say the code will:

Force each mine owner to consult with his employees or their union on all measures for promoting health and safety at work;

Oblige each mine owner to send a report each month to the regional mines engineer outlining action to control any hazard discussed with his employees;

Provide that no mine owner install safety equipment without agreement from employees;

Permit miners at any mine to employ a “worker-inspector” who will have the right to inspect and report on health and safety;

Allow the worker-inspector to take samples of environmental pollutants and give him the right to request the mines engineering branch to close any unhealthy work place…

As I said, it is rather shocking that we have this committee dealing now with mine safety and the conditions that some of the miners have had to go through and perhaps are continuing to go through that, all of a sudden, government is ready to move in with all the force that is available. But for five years they lacked that initiative to go ahead with anything definite to reduce the number of accidents in the mines and include industry throughout the Province of Ontario.

To shed some more light on the subject, the latest annual report of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which was delivered to the members of the House a week ago, deals with project FACTS, First Aid Community Training for Safety. It’s a programme that the Workmen’s Compensation Board has been involved in. Perhaps it’s a very successful programme, but the important factor from this project, which is financed by the board, is that it “drew international interest following a report by a university research team indicating that accident rates can be reduced by 30 per cent or more in industries that train all their employees in first aid.” I suppose that paragraph indicates that when there is the involvement of employees dealing with safety matters and where they have a voice in safety matters in industry, there is a good possibility of reducing the number of accidents in any industry in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I can well recall the former member for Sudbury, Elmer Sopha, a very capable member of the House, in dealing with the Mining Act at that time, said: “On [the Liberal] side, we want to see a change in the context, the quality of safety measures. We want to see progressively the involvement of workers and the strengthening of management-labour committees on safety. Even in industry there are signs and thinking in the way of the quality about the character of joint venture in these matters.”

Mr. Speaker, I believe most sincerely, as long as we in Ontario don’t have a similar bill in the statutes, then the government will not reduce the number of accidents in industry and in the construction trades in Ontario or even hope to reduce the occupational hazards that are ever present in the working environment of the Ontario labour force.

With those comments I hope a change in the thinking of the NDP will allow them to support the bill this time and, with a change in thinking the government members, who know there is a crisis in safety in Ontario because of the number of accidents, particularly in the mining industry, will support the bill too, even in principle. Thank you.

Mr. J. Lane (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 11 and congratulate the hon. member for Welland South for the content of the bill and some of the remarks that he has just made.

There is no doubt that we’re having a lot of needless accidents, not only in industry but in the home and especially on the highways. While the establishment of safety committees will never entirely eliminate accidents or industrial sicknesses, I believe that considerable improvement could be made. Not only could lives and man hours be saved, but people could be spared a great deal of suffering and inconvenience and have a great deal more health and comfort in life.

Personally, I am very concerned about highway accidents because I’ve been involved in the auto insurance business for 20 years. Part of my responsibilities was settling claims and I’ve always had to interview the driver of the vehicle. It was amazing that in about nine times out of 10 the accident really didn’t need to happen. It was basically carelessness on somebody’s part. Occasionally, mechanical failure would cause a serious accident and somebody would be hurt or killed, but basically it was carelessness. In most cases the driver himself said: “If I had just done this, this wouldn’t have happened.” Really, most of our accidents on the highways are caused by carelessness. People are still being seriously injured and killed every day and a great deal of working time is lost.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that most accidents are caused through carelessness, ignorance or haste, in an effort to get the job done or to make more money in a shorter period of time.

In my riding there is a need for more and better safety rules and regulations as they apply to the mines in Elliot Lake. I feel not only do we need improved safely conditions for our workers but we need safety committees to get the message of the danger of this type of operation across. We must also see that safety rules and regulations are obeyed and enforced and perhaps even stricter rules and regulations should be enforced.

I have had many miners, not only from Sudbury but from Elliot Lake as well, tell me that when they are working on bonus, they deliberately ignore the safely rules be- cause they can make more money by doing so. I think safely committees have a job to do and they could be helpful in these cases. Many people regard an accident or occupational sickness as something which happens to others but never to themselves. Part of the need of a safely committee is to protect this type of person from himself and to educate and, if need be, ride herd on the worker and keep him or her in good health and doing the job.

As I mentioned, ignorance relates to accidents. I feel this applies in general to inexperienced workers. We have many students and other inexperienced workers working on construction and at other types of industrial work during the summer and other times of the year. They are just not aware of the hazards of the job. Certainly the need is very great for a safety committee to protect them and to educate them to the dangers, and to ensure the rules and regulations regarding safety are not ignored.

I lived and worked for many years on a farm and I know accidents happen very frequently on the farm. I also know we have farm safety councils in some parts of the province because some 10 or 12 years ago I was a member of a farm safety council. Farmers and farm workers are using heavy equipment, often in haste, and a good many farm accidents happen that way. ii can think back to the days when I used to do custom work for the farmers in my area with my threshing machine. Of course, Mr. Speaker, as you know, if the grain gets wet three or four times everybody is in a big hurry to get it threshed the first time the sun shines. My neighbours were generally angry with me because they thought I had some special concerns about somebody else’s grain and not theirs so I would pretty nearly run around the clock when the weather was great. I can remember doing repairs to the machine, greasing it, oiling it, doing minor repairs to it, with the thing running full blast. One little slip and, of course, I could have wound up in the grain bin.

That is why I say a lot of accidents are caused by haste. I think many of our working force take risks at work when there is no need to take them and certainly I know from my experience in the auto insurance business that many people take risks on the highways when there is no need to take them. I think that a safety committee, with rules and regulations in industry and in any other part of our everyday life would be a step in the right direction. Thank you very much.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Mr. Speaker, rising on behalf of the NDP on this bill, let me first of all congratulate the member for Welland South for taking a step in the right direction. Obviously I think a member from a northern riding could speak on this subject with more poignancy than I could, since some of the disasters and some of the problems up there have been far more dramatic, the toll has been far heavier, than some of us somewhat sheltered people in eastern Ontario, excluding the smug capital of Ottawa, have known.

However, Mr. Speaker, we have some degree of familiarity with industrial problems. Recently in the city of Hawkesbury we had a very tragic example of industrial safety problems with the tragic loss of life of three employees at the CIP plant in Hawkesbury. Charges have been laid as a result of that particular accident. Fortunately, in Cornwall the Domtar mill has had a good safety record but we have had a variety of problems over the years in other plants in eastern Ontario. Therefore, this problem affects us just as much as it does northern Ontario and other parts of the province, although possibly in a different way.

My main reaction to the bill, Mr. Speaker, is that while it is a step in the right direction, I don’t think it really goes far enough in a variety of ways. For example, I notice section 2 says:

Every industry shall establish a safety committee which shall have equal representation from both the employees and the employers in the industry.

I don’t see why we should establish on an industry basis, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that one single committee can’t really handle the problem for all of Ontario, especially if it’s a small committee, especially if it is voluntary, if you consider they may have to travel from Elliot Lake to Cornwall, or from Timmins to Windsor. It is just expecting far too much of such a committee to be able to supervise or somehow keep some degree of control over safety standards in one particular industry.

It seems to me that the better route or the alternative would be to insist that every plant established in the Province of Ontario, before it can begin production, must have a safety committee with representation from both the employees and the employer. It wouldn’t matter what kind of industry it was, that would be one of the ground rules for establishing an industry in the Province of Ontario. And for existing industries, if they don’t already have them, we would simply say that that is one of the ground rules for continuing in operation.

Now, surely they can do that. It’s not going to cost them a lot of money. Obviously, in some cases it won’t cost any money. But surely that is the basic condition we have to have in this province if we are serious about industrial safety, that every single plant have an industrial safety committee established.

I would also like to see an expansion of the safety education programme. Frequently you get young people coming on the labour force who, frankly, are not that well informed about the whole question of safety, the problem of safety and the implications of safety. Frequently, in some of the low-paying industries, the temptation would be to ignore safety, because they are more interested in other things. If the employer knows this, then obviously he won’t make any special moves to establish a plant safety committee.

So, if we had actual legislation which compelled the plants to have industrial safety committees, some of the industries where there is a high turnover, where employees might not be as deeply motivated in terms of their work, where the degree of employee loyalty to the plant is far less, we could get around this problem by making it a compulsory thing.

I noticed in section 3, Mr. Speaker, there is a reference that the safety committee would advise, but only upon the request of the minister. Well, it seems to me that if there is a problem and if we have these committees set up in every plant, they should be able to make recommendations -- they should be able to advise without waiting for the minister to make a formal request.

Who knows that if in certain ridings the minister may have very strong and very obvious political considerations that would compel him not to ask for any form of advice or any form of report? He may want to smother the whole question. If there is a serious incident involving laxness -- whether it involves the superintendent, the foreman, management or the employees -- he may want to forget about it or shove it under the rug.

It seems to me it would be far better for any committee set up to have the right to make recommendation directly to the minister wherever they think there is a problem, the possibility of a problem or where something has happened. We shouldn’t wait for the Minister of Labour, who has a wide variety of problems to contend with, anyway. He may ignore it, or may shove it off to some bureaucrat who is totally unresponsive to the needs of the constituents and sometimes is frequently the prisoner of the Queen’s Park bureaucracy and the mentality that produces some of the bureaucratic happenings around here.

In sections 4 and 5, Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the plant committee is given certain prerogatives in terms of representation. But it seems to me that a plant committee should be given the power to actually stop or halt the operation of any section of a plant if the hazard that causes a particular accident hasn’t been eliminated. It seems to me that if the workers really feel there is an actual physical danger, and this is clearly established and the majority of the opinion on the committee agrees with it, they should be empowered with the right to say, “No more production until you have met certain minimum standards in regards to safety.”

Because, after all, we are talking about human beings and human lives. And for every man who is affected, there is a family involved. This could upset the rest of their social pattern -- the future prospects of children getting a decent education. It could possibly affect internal family relationships as well. So we can’t play around with human lives to that extent.

If there is a real problem and there has been an accident, and nothing is being done about it, that committee should be empowered to stop production until that problem is solved.

In general, Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that the bill tends to deal only with accidents and injuries. It seems to me that that should be expanded to include such questions and considerations as environmental hazards -- dust, oil, heat, radiation and carbon monoxide. In doing some research for this, Mr. Speaker, I checked some recent reports from the Province of Saskatchewan on the same problem. One was interesting. It was by the director of the occupational health and safety division of the Department of Labour. He had some rather interesting observations:

We must address ourselves to the causes of human damage in the place of work. Traditionally, doctors have used silicosis as a problem of the lungs when, in fact, it is a problem of the hardrock mining industry. The problem of going deaf is not only a problem of the ear or aging but of the mill. Yes, noise damages the ear but the problem is the mill.

It is not sufficient to immediately attack the worker by stuffing his ears with various substances. This does not reduce the noise level within the working environment. We must first consider the muffling of the sound and when we’re satisfied that the cost is prohibitive or technologically unfeasible then we should consider protective devices. We have to be concerned with the working environment -- the chemicals; the dust; the mists; the vapours; the noise; the solvents; the temperature; the ventilation; the floor you stand on; the pace of an assembly line; the backbreaking work.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is the attitude we have to see implemented in legislation in the Province of Ontario.

I noticed that the Minister of Labour in a speech he made in Saskatoon, said somewhat the same thing.

Our Saskatchewan programme takes what might be termed in industrial relations a working conditions approach to occupational health and safety. We reject the theory that most accidents occur because workers are careless or disobedient or accident prone. Rather, we think the cause lies in production pressures, inadequate training and supervision, the monotony and alienation of work in plants designed to meet the requirements of machines rather than the needs of people, and in the approach toward safety which consistently blames the worker instead of involving his responsible and knowledgeable participation.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, in winding up my observation on this bill, that if we were to implement an attitude such as that in legislation; if we were to give these committees far greater power and jurisdiction, not having them dependent on the request of the minister; if we took a completely different attitude toward safety, not leaving it up to local options to the extent we do, we’d have a far better record. That applies, I suggest, to the question of automobile safety, meat inspection, or the quality of the dental programme, dental hygiene, for our young children. If we applied the same principles there as well as in industrial safety, we’d have a far safer and far better society. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, I want to join this debate to reaffirm once more the importance that safety has and always has had to this party, we here on the Liberal side.

My understanding of the bill put forward by the member for Welland South -- and I want to make it clear that I endorse his bill and I would like to see the government implement what he has suggested -- is that by industry he means not only industry on a province-wide basis but any plant, any industry which has, say, 10 to 15 employees. That would bring the problem of safety down to the individual company and bring the question of what should be done down to the level of management and labour.

Safety has always been important to me personally. I recall the former member for Dovercourt, Dante Demonte, speaking on behalf of this party as the labour critic when he made reference on many occasions to caisson disease and other working hazards of those who tunnel right here in Metropolitan Toronto. On behalf of this party he and others in this party have pushed for a new occupational health bill to try to do something for those who have to work for a living and who could -- and sometimes do -- end up as the unfortunates who suffer the terrible loss of the ability to work. This applies not only in the construction industry; it applies also in the mining industry and in the manufacturing area. Generally, it applies to all industry.

My observation is that the real problem is one of acceptance of responsibility. I have a clipping from the Globe and Mail dated June 3, 1975, where Prof. Ham, of the commission referred to by the speaker from Welland South, asked the Workmen’s Compensation Board chairman, Mr. Michael Starr, what was done with information gathered by the board. The chairman noted the Workmen’s Compensation Board has records but the present system is primarily a receiver of information, not necessarily a vehicle to alert a particular industry of industrial disease or hazards. That, Mr. Speaker, is an indication of the abdication of acceptance of responsibility by this government for safety.

In the average plant, it is my observation that management feels it has the prime responsibility for safety education because government safety inspectors have always reported to management. I recall speaking in this very House on many occasions during Labour estimates on the transferring of the responsibility for safety inspection from municipalities to government, which was ultimately done. This government resisted for many years even though many opposition speakers spoke against it. Now, they have come over and we do have government safety inspectors. These people usually report a hazardous situation, shall we say, to management. Management has come to accept this responsibility.

Over the years, as I say, the safety inspectors have dealt exclusively with management. That means on many occasions, without a committee as envisaged by this bill labour doesn’t hear about this side of the problem, or of a particular problem from the start. My feeling is it should.

Over the years management has taken the position in many plants that, in order to save money, safety is something that should be skimped on. Lip service should be given to it but, really, if it is going to cost a lot of money -- and I don’t have to go into the asbestos industry or mining to prove the fact -- management has tried to save money and pushed the ultimate responsibility directly or indirectly on to labour. The blame for the problem has been pushed on to the worker.

Many workers, on the other hand, have felt the responsibility belongs to management. I feel the time has come for industry as a whole to realize there has been a general abdication of responsibility for safety programmes both for management and labour. I feel all levels of an industry, or a particular firm in an industry, should become aware, and involved with, safety and the responsibility for safety.

This, Mr. Speaker, would require an overall programme from the top man down. The president should take a real, direct and acute interest in the whole question of safety within his plant or firm. This interest should filter down from the top to the lowest paid worker. Safety education, safety programmes should become a key concern within a particular plant. If top management shows real interest in safety it will permeate down to the lowest worker.

I have been told that in some plants working people feel that slogans, posters and prizes are not really effective. They feel that these are indications that the prime responsibility for safety and safety education belongs with management, and they don’t really feel that the safety programme and safety education is their own responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe the hon. member’s time has almost expired.

Mr. Braithwaite: In summary, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the dollar cost of a particular programme should not be the guiding factor, nor should labour feel that the question of safety is a responsibility only of management. Overall plant and industry safety should be the goal. It can be reached. This bill will help, by increasing the cooperation between labour and management, and it will help to show to both sides that safety is the responsibility of all and is the best thing for the whole industry or the whole plant. It does not matter whether a person is in labour or in management.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The hon. member for Algoma.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in the debate on Bill 11, An Act to provide for the Establishment of Safety Committees, as a person who has been on both sides of the fence in this matter. I was an employee in logging and lumbering operations for quite a few years and then I became an employer. Therefore, I have seen both sides and I know what a benefit it is to have safety committees.

I can well remember in our own operation when we weren’t quite as safety conscious as we should have been, and we had pretty much in mind that, “Oh, well, I am covered with compensation so I don’t have to worry.” But when one becomes an employer, every time one has an accident, one notices his compensation assessment goes up.

I can well remember in the logging industry when the rate went up 14 cents on the dollar for logging and lumbering, and that makes one stop and think, “Maybe we had better get a little more safety conscious.” I can well remember purchasing hard hats for everyone who worked in the woods and for those who were employed in the sawmill, and how difficult it was at the start to get them to wear these hard hats. They thought it was a nuisance. So it takes some education to get people conscious of the fact that accidents can be prevented, and I want to commend the member for Welland South for taking the initiative in bringing this bill as a private member’s bill.

We do know that it is very seldom that a private member’s bill becomes legislation, but I think there are many times when a private member’s bill at least brings the thought out, so a lot of these recommendations that are brought in in private members’ bills eventually become legislation. Therefore, I wouldn’t hesitate to support this bill. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised, if the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) was here, he would look favourably on this bill, and I think that from time to time these private members’ bills should be followed through and should become legislation.

I know that if we have this type of legislation to make it compulsory to have safety committees it is also very important that the safety committees have the type of personnel who have a lot of good common sense; and also that the employer gets involved and that they both get together and try to come up with some meaningful rules and regulations within their establishments, whether it is logging, lumbering, road construction, manufacturing of various kinds or mining. Both sides have to be very reasonable and come up with regulations that can be lived with and that can be tolerated on both sides. Over the years I have known and have seen accidents take place on excavation jobs where a trench has been dug and a person had gone down to do some pipe fitting and the whole thing had collapsed on him and he has been buried. Some have died that way and others have been saved.

I think there also should be some incentive given to encourage safety committees, such as some type of an award at the end of the year for the various operations that have had a good safety record. This is an encouragement. When you have this type you can tell the difference; just go to a place where they have a safety committee and a place where they don’t have one.

One person told me, when I commended him on what a fine tidy place he had where everything seemed to be in its place: “I run a tight ship.” I think that this is good. I think we want to be able to go into an operation where we can see for ourselves that here is a place where a safety committee is performing its job and employer and employee have a good relationship. It is just as different as daylight and dark when one goes into the operations where safety committees are active and doing their part.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to participate. I have been in places where I have seen pretty junky operations, where you would trip over boards and logs and so on; and I have been in places where everything is so neat that it is a privilege to be able to walk into an I operation like that.

So again, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I look very favourably on Bill 11 that the member for Welland South has seen fit to bring up in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this Act to provide for the Establishment of Safety Committees, I will say one thing at the beginning:

It is a bill which we can support, but at the same time I regret that it doesn’t go a lot further. One of the things which is evident from the problems that arise with the Elliot Lake miners and the silicosis and exposure problems which they are having from radiation, is the fact that there is a tremendous lack of co-ordination among the ministries that are supposed to be looking out for and protecting the worker in this province with respect not just to accident injury but occupational health. There is virtually no, or until a very short time ago there has been no coordination, or if co-ordination existed it was so very little that it really couldn’t be discerned, among the occupational health branch of the Ministry of Health, the industrial safety division of the Ministry of Labour, the mine safety division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and those sections of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations dealing with protection of the public from various manufactured installations in the province, such as the boiler and pressure vessels branch, the operating engineers division, the elevator safety inspection, and so on.

What is desperately needed in this province is consolidation of all occupational health and safety matters into a single ministry.

I don’t particularly care whether it be the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Health. Those are the two which strike me as being the appropriate; one takes one’s pick. But to have mine safety under the Minister of Natural Resources, to have general occupational health under the Minister of Health, to have industrial safety under the Minister of Labour, and various divisions of Consumer and Commercial Relations involved in inspection of various manufactured items and the installation of items such as elevators, indicates the degree to which we have fragmented the whole problem of health, safety and accident and injury safety in this province. I can see no other way than bringing them together to achieve what we are all trying to achieve in this province -- that is protection for the workers, not just from accident or injury but from the occupational health hazards which also exist.

I don’t need to detail to you, Mr. Speaker, the record of our party in this House, particularly over the last couple of years, with respect to the problems in Elliot Lake. It is highlighted by our leader, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) and the problems in the standards of dust levels which he has spoken about in this House with respect to mining operations; the problems of silicosis in miners generally; the struggle, for as long as I have been in this House, by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and others from the north to have the Workmen’s Compensation Board recognize the problems of the miners with lung disease; to recognize eligibility for pensions; to recognize that widows should be eligible for those pensions as well.

Some small movements have been made in this area, but the co-ordination of all this has been abominable and one wonders if it wasn’t deliberately set up this way, so that it became so fragmented no one really had the responsibility, no one really had a handle on the entire subject of occupational injury, occupational safety and occupational health.

I am convinced, although the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) now says he will take some of that overall responsibility, that until we delegate it in legislative terms and until we put the entire responsibility for this area into one division of one ministry there will be areas overlooked, there will he areas uncoordinated and the proper protections not given.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board as well must be required to report to that division all of the findings it has which would indicate a tread or a pattern, particularly in the area of developing industrial health. There may be something which may not be recognized by people at this moment, but because of statistical reports coming in on workmen who have become ill at the workplace, the Workmen’s Compensation Board would have seen that trend developing before the various other branches.

Therefore, we need to bring in a bill dealing with safety committees. As one of its main points, it needs to bring into one organizational whole all of these persons and functions in these various ministries so that an integrated, problem-oriented, problem-solving approach to the entire question of health and safety in the workplace can be taken. It is an approach which will include not just accident, not just injury, but the entire area of industrial health.

Mr. Speaker, I could wax at great length and in great detail on some of these subjects, many of which I have been involved with directly as the labour critic in this House. I agree with the member for Stormont that what is needed is not solely an industry-wide safety committee as stated in this bill, we need as well plant-by-plant industrial safety committees on which both management and labour sit and to which, in the first instance, problems of health and injury and accident are reported. They may then take the next step which this bill envisages, that is, providing that information directly to the industry-wide committees, which may be able to discern overall trends within an industry and therefore come up with some solutions to a trend which they see developing in industry.

By a trend, I am speaking particularly of new trends that we have not envisaged now in occupational health hazards. We certainly have recognizable trends now, and there is not that easy a way of collating those problems.

But we certainly need the plant-wide committee. And this is the committee, Mr. Speaker, that should make the decision in the very first instance when a worker complains about his particular location or place of work or the machine he is operating.

As you know, we have provisions in the Industrial Safety Act that allow a worker to refuse to work in a workplace he considers unsafe. He then declares he feels it is unsafe. And what happens? A foreman comes down, looks at it and says, “Looks okay to me; back to work.” If the worker insists that it still looks unsafe to him or is unsafe, what happens is that he is let go. If the shop is organized, he is suspended for some period of days for refusing to return to that workplace when ordered.

If there were plant-wide as well as industrial-wide safety committees, it would he that plant-wide committee to which that problem would be referred. That committee would satisfy itself that the workplace is safe and not just in the view of a foreman, and safe before the workman is ordered back into that workplace or another worker is ordered into that workplace.

I see the plant safety committee as very important to the whole establishment and operation of safe industrial or mine operations in our province; and that is where it should start.

I have no objections to an industry-wide safety committee, which could co-ordinate within a given defined area of industry the problems which arise throughout the entire industry. They would have the overall grasp of the magnitude of the particular problem.

It may emerge that a particular problem exists only in a particular plant of that industry, because of the way they have operated in the past; and that can then be worked on at the local level.

If, in fact, the same problem appears in plant after plant within a given industry, then the appropriate body to be taking it up and pressing home that point would be the industry-wide safety committee.

Getting back to the bill, I would have hoped that clause 3, however, would be much stronger than it is. I would have written it differently. It reads:

“Every safety committee upon the request of the minister shall advise him respecting safety.”

We need much tougher wording than that, Mr. Speaker. It should not be upon the request of the minister. They should be telling the minister what needs to be done in a given industry. Some mechanism must be found where he specifically takes their recommendation and advice and sees that it is implemented. I am very suspicious of advisory safety committees involving only the minister or the deputy minister or a divisional head. Hopefully, a divisional head of the consolidated health and safety division within one ministry can listen to that advice. When they do not take action, and we confront that person with the lack of action, their reply is: “Well that safety committee is only an advisory committee. We look at the stuff they tell us, and we may or may not take their advice.”

It has to be stronger than that, Mr. Speaker. Means must be found to ensure that a decision made by an industry-wide safety committee or a plant safety committee is accepted. Where the validity of the problem is recognized by an industry-wide committee, it should be worked upon and solved. We are past the era when someone at some point can refuse to accept the obvious advice of people who are very close to the scene.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, it boils down in some shortsighted cases to dollars and cents laid out now. A worker’s health or a worker’s lost time because of injury or accident is really incalculable. The long-term view is to ensure that the advice given by these various committees, particularly the plant committees, is accepted and not shoved aside on the idea that it is going to cost something now, with complete lack of attention paid to the long-term problems if that particular unsafe area is not rectified, or the health problems are not taken into account in the particular hazard that exists. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This order is discharged from the order paper.

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