The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

BEEF CALF INCOME STABILIZATION PROGRAMME

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): In the continued absence of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Chairman of the Management Board who made the statement and introduced the legislation regarding the cow-calf support programme.

Has he undertaken to consult with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture before the bill is proceeded with on second reading and is he aware of the strong feeling from the Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Farmers’ Union that the provisions of the bill are inadequate and seriously inadequate? Is he prepared to consult with them further before we go on with the bill or has he some other alternative?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, the first part of the answer must be that there is no bill. It was a statement of policy. In regard to the negotiations that took place -- and they did take place though I was not privileged to attend those meetings -- I would suggest that possibly after the parliamentary assistant (Mr. Eaton) arrives the Leader of the Opposition might ask him, because he did participate in those meetings.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the minister made the statement indicating the legislation would be introduced, would it be practicable if the policy secretary responded or is there anyone here to give us information?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): What is the question?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s on the cow-calf support programme which was announced on Friday.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I know the difference between a cow and a calf.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did the provincial secretary participate in the discussions with the farmers, particularly the representatives of the Federation of Agriculture and the Farmers’ Union and is he going to carry them further before the bill is introduced, since it is obviously unacceptable to the farmers and they are the ones we are trying to help? What is the alternative to this situation, or is the government prepared to go forward with the bill in the way it was originally announced?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member asks did I communicate, I presume he means the government, not me personally. I did not communicate with them personally.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is the only one here who speaks for the government in this area.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was discussed at the policy field at some great length. Quite frankly, I didn’t respond to the question the other day and the Chairman of the Management Board did because the aspects having to do with it are very complicated. The financial arrangements, insurance, etc. are so detailed. As it had gone to Management Board, the Chairman of Management Board was familiar with that aspect of it, and that was the point in question of whoever directed the question last week. The minister took it upon himself, quite properly, to answer that because he was familiar with that aspect of it.

I am sure either the Minister of Agriculture and Food and/or his staff were involved in the meetings to which the hon. member refers. He is asking whether it is intended to proceed with the legislation before the adjournment. I will get that information.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I particularly wanted to know what the procedure of consultations was and how it could have been carried out in any effective way since the results were, let’s say, so unacceptable as far as the farmers’ organizations are concerned, in the statements they have made. Was there consultation or did this just spring wholly-made from the brow of the legislative assistant?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member, that there were a great number of meetings and a great deal of consideration on this with those people to whom the member is referring. There was a great deal of consultation. As to whether the farming community agrees with the legislation as it is proposed, the statement made with respect to the legislation is a matter of opinion. There are people --

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): It is a matter of evidence.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The farmers say that it is unacceptable.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member says “the farmers”; if he is referring to all the farmers in Ontario, that’s another matter altogether.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is the farmers’ organization.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The farmers affected by the programme.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is the responsibility of any ministry of any government to put into effect only those programmes which are practical and possible to put into effect.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But they are designed to help a specific group.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t know that this has been done in the past, but perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you might consider getting permission from the House to allow the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food to reply, due to the circumstances involved --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): When he is here.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Nobody asks him anything.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and to answer those questions which he has been dealing with, particularly since --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- the illness of his minister.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Can’t get him.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member isn’t here today we will make sure, if the House gives its permission -- and the House is able to do that -- that the parliamentary assistant is advised of this. He will then answer these very detailed matters which are so very important to the farming community.

Mr. Singer: The Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) had better take over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased indeed if you would consider making some comment as to whether the legislative assistant should be able to answer questions. Would it not also be a part of your responsibility to point out to the hon. member who has just spoken that he is in charge of policy in this area and, according to the statement, this is the first timid step in the development of a whole new policy of support for the farmers? Why the devil can’t he answer the questions?

Mr. Singer: That’s a good question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, obviously being responsible for policy is one thing; being responsible for all the details --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Having an answer is another thing.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Having to answer for it is another thing.

A hon. member: That’s one way of putting it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, obviously being responsible for general policy coordination, etc., doesn’t mean that any policy secretary has the responsibility of knowing every detail of every programme in every one of the ministries. The member knows that perfectly well.

Mr. Deacon: It doesn’t mean he has to know everything.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): He still hasn’t figured out the policy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t know why the members opposite make so light of this very serious matter.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are not making light of it. We are concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously, I am more concerned about the --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There has been a question asked. Order please. The minister is answering it to the best of his ability. Can we finally hear both the questions and the answers? Is there a further answer?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is trying to save his skin.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, if this is such a serious matter -- and it is -- and if the members of the Liberal Party think it is, they shouldn’t be making so light of the matter. It’s a very important --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is the minister talking about, making light of the matter? We are very concerned as to his inadequacy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They have been outsmarted again by that party to their left --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, that is it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- who are not making fun of this thing. They realize it is important and they realize that in the absence of Canada’s most able Minister of Agriculture and Food, due to illness, this matter has to be handled on a somewhat ad hoc basis because he is not here --

Mr. Singer: Ad hog!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- to answer on a matter which he has been dealing with so closely himself. I would think the Liberal Party -- the leader of the Liberal Party particularly, being a farmer -- should understand that under these circumstances it takes a little more than banter back and forth, trying to make points.

It is very important. The Chairman of the Management Board attempted to answer on the financial aspects of the arrangements. The parliamentary assistant is prepared to answer. I think it is the rule of this House that the parliamentary assistant may not be questioned. The member will appreciate that I offered a few moments ago to appeal to the Speaker to give the parliamentary assistant the opportunity to stand here and be questioned, which he is prepared to do. All the member had to do is say he agrees with that and join with me in my appeal to the Speaker --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We already did. What is he talking about?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- without all that other nonsense which is not helpful at all in this important matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, I would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the parliamentary assistant has crept into the back row in the last few minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are concerned, of course, with the policy the government is embarking on and the fact it is prepared to do so without consultation --

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Surely the minister must not take that lightly? As a matter of fact, how lightly does he take his indemnity? What does he do for that? Does he not assist in the development of this policy? He doesn’t?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t take it lightly at all. It was a matter of a great deal -- there goes the banter over there again; let the record show that. It wasn’t taken very lightly at all on our side.

Mr. Lewis: Has Hansard got that? It’s banter.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the matter of indemnity was, of course, germane to the whole bill. It was fundamental to the whole programme -- very fundamental -- and it took a great deal of discussion and a great deal of consideration. Members may rest assured that if the Minister of Agriculture and Food of this province was constrained to say, “This is what we would do at the moment,” the farmers in this province will have confidence in him.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order. A question of the gentleman in the back seat --

Mr. Speaker: Well, the question is now -- I will deal with that. As you know, the questions are placed with the ministry. According to our orders, the question may be referred to a member of a board or commission but they have not up to now covered the position of parliamentary assistant. Do we have the House’s permission for the minister to refer a question to the parliamentary assistant?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Only if it is to be continued during the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Of course if the parliamentary assistant is to be allowed to answer he should be allowed to answer any questions during a prolonged absence, not just those the provincial secretary wants to refer.

Mr. Speaker: With that proviso, do we have permission of the House?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed. By the way, we have spent about eight minutes on this one question. The Leader of the Opposition may refer his question to the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order or on a point of information, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House leader would indicate if the parliamentary assistant, in expressing the views of the government, is quoting the official policy of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food? Is that understood?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, I am prepared to give that commitment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant and ask him why, if there was sufficient consultation between the ministry and the Federation of Agriculture, the Farmers’ Union and those farmers directly concerned with the cow-calf operation, the bill was announced by the Chairman of Management Board in such a way that the farmers find it unacceptable? They do not find it an income insurance concept they are prepared to support. What is the purpose of the consultation if the government can’t bring forward a satisfactory statement?

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Mr. Speaker, it was not a case that we expected everyone would agree with the figures.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does anybody agree?

Mr. Eaton: The figures were arrived at in consultation with producers and the reports gathered by the economists in our ministry; they were put together on the basis of factual information which could be gathered on the costs of cow-calf operations. They were based on the cost of a herd of 100 cattle and they were based on arriving at a guaranteed stabilization programme, not a guaranteed income programme which guarantees all the wages and a profit.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a supplementary to the hon. member. On the basis of consultation, however, is the spokesman for the ministry aware that the federation and the Farmers’ Union have indicated through their spokesmen to the province that the provisions of the bill are substantially inadequate? What kind of consultations were there other than with the economic experts in the ministry? Was there agreement on behalf of the representatives of the farmers or the farmers themselves? Surely that couldn’t have been the case.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, some producers agreed with the programme and some didn’t. I think the member will find that in any case. The figures the Federation of Agriculture is using to dispute the figures we have used were put together in one day. The federation came to our office with them and we found there were some discrepancies in them. Their figures were based on a 425 lb calf. Ours were based on a 450 lb calf and that figure -- the 450 -- came about because of our consultation with the producers. That was the figure the producers had suggested for the weight of a calf.

There were a couple of other areas. There was the difference in the wages. We used the figure of $3.50 an hour -- the wages that were being paid by producers at that time -- and the federation used $5. There was a difference in the federation’s figures. They used the depreciation figure on cattle, after having taken a return on the investment in the cattle. We used the return on the investment in the cattle, and we used the buying in and selling out of cattle as the method.

These are some of the differences that came about. I don’t care how one works at it, one is going to find differences in the cost of production figures from one producer to another.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scarborough West have a supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the parliamentary assistant further: Since the government refuses to grant retroactivity for the one year, despite the pleas of the farm groups; and since the figures vary so substantially, would it be possible for him to table the comparative material he has so that we can have in front of us the basis on which the government arrived at its decision -- since we do have in front of us the federation and individual farm group figures?

Mr. Eaton: Yes, those figures were given out, and we’ll see that they’re tabled here.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions? The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A question of the Treasurer: If there is no further statement, in the absence of his colleagues, on the matter having to do with government policy regarding the price of oil, gasoline and heating fuel, do we have to wait for the Treasurer’s full 10 days, then consultation with the Premier (Mr. Davis), before we know what action would be asked of this Legislature?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I expect a statement will be made within the next few days.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Since every day that passes shores up the oil companies in their determination to raise the price as quickly as possible, can the Treasurer at least indicate in advance that he will not be permitting an increase in price until somewhere between Labour Day and the middle of October -- that that much is now government policy?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The government policy will be known when it is announced.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand. Can the Treasurer explain to me then, since the oil company executives walked out of the meeting with the Premier, not only disabusing him of the extended inventory which he alleges, but also indicating that the price would go up seven cents or eight cents a gallon, which is an increase of $90 million to $135 million inure than we thought just 10 days ago in overall cost to Ontario, can the Treasurer not give some indication now to let the public know that whatever the Premier says will draw some halt to these increases without giving us the detail, but putting the oil companies on notice that their days of arbitrary increases are numbered?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Lewis: No? Okay.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): All in the press.

HOME OWNERSHIP MADE EASY PROGRAMME

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask of the Minister of Housing if there is any consideration being given to reverting to the former policy in the Home Ownership Made Easy programme, whereby the purchase of the lot is going to be undertaken at the price at the time when the original contract was signed. Is the minister aware that under the more recent provisions -- the policy that was established just two years ago -- and with the rapid escalation of the costs of these lots, that it seems to be practically impossible for people to find the money to pay the increased cost for the lot? And as somebody pointed out in a letter to one of the weeklies, they, are now referring to it as “Home Ownership Made Impossible,” simply because there’s no way they will ever be able to pay the price of the lot the way it’s computed.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the, problem that exists at the present time, We also had a problem before we enforced the rule that the land had to be leased for a period of five years; there was a problem with speculation. We are dealing with this matter in our ministry, and have been for three or four weeks. I expect to have a resolution of the matter within two weeks’ time. At that time I will make a statement in the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the ministry considering a concept then of charging the actual cost to Ontario Housing, rather than the going rate on a free market for the serviced property, which would certainly be supportable?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give the hon. Leader of the Opposition that assurance at this time. We’re considering alternatives to the present method, because in various areas where we have land prices escalating rapidly, it is not possible for a homeowner to purchase the property at market value.

STORE HOURS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: May I direct a question to the Attorney General? Is there going to be the introduction of any legislation having to do with uniform store hours as has been promised by him and his predecessors? I am not asking about the enforcement of Sunday closing laws; that is a closely related problem but not the problem I am asking about.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): I would think that this probably is a likely position, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Before the House rises this summer?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I didn’t say that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister mean the government someday might bring in store hours laws?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A supplementary on the last question?

Mr. Roy: Yes, on the last question: The minister has made previous statements that he was coming in with legislation and that he would resolve the problem in a short time and his predecessors have said the same thing as well. When is this charade going to stop, and when is the minister going to take a stand?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite can draw their own conclusions as to when I may introduce the legislation. I have had a fairly heavy legislative programme so far this year. I have not by any stretch of the imagination abandoned any proposals that have been made by me or my predecessor.

It is an involved matter. There are two aspects to it, the Sunday closing and the uniform hours. Quite frankly -- and I take full responsibility for this -- I am not satisfied with the information I have before me as of this date that I can bring forward legislation that will be positive at this particular time. I intend, when given the opportunity, and hopefully I will be, to bring it forward in the not-too-distant future. But I am not going to give any undertaking that I am going to bring it forward before the House rises because I don’t know when it is going to rise.

Mr. Roy: The minister is stalling and he knows it.

Mr. Stokes: Why doesn’t the minister bring out a blue paper?

Mr. Good: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Is it on this question, in view of the answer that was given? The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Are we to understand then that the minister’s position has changed from that stated in his letter of Jan. 20 to PUSH when he said he hoped to bring the whole matter to a conclusion at the earliest possible time? Is the minister saying that conditions have changed now and that he cannot bring the whole matter to a conclusion at the earliest possible time?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will bring the matter forward, Mr. Speaker, when I am satisfied that I have all the cogent information with which to proceed.

Mr. Roy: The minister is changing his tune.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will bring it forward at the earliest time that is available to me in terms of all the criteria that are required.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Well, if it is not the earliest now, it is getting earlier all the time.

Mr. Good: What is the government’s position?

Mr. Singer: Another green paper is a waste of time.

MOPEDS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, since I believe this is in his policy field and this does involve a matter of policy, in light of the unhappy fatalities this last weekend by the use of mopeds, is the policy group within the secretariat willing to reconsider the legislation intended by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) and require some form of licensing and the mandatory use of helmets, given the evidence that is now before us even before the bill is debated?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, this government is always willing to reconsider any of its legislation. Indeed that is what legislatures and governments do as years go by. They are amending regulations and amending legislation session after session.

I am sure the hon. member wouldn’t expect that the decision for reconsideration should be made this quickly because of the very, very terrible tragedies that occurred over the weekend. The Minister of Transportation and Communications has the information at hand or is investigating the accidents that occurred. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, he will be taking this under consideration and if it is deemed advisable to make any changes, of course, this government and the minister will consider them.

Mr. Lewis: I would like just to go further than that. Since doubtless all members of the House would agree in deferring it for a day or two if that is what is involved, is the minister prepared to advise, as the policy minister, that the legislation now have a second review, a very quick and careful review, in light of the evidence that is before us and in light of the evidence which, alas, contradicts directly the statements which were made by the minister when he introduced the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with great respect even though I have a very, very deep and strong respect for the press, I’m sure that the hon. member wouldn’t consider that at this early stage the Minister of Transportation and Communications should consider, or even that the provincial secretary should consider recommending to his policy field, a change is the legislation on the basis of a news report.

Mr. Lewis: What does the minister mean, a news report? There were two fatalities.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was a news report of two fatalities.

An hon. member: How many deaths does the minister want?

Mr. Deans: The minister made a terrible mistake the first time. He had better not make a second one.

Mr. Lewis: Is the news report not credible?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member heard what I said just a moment ago. I said he wouldn’t expect a responsible government to immediately embark upon a change in legislation on the basis of a news report --

Mr. Lewis: That’s not what the minister said.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The government has already done studies. It has got a lot of background on this.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- which is what, maybe 24 hours old. It just wouldn’t be reasonable, nor would it be responsible.

Mr. Lewis: Of course it would be responsible.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I answered the question quite properly --

Mr. Lewis: What is the minister talking about?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Minister of Transportation and Communications, I’m sure, has this under consideration, and I’m sure he’s investigating the accidents which occurred --

Mr. Deans: Just like the Minister of Transportation and Communications investigated it the first time around.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- to find out how they occurred and whether they indicate a change in legislation. Now, what could be more reasonable than that?

Mr. Lewis: Doing something about it. That would be reasonable.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the member mean before we consider it?

Mr. Lewis: I presume the minister will consider it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member’s party ever takes power -- if he’s still around at that time -- if he wants to run a government on the basis of picking up a newspaper, reading a report, dashing into the House and changing legislation, he’s at liberty to do so if he ever makes it.

Mr. Lewis: That is not what I asked the government to do.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: But we don’t do it that way.

Mr. Renwick: The government has already done studies on it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In the fullness of time.

Mr. Lewis: The government made a mistake in the legislation.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East has a supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In the fullness of time. Meanwhile, how many people are going to have their heads bashed in?

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

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the minister talks about hasty decisions, does he not feel that the decision of his colleague in relation to certain submissions he received from females who apparently weren’t interested in wearing helmets was somewhat hasty? And would he bring to his colleague’s attention --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. That’s what was contradicted by the accidents.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear the question.

Mr. Roy: Let me repeat it. Apparently the minister’s colleague came to his decision about helmets because certain females, certain ladies, got in touch with him and said they didn’t like to wear helmets. That’s why he said he came to this decision --

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

An hon. member: Maybe that’s the way the member sees it.

Mr. Roy: That’s what the minister said. He said it right here in the House.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s hear the rest of the question.

Mr. Lewis: The word the member is struggling for is “women.”

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: Would the minister look at the basis of that decision, and would he also bring to the attention of his colleague the statistics that are being kept at the Ottawa Civic Hospital about moped accidents? Dr. Goldwin Smith, who is the president of the medical staff there, said that his staff had been complaining about the number of beds being occupied by moped drivers who had sustained concussions in accidents. Would he bring that to his colleague’s attention as well?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker in the first place, I’d like to disabuse the hon. member of the idea that any decision was based on --

Mr. Roy: That is what the minister said.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t know how he said it or whether he said it, and whether that was the impression he meant to get across.

Mr. Lewis: The minister has quite a grip on his policy field.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: All I can tell the member is that that had nothing to do with the decision.

Mr. Singer: This is the minister’s day.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think the question itself is somewhat sexist and I will draw to the attention of Laura Sabia the fact that the hon. member would ask a question that way. It’s most unfair.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What kind of a threat is that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it had nothing to do with any person arguing that they didn’t like to wear a helmet because it didn’t look good.

Mr. Lewis: Of course it did. The minister said so himself.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If he did the hon. minister must have done it in a facetious way.

Mr. Lewis: He didn’t do it facetiously

Mrs. Campbell: The government it not treating it seriously.

Mr. Stokes: Take it as notice.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Anyway, in answer to the specific question, if it already hasn’t been drawn to the attention of the minister, I will draw it to his attention.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

BELL CANADA RATE INCREASES

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Attorney General, if I may. Will the Province of Ontario by making a direct intervention in the Bell Canada applications for further rate increases?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I refer that question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications, who will be making that decision. We, of course, will be supplying counsel in the event he decides to make that kind of submission.

Mr. Singer: Is that for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development again?

Mrs. Campbell: What is the Attorney General going to do?

Mr. Lewis: Is it the Attorney General’s inclination to have an intervention on the basis of what Ontario has done before?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think I would defer to the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Singer: Or his policy secretary.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. Lewis: If I may ask the Minister of Housing a question, do his views coincide with that of his very recently departed deputy minister, who says that government by legislation may have to force insurance companies, trust companies and loan companies into the mortgage field, since they are not participating adequately at this time?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, that’s a matter which I’ve had under consideration for some while. I have discussed it with the federal minister, Mr. Danson. I believe that the lending institutions have not been putting enough money into the housing field. I’ve told all of them the same story, that we have to have more money, or else it may be necessary for government to enact legislation to provide more mortgage money.

Mr. Lewis: Is the ministry considering the possibility of an amendment to the appropriate provincial legislation, the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, and comparable legislation, which would require the companies operating in Ontario to invest a certain percentage of retained earnings -- or however it is calculated -- in the housing mortgage market? Is this government prepared to consider that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the hon. member is that we are prepared to consider it. I can’t say that I will amend it, since it doesn’t come under my jurisdiction -- it is that of my colleague. But I would think that it would have to have much more consideration of the matter than we have at the present time. I was hoping that we would have had mortgage funds made available at the federal level. We now know we have not. We’ll have to consider an alternative; and whatever that may be, I don’t know at this time.

Mr. Lewis: But this would be considered?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, I believe the member for Grey-Bruce has a supplementary.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Supplementary, Mr. Minister: In view of the fact that Industry and Tourism can give deferred loans, forgiveness loans to American firms at six per cent, etc., why can’t this minister do the same thing here for a crash programme on housing?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I fail to connect the two together.

Mr. Roy: He would.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think one thing we have to realize is that when --

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the minister talk to them?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- the Ministry of Industry and Tourism provides a loan to a particular company, it also provides jobs.

Mr. Roy: Same argument.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think we need some jobs very definitely; not only this year but next year. Now, as far as housing is concerned, we also need more money to provide jobs. I’m trying to determine what is the best way to do this.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR ASBESTOS WORKERS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health, if I may. The people in the occupational health branch, as I understand it, did various medical tests, x-rays and lung function tests of workers at Johns-Manville in June of 1974. Can the minister explain how it is that workers are just now being notified of the results of those tests, particularly where they show some lung dysfunction or scarring; and how they were allowed to be exposed to asbestos for a full year before the tests were reported to them?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I can’t answer that. I know in the previous set of tests at Elliot Lake the time frame was just about the same. It seems to take quite a bit of time to analyse these reports. Whether it’s necessary or not, I’m not sure. Certainly I’d like the reports back faster and the results known faster.

Mr. Lewis: Could the minister just inquire into this case as a kind of symbol of the delays that take place -- the unaccountable delays?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’ll be glad to, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes it’s a shortage of laboratory facilities. Sputum cytology has been one of the tests that has held us up most in those areas; and if sputum cytology is done, the results have been deferred.

I’d like, while I’m on it, to refer to another question the member asked me the other day, and that was about the survey of people in the immediate area of the asbestos plant. I’ve discovered two or three groups were preparing to do some work in this area. We’ve got them together and we’re coordinating that work, by the way. Hopefully we will have some testing programme funded, probably through our ministry and probably done by one of the medical officers of health and/or the University of Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: On the people in the area, or the families of the workers?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I think probably the testing may include both groups. Certainly we are going to look back across records of families exposed over a number of years, and I believe there will be some testing of families who are not necessarily those of workers.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

JURY TRIALS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Does the Attorney General have any opinion about the private member’s bill introduced by the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker into the House of Commons relating to jury trials and the ability of the court on the appellant level to upset a jury’s decision and substitute its own? Or would the minister not agree it’s an important principle of law in Ontario that once a decision is given by a jury it could, in unusual circumstances, be set aside but a new trial should be ordered?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, I haven’t seen a copy of the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker’s bill and I wasn’t aware until this moment that he had in fact introduced one.

Mr. Singer: Would the minister take a look at it and give us his opinion in the very near future?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Would the member like that opinion in writing?

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: With a bill?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if the minister, as Minister of Justice in this province, feels compelled to support Mr. Diefenbaker’s bill, he might also consider upping the fees, the remunerations, that are paid to jurors. That might do something for the jury system in this province.

Mr. Speaker: No, that was not a proper supplementary. The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS FIBRES FROM TAP WATER

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: Regarding the ministry’s sampling of Detroit River water in November, 1972, by which asbestos fibre counts of over 20 million asbestos fibres per litre were obtained in the raw water and almost two million in Windsor’s filtered water, is the minister aware that the Ontario Research Foundation has reported to the Windsor Utilities Commission that no asbestos fibres were found in any of its water samples, either in the raw or the treated samples, taken in February of this year, and has the minister any theories to explain this surprising finding?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, if I heard the member’s question correctly, he said that in 1972 they found 20 million fibres per litre, and the most recent testing that was done by Ontario Research Foundation shows no fibres per litre. Who did the testing in 1972? Was it the Ontario Research Foundation? I don’t know who did the testing.

Mr. Burr: It was the Ministry of the Environment.

Hon. W. Newman: Our ministry would not be doing the actual testing itself because we didn’t have an electron microscope; we have one now, but we didn’t do the actual testing in 1972. We would have had it done by an outside source. Either the Ontario Research Foundation or the Canada Centre for Inland Waters probably would do the testing for us.

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

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Supplementary: In the light of the large discrepancies in the asbestos fibre count last year as opposed to two years ago, will the minister ensure that other test samples are taken immediately and other tests run to verify either one of those figures or what the current level now is?

Hon. W. Newman: I think, Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to take a sample of water and have it tested. Some labs have different results from others and we are looking into this whole process too. But we will be glad to take a sample out of the river and have it tested.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

JAMES BAY EDUCATION CENTRE

Mr. Deacon: A question of the Minister of Education: In view of the very substantial problems that seem to be experienced up at the Moosonee Education Centre, will the minister table the report of the James Bay Education Centre known as the external evaluation which was done by D. S. Felker? Will he also report to the House on the number of staff resignations that have taken place this year from the secondary school section of the centre, and the reasons for the staff resignations?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I think one of my friends on the other side asked me about this report a few weeks ago. As soon as we have it ready, I think in fairness it should be tabled along with the internal report that was done by the board of governors and the results of all the discussions that are going on. The purpose in appointing the external examiners to look into the James Bay Education Centre along with the kind of examination the board of governors themselves carried on was, of course, to correct some of the criticisms and problems which we all knew existed there. They are being worked on at present and as soon as we get the documents all printed together I’ll be happy to table them, It may be a few weeks, though.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: in view of the fact that this problem has been continuing over the last several years, when does the minister expect to make some fundamental changes so that that does become a community education facility instead of something we’ve imposed here from Queen’s Park?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has continually made this kind of offhand suggestion about the centre, in which he, in a blanket statement, condemns the chairman of the board of governors and others up there, who I think have sincerely been trying to do something to bring that centre around and have achieved a fairly significant community status for it. But it is not perfect and we’re working on that. I think we will see changes come about as a result of the evaluations that have been carried on.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale. I’m sorry, is this a supplementary?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Yes. Did I correctly understand the minister to give a commitment to table both the internal and external evaluation reports in this Legislature when they are finalized?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, I will be happy to make them public as soon as we’ve got them all together and the members can see the whole picture.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL BUDGETS

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): I have a question of the Minister of Health. How many psychiatric hospitals have been told to hold down their present budgets to the level of last year’s budget, and is the minister proposing to make no allowance for the 12 per cent inflation rate in the next year’s budget either?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had a question of this nature the other day and I don’t know that he has got his facts straight.

We have been allowing for increases in the budgets of most of the psychiatric hospitals. I have the exact figures with me and they all show an increase. Unlike the provincial hospitals, where we project into their budgets an increase for salary settlements to be made, we don’t do it with the psychiatric hospitals, because if, as and when the CSAO and any other group representing the employees gets an increase in salary, we come back with a supplementary for it.

So we feel we have allowed for inflation in the budgets of the psychiatric hospitals and if salary settlements were made that exceeded the present rates, they would be built into the budgets. For example, Whitby went up half a million dollars in its budget this year, which is quite a bit of money for an increase. It’s getting about nine per cent of our psychiatric budget and it’s producing about 7½ per cent of our psychiatric services.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister comment then on the statements by the administrator of the Whitby hospital, who stated in a recent interview that no allowance was made between last year and this year in budget and that, in effect, he had to deal with a 15 per cent cut in budget -- which is the three per cent that the ministry has ordered and 12 per cent due to inflation -- which I think contradicts what the minister has just said?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I haven’t seen that statement. I don’t think any of the administrators of hospitals, whether they be provincial or public, like living with constraints, but constraints are in fact having to be applied. The fact remains that $13,057,000 is more than $12,588,000 and --

Mr. Roy: The minister is right again.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- that’s what he had last year.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary. The member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify increasing the grant by $500,000 to a psychiatric hospital and he cut our grant back $200,000? We had to lay off 38 people in our hospital.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. gentleman goes back and looks at the budgets he will find there was no such cut. There may have been cuts from what they proposed --

Mr. Sargent: They laid off 38 people.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Go and out find the figures first

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

Mr. Speaker: No. Order please. Order

Mr. Sargent: He is calling me a liar.

Mr. Speaker: He is not. Order please. Order. That is a different question from the original. The member for Ottawa East, with his question.

Mr. Sargent: Get the figures straight.

An hon. member: Throw him out.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Ottawa East.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation, the minister in charge of Wintario. Would he advise whether there is a regulation which prohibits retailers from selling lottery tickets at a cut rate -- in other words, selling it at the rate that they pay -- and has it been brought to this attention, for instance, that a dealer in Brockville was selling five tickets for $4.60? All he was doing, in fact, was not taking his eight cents profit, and apparently his business was taken away in spite of the fact that he had contracted for $700 worth of advertisements in the area papers.

What does the minister see wrong with selling lottery tickets at the price that the retailer pays?

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, that matter had not been brought to my attention but I would be very happy to discuss it with the Ontario Lottery Corp.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: Isn’t it the policy of the government that they not be allowed to sell at cost?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in response to the supplementary asked by the member for York Centre, I will get the information from the Ontario Lottery Corp. and report back to him.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, while he is getting the information, does he know if there are regulations now which prohibit selling tickets at less than face value? Or did he say he doesn’t know?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I said there are regulations. The Ontario Lottery Corp. Act, the establishing Act, provided for regulations. I’d have to go through those regulations with respect to those matters.

Mr. Roy: Yes, but are these regulations that --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for High Park.

ASSESSMENT ACT CHANGES

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have a question of the Minister of Revenue, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that in order for a person to appeal his assessment under the new Assessment Act, he can only appeal if his assessment is inequitable in terms of neighbouring assessments, but under the new Assessment Act he is not allowed to find out what the neighbouring assessments are, and that these various inequities in the Assessment Act have been labelled an absurdity by Judge Scott in the provincial court in Niagara?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sent me a note just now asking me if I was aware of Judge Scott’s observations. My answer is that I am not. I don’t think there are such absurdities in the Act, but I’ll take a look at it and see just what would have led him to that conclusion.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

ADOPTION OF VIETNAMESE CHLDREN

Mrs. Campbell: My question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Could the minister advise this House as to why, when a home study for adoption purposes has been traditionally regarded as confidential, such information would be sent to a private person in Montreal on the application of an adopting parent or parents in this province? Could I know why that information is not deemed confidential in those circumstances, so that even the family about whom the study was made has not been able to get the information?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to look into the matter if the hon. member could give me details as to the persons involved.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, supplementary: Could the minister look into the whole aspect of the procedures in these cases, because his ministry doesn’t seem to be applying the same principles in these cases as in others?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Is the hon. member referring to international adoptions -- that is, adoptions from other countries?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: Could I ask a supplementary on this? Is it in fact true that the minister is in a remarkably awkward and difficult positon over the 62 Vietnamese adoptions arranged for Ontario in his inability to get the legalities sorted out, because the adoption were arranged through the Quan-Yin Foundation, but his ministry has attempted to assert priority and in the process cannot get the authority from Vietnamese and other officials which it requires?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that these adopted children were abandoned children and that we had proper authority from the South Vietnamese government. We have also dealt with the proper channels of the federal government’s Department of Immigration.

Mr. Lewis: The ministry has all the approvals it needs?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: This is my understanding.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Bennett presented the annual report of Ontario Place Corp. for the year ending March 31, 1975.

Mr. Stokes: What is the bad news this year?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): No, it is good news. It is always good.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I want to table answers to questions 24, 25, 27 and 31 on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The second order, House in committee of the whole.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

House in committee on Bill 106, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, comments or amendments to section 14? The member for Windsor West.

On section 14:

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): On section 14, Mr. Chairman, the present Act makes provision for payments by the employer and I believe it specifies the amount the employer must pay when he fails to furnish the particulars of an accident or claim, particularly if that employer is late.

I am a little bit concerned that we are now going to have those amounts set out in the regulations rather than the amounts previously in the bill. Could the minister indicate what he is proposing by way of actual figures in the regulations, so we will know what type of power we are delegating in this section? Does the minister have that information with him?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): I haven’t seen the proposed regulations yet but it is my understanding that the proposal will be to treat schedule 2 in the same manner as schedule 1; the penalties and fines would be the same.

Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.

On section 16:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: This is the one section of the bill on which our major complaint comes; that is, the way in which widows are not dealt with fairly, in our opinion, in this particular amendment Act. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could place an amendment to this section first and then proceed to talk on that amendment.

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 16(1) be amended by deleting in the third line “by adding thereto 10 per cent thereof” and substituting therefor “to $515 for a widow or widower and $120 for all children.”

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, when we talked on the bill on second reading I mentioned our objection here. It is that in other years the amount by which the minimum for permanent total disability was raised -- which, in this bill, is $400 a month -- was identical to the increase in the amount paid to a widow or widower of someone killed in the workplace.

There is no question in my mind that that principle should be established or should be continued even in the minister’s own bill. If he is to be consistent with what has been done in the past, this amount would be $400 rather than this 10 per cent increase which is based on $260, making the payment to a widow or widower $286 in this bill. I feel that is certainly unjustifiably small by the minister’s and the board’s own way of doing things over the years. It should be $400, in line with the amount paid as a minimum to someone permanently totally disabled.

I think that philosophy is correct as well. You have a workman who is completely and wholly permanently totally disabled and you ensure that that workman is paid a minimum of $400 a month. There is very little difference that I can see between having a workman who is completely totally and permanently disabled receiving a minimum of $400 a month and what the widow of a workman who gets killed in the workplace should receive. Spouses should receive at least the amount that someone on permanent total disability gets while still alive, for the loss of earnings encountered by that woman or man being killed in the workplace. That widow or widower should receive that total amount.

To me it seems only reasonable. It seems quite reasonable that in the past those two figures should have been the same -- which in this bill would have been $400 rather than only the $26 increase from $260 to $286. This is where the bill is most seriously flawed Mr. Minister, not just in total dollar amounts but in the philosophy that you use in arriving at those figures. You have really made an error.

I would have hoped that the board and the minister would have come in and reported differently on this section by now, and would have announced that they were amending it. You used a factor of 1 per cent in various other parts of the bill for increases in pensions, because 10 per cent was the amount by which the cost of living went up this past year. We have a figure which has always been tied to and identical with the minimum paid for a permanent partial disability. It is a small enough figure as it is in your own bill -- $400 -- and it seems incredible that you should increase it only 1 per cent, from $260 to $286, for a widow or widower, and at the same time in the same bill you are willing to pay $400 for permanent total disability. There is a slipped gear in your thinking in arriving at a difference now, at this stage of the game, between those two categories of payments.

My amendment, of course, would increase the amount to $515 a month. I have gone through other explanations as to why we in this party would arrive at that being the correct figure. It’s based on the proper minimum wage of $3 an hour, being what it should be in Ontario at the moment, which is equal to 60 per cent of the average of salaries and wages. You take that $3 an hour, multiply it by a 40-hour week and pay 100 per cent of it, and that comes out to the $515 figure which I have mentioned in my amendment.

However, the least the ministry should have done was raise it from $26 to $400, not the niggardly increase from $260 to $286. It’s indefensible in terms of the need, in most cases, of the recipients of these pensions: It invariably occurs -- your Workmen’s Compensation Board would have the files -- with older workers where, if the spouse has not been working, particularly the women, they find it very difficult to get retraining and take up a useful occupation at their age, so the need of receiving a decent pension is quite manifest.

The minister says he doesn’t like to look at the question of need and that whenever we get into considering the question of need we are into a welfare scheme. I agree with that. We should not get into discussing the question of need. It should be a question of what is the rightful payment, and the rightful payment, in my mind, should be, as I stated, the $515 a month.

The other part of my amendment would increase the amounts paid to the children of such widows or widowers, or to the children of a person acting in loco parentis in respect of a worker who has been killed in the workplace. Here again the amounts paid are negligible -- an increase from $60 to only $66 if the widow or widower is able to look after them, and when they disappear from the scene for some reason, usually through death, then the $70 payment which would thereafter follow would increase to $77. Neither of these amounts is at all acceptable. They are too low.

Bearing in mind that the amounts paid by children’s aid societies to foster parents to look after foster children are in the vicinity of $120 a month or more, this is the reason for which we place the figure of $120. This is the same figure we placed in this section last year on June 28. We have not made any allowance in our amendments, for the increases in the cost of living which have occurred since then. But we still feel that in both cases the $60 and $70 should be higher. It should be at least $120. This is, by and large, the minimum figure which children’s aid societies pay for foster children in foster homes.

I remember a year ago, at the same time we had the Workmen’s Compensation Act before us in the House, we had a bill from the Ministry of Community and Social Services which placed a dollar value on children who were being supported under the Child Welfare Act. Those amendments called for $120 per child. The ministry has gone another whole year and has decided that its figures, through the Workmen’s Compensation Board, will be $66 and $77.

Mr. Chairman, if I say any more, I will be repeating myself, except to end up by saying that these are unacceptably low figures. There’s no reason I can see why there has to be such a small increase. I urge the minister to accept this amendment or at least bring in his own amendment with a figure of at least $400 as a pension for the widow or widower of someone killed in the workplace. One must not look at it purely as a welfare scheme; it is not what this Act is all about. It is to replace earnings of a worker who is deprived of those earnings by an accident in the workplace. And in this section we’re dealing with the replacement of those earnings for a worker who has been killed in the workplace. And $400 a month, a sum equalling only $4,800 a year, is what it should be to be in complete conformity with your own bill. In our terms, what we would do in this section is pay $515 for that widow or widower; and it is still only around $6,200 a year. This is a figure which we feel the board should be able to pay to a widow or widower or someone killed in the workplace.

Mr. Chairman: Any other member wish to speak to the amendment?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I did; but I’d hoped that the minister might answer my colleague before I made any comments.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I was going to wait, because I assume my answer will be much the same. It’s a short answer and it’s the answer that I’ve given in other parts of the bill. I can speak to it now if you wish, sir.

Mr. Deans: I would prefer that he answer my colleague, because he may have another question.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, in our opinion and in the government’s opinion, this is a reasonable figure for most cases. The day I announced this in the House there was immediate challenge on the amount of the proposed increase of 10 per cent to the widow’s pension. I didn’t come back and say, yes, I thought that would be adequate in all cases. I admitted there would be some cases where that was not enough. But, as I have said all the way along throughout the debate on this bill, we cannot take the worst of the hardship cases as what we should pay to widows. There are many widows, as I repeat, who are out in the workplace making full wages and receiving just as much as some other woman working beside her. In addition, the woman who is the widow of someone who has had the misfortune of being killed as a result of an industrial accident, receives this $260 or $286 over and above what that person who works beside her might be receiving -- and yet their responsibilities might be identical. I say in the average case the proposals we are making, we feel, are quite reasonable and quite adequate. My friend suggests that in the last few years they have had the same minimum as that being paid to widows. That may have been so in the last few years but it has not always been the case and there is no tradition that the sums are identical.

Although I don’t like to suggest that the Canada Pension Plan is in any way in lieu of workmen’s compensation -- or should be looked upon as a supplement to it -- but if you are going to take those cases I must point out that the Canada Pension fund scheme supplies -- this is my information -- I will read a paragraph:

“The first paper shows that under the Canada Pension Plan an Ontario widow over age 45, without children, or under age 45, with dependent children, or who is disabled, is entitled to a maximum pension of $88.31 for herself and an additional pension of $37.27 for each dependent child up to four, and $18.63 for each additional child beyond four.”

A dependent widow with two children would receive a maximum of $162.85 and that would be in addition to the $440 which is proposed tinder the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

That $440 figure, of course, is taking into account a number of children. Mr. Chairman, I can’t say other than what I have said before. I am not suggesting that a widow can get by on $286 a month, in all cases, without additional income from some source but, as I repeat, we are not legislating here for the worst of the hardship cases; we are trying to find what is a reasonable figure in the majority of cases.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. I can recall a number of occasions in this Legislature when we have dealt with this very topic and I’ve always been worried about the government’s attitude toward people who have not lost their spouses, who through no fault of their own have been forced into or put in a position of having to raise their families singlehandedly. It has to be the most difficult time in their lives and we make it that much more difficult.

To begin with, the person who is left behind -- the widow -- is faced almost immediately with the task of looking after the needs of children without the kind of income she had previously. In the case of a wife who has stayed home, chosen to remain at home and raise the children she has a great deal of difficulty finding any way to make money.

I want to talk about my own city for a moment because there is a case there which has worried me for eight years. It would have worried me longer except I have only been here for eight years. This lady lives outside the city of Hamilton. There is no regular bus service. When she was widowed she was left with three children and the payment she got from the Workmen’s Compensation Board was totally inadequate. She had to receive a supplement from welfare every year in order to make ends meet and she found it very difficult.

There were times without number when she couldn’t afford to pay the taxes. I can recall going out and trying to help raise money so she wouldn’t be forced to move out of her house. All of the costs went up year by year. The cost of raising those kids went up, too; the costs of just living went up. She couldn’t get employment because there was no way for her to get from where she lived to a job.

She wasn’t skilled -- she hadn’t worked in 10 years -- and when she went out to look for work, as she did time after time, she found employers would rather hire someone who either lived in the city and had easy access to that particular place of employment, or who had a car or who had recent experience in the workplace.

This woman tried for years and she did without. I don’t think we need to have that kind of situation in the Province of Ontario. You are not talking about great hordes of people; you are not talking about tens of thousands of people who are suddenly widowed and faced with the kinds of problems that particular person is faced with.

It is pretty obvious that at that point in her life she needed more help than she had ever needed before. Her income was cut, probably by two-thirds -- maybe more than that, but at least by two-thirds -- so that she then had a third of her previous income and she had to adjust all of their living standards to the new payment schedule. You haven’t changed that.

Your changes in this particular section of the bill haven’t really even kept pace with the actual cost of living in the Province of Ontario. Given the way in which mortgages are currently amortized, there is no way that a person could adjust her standards and still live reasonably within the allowance that’s made under this Act.

Surely we have a responsibility -- not only the Legislature, but people right across the province -- we all have a responsibility of some kind one for the other. Surely, in a time of great stress, we shouldn’t impose even more stress on individuals. Surely we should recognize that woman’s right, if she so chooses, to remain at home and to raise her family; and if we recognize that, then surely we can afford to pay a reasonable allowance in order that she can do that.

I just don’t understand the government’s attitude. I’ve never understood it. I remember the debates so well over the years, not necessarily with this minister, but with his predecessors, who couldn’t seem to appreciate that these people get into this situation through no fault of their own and that for many the opportunities to save money are almost nonexistent because the cost of living has been allowed to run rampant. For a great many the cost of simply paying their mortgage is far more than the allowance itself. For some the choice of looking after their family is a very important choice, one which they make because they believe it’s important that they should be there to guide and to help them. But even more important, right now in the Province of Ontario there are very few employment opportunities for people who have been out of the workplace for long periods of time and who have very few skills.

This is what you are faced with; you’ve got to adapt your programmes to meet the times, and you don’t do it. Your programme of payment to people has to be satisfactory to meet the economic times that we live in. There is no point in standing in the Legislature and talking about these people’s obligation to go out and to find other sources of income, because at this particular time in 1975 that is virtually impossible.

When you set payment levels so low that those people are faced with the prospect of losing their home, of eating inadequately, of not being able to provide for their children at a level that allows them to live in the community with the other kids or that enables them to allow their children to take part in all of the programmes that go on in the school, then you’ve failed. When you set up a programme that doesn’t recognize these things then you’ve failed.

If by adopting the suggestion of my colleague you feel that somehow or other the payment is too high for the numbers who can find alternative employment, so be it. For the few people we’re talking about in the Province of Ontario who might get a little more than you happen to think is a suitable amount, then I just say, “Good luck to them.” But for the great numbers who don’t get enough, then we surely have an obligation to do something about them.

For the life of me, I just can’t understand what it is about this government, what it is about the cabinet, what it is about the Tory mentality, that every single Labour Minister, no matter how starry-eyed when he begins, comes in with changes to the Workmen’s Compensation Act that don’t allow for a reasonable level of payment to people who are widowed. We make the same argument with other ministries, but surely it has to be recognized that in this case there wasn’t an alternative. It couldn’t have been foreseen. There was no way to make any kind of provision for such an event because nobody can guess that this sort of hardship is going to come on them.

When it comes on, it is traumatic and for many people it requires a long adjustment period. It does require that they be given a good financial base from which to work during that adjustment period and that they are taken care of in such a way as to enable them and their children to live in dignity and without feeling that they are getting handouts or having to go down and get extra assistance from one or other of the social and family service offices. That’s what you do. It is absolutely imperative that you change your views on the needs of people who are widowed and who qualify for benefit under the WCB.

You have got to establish an income level for those people that will enable them to continue to live. If the widow had been more fortunate and, rather than having been killed her husband had been totally disabled, she would have got more. Yet she might not have needed it anymore because at least the husband would have been there. Although he might not have been able to work, he would have been there to take on some of the responsibilities of parenthood.

Mr. Bounsall: Babysitting.

Mr. Deans: He might have been able to babysit. That is a good example. He might have been able to babysit while she went and got a job, which would have been in itself a tremendous asset. Yet somehow or other you are going to penalize the person at the very time when she needs the help the most. It makes no sense at all.

Don’t use the Canada Pension Plan argument with me, because if that man, having been injured in work, had received a total disability pension from the Workmen’s Compensation Board, he too would have qualified under Canada Pension Plan for total disability from that too. Since, therefore, you didn’t use that in making your calculations with regard to total disability, why, in heaven’s name, are you going to use it now with regard to pensions for those who are widowed? That argument doesn’t hold water. I listened to your making it and I thought at the time that it was the most ridiculous argument that I had heard in a long time in this House.

I realize that I am probably wasting my breath on it, but there are very few things that I feel as strongly about as this particular matter. I am absolutely convinced that we in the Province of Ontario can afford to pay to widows an amount which will enable them to live in dignity at a level that is reasonably close to that which they had lived at previously. Until such time as we have a sufficient number of jobs available in the Province of Ontario and until such time as your leader, the Premier (Mr. Davis) of this province, can stand in his place and tell us something about his manpower policies that will produce new employment opportunities for people, don’t stand in your place I and tell us that these people ought to be able to find alternative sources of income.

I asked the Premier a week ago, if he could show me one single programme in the Province of Ontario that had been produced, as a result of anything this government had done, any number of jobs. He couldn’t name one. He referred it to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and he couldn’t name one either. Then you tell me that these people, who are widowed, and faced with the dismal prospect of having to raise a family, faced with all of the traumatic experience of having to go it alone for either a short or an extended period of time, and faced with having to adjust to living by themselves and making all of the decisions without any support, are going to have to struggle by on this.

Do you know that there is hardly a member in this Legislature who doesn’t charge more than this against his expenses on a monthly basis? We get 15 cents a mile. We get hotel allowance. We get air fare to here and there; and, on balance, there isn’t a member here who doesn’t charge more against his or her allowance than the total amount made available for all of the necessities of life under this section of this Act for a widow. There is something inconsistent about that.

I want to hear from you, without reference to the Canada Pension Plan, without reference to the opportunity to go out and find alternative sources of income, how you think that a young woman with three children living in a house under the Home Ownership Made Easy programme would be able to make ends meet on this allowance. Good God, she would lose the house right away because she wouldn’t be getting a sufficient amount of income. She wouldn’t even have half of the requirement. She couldn’t afford to get a bus because bus fares are very expensive. Together with the federal government, you just raised the cost of gasoline 10 cents a gallon; therefore, she couldn’t afford to drive the family car, even if there was one. She has been out of the workplace for 10 years. She has no recent salable experience as far as employment opportunities are concerned.

Your leader, the Premier, doesn’t have a single new job in the province as a result of a single programme of this government. Tell me where this person is supposed to go to get this additional help. I just find this almost impossible. It is the most frustrating, aggravating part of this government. You don’t know how to deal with people, you don’t even give a damn about their needs, yet you sit there and bring in bills and expect applause and accolades. I am surprised at you. I expected better from you. I tell you right now that this is not nearly satisfactory. And if you are not prepared to make amendments to it now, for God’s sake at least recognize that the problem exists and tell us that you will come back to this Legislature at some appropriate time in the near future with changes to these sections of the Act that deal with the payment to widows to guarantee that they will at last have the financial backing they need if they don’t have the assistance of a partner.

It doesn’t make any sense to me -- I find it difficult to talk about it reasonably because it just aggravates me so much -- the way this government looks out and can’t even identify the simplest of problems when they are so obvious to anyone. Surely the minister has dealt with people on workmen’s compensation who are in exactly the situation that we are talking about. Surely he knows himself the frustration of having to turn around to someone and say, “I am sorry there is no other assistance that you can get. You are going to have to sell your house.” Or: “I am sorry, you are going to have to just let it go a lack of payment on the taxes.” Or: “Your kids aren’t going to be able to go on because we can’t get you any more money. Your daughter who is now 16, is going to have to get a job to support you, because there isn’t any further assistance from this government to help, and she is not going to be able to go on to school.” Surely you have had these kinds of situations brought to your attention.

What you are offering is totally inadequate. It’s a slap in the face to members of this House; it’s a slap in the face to the people of the Province of Ontario. I don’t understand this government. I don’t think I will ever understand it when it comes to the way in which it deals with the needs of people as they exist today -- not as we might project that they will exist at some time in the future, but as they actually are in every municipality right across the province.

You can find money for the most ridiculous programmes. Every time I turn around I am getting blared out at me how the Province of Ontario is going to share your house with you or something.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Advertising for the election.

Mr. Deans: Every time I turn around I see ministries and ministers spending more and more money. What do we get? Some ridiculous billboard in Times Square talking about the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett). Every time I look around I see the government spending money on things which will yield absolutely no benefit of any kind to anybody. You can find money to reimburse manufacturers for machinery they purchase which is built outside the country but you can’t find an adequate supply to provide for the needs of the people who are working and who, through no fault of their own, are injured seriously or killed. You can’t find that.

I say I hope this is the last time I ever have to speak about this because, honest to God, I hope you don’t come back -- not personally -- but I hope your government doesn’t come back so that something worthwhile can be done in these fields if nowhere else. This is the measure of a government; it’s the measure of a nation; it’s a measure of the Province of Ontario and its people -- the capacity of the province to use its resources to benefit the people who need it.

These people are in the situation they are in without having had any premonition, without having done anything of any consequence against anybody. It seems a shame they have to be punished simply because one or the other of the family gets killed in an industrial accident. It’s a pretty cruel way to go about your business.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to speak to the amendment?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, as I say, I don’t have a great deal more to add to what I have already said. I am not going to disagree with what my friend the member for Wentworth has said insofar as a widow getting by on $286 is concerned. When I referred to Canada Pension I was simply suggesting that many of them do have other sources of income of one sort or another.

Mr. Deans: That is also true of the totally disabled.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is quite correct but I think it was suggested the other day that few of them had other sources of income and I am suggesting there are others.

It’s not pleasant for me to suggest that maybe these hardship cases do have to turn to welfare and that in itself is another source. But unless we are going to develop some means test -- and this is where I say it becomes a welfare Act, when we start looking at means tests -- I think there are going to be these hardship cases. I say we are taking the average cases.

I come back to the example -- I know the opposition chooses to ignore the example -- of what is the difference between the widow who finds herself in that position by reason of an industrial accident and the widow who finds herself in that position by reason of her husband having a heart attack?

Mr. Deans: Okay; can I answer that for a moment?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: This is where I think there should be eventually some overall welfare scheme, as the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Gisborn) suggested. In the meantime, one widow is helping add to the supplement of the other woman in the price she pays for products. I’ll be glad to listen to the --

Mr. Deans: I am sorry but I must respond to that. There isn’t any difference. You made the difference by virtue of having the Act in the first place. I have said many a time there is nothing holy about getting hurt at work over against slipping and breaking your leg on your way to work. You still require an income regardless of where your disability is derived. It makes no difference, and I agree with you it makes no difference but you don’t penalize the one because you can’t provide for the other.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, but it is the other who is being deprived.

Mr. Deans: Surely to heaven, if you believe what you are telling me -- that the widow who is in receipt of benefit under the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the widow whose husband has died as the result of pneumonia should receive equal treatment -- you at least begin at a level which allows each of them to live reasonably, that’s where you begin. If you want to have a programme to provide for both of them, for heaven’s sakes create such a programme. You are the government; bring it in and we’ll support it.

Mr. Bounsall: We have been advocating it for 13 years.

Mr. Deans: Bring it in but don’t sit and tell me you can’t pay the one an adequate amount of money because the other doesn’t get anything. You have raised another point and it’s a good point too. How many times have I had people come to me, asking about the widow’s pension in the Province of Ontario. Do you know what I have to tell them? There ain’t no such animal. There is no widow’s pension in the Province of Ontario; none.

Oh there is a mother’s allowance payment, but that requires you to have children living at home. But if you are unfortunate enough, or otherwise, if your children have grown up and left or you have no children, then there is no widow’s pension of any kind in the Province of Ontario. So surely to God you are not going to turn around and create no payment for people whose husbands are killed in industrial accidents simply because your government is negligent and doesn’t have a widow’s pension? That’s very silly.

If you think, as I do, that if a person dies there is a need to be filled, and if the job market doesn’t provide any kind of opportunity for people, and if there is no other source of income for them, that they should receive a pension commensurate with their needs in this society that we help create by the legislation that you bring in, then bring in a bill, bring it in. Tell us what you are proposing and we will support the principle of it and we’ll try to increase the payments. I know we’ll have to, because I know when you bring it in the payments won’t be nearly high enough. But don’t use those kinds of silly arguments.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to admit it is a silly argument. I am saying the suggestion that the member for Hamilton East made the other day is the direction in which society eventually has to move -- it has to make some provision for all people who suffer in this way. But society has to be able to afford that. The member for Wentworth says the government can simply bring in a bill, and this perhaps is where our philosophy differs from his; we can only bring in these things as we can afford to pay for them.

Mr. Deans: No, no.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We can get into the argument of whether we can afford to pay for them, but --

Mr. Deans: Don’t give me that line of garbage.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, you call it garbage; I don’t happen to call it garbage.

Mr. Deans: That is nonsense and you know it. When the government wants to bring in some ridiculous giveaway programme you can find the money.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: These are big sums of money we are talking about when we’re talking about some kind of universal insurance -- and I think is necessary. But what I’m saying is, in the meantime, until we get some sort of system to treat the two dependants equally, then the dependant who is not getting any support as of right from workmen’s compensation is, through society, helping to pay for her more fortunate sister.

Mr. Deans: I agree.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: You can scoff at that argument if you want, but society is the one that picks up the bills for all of these schemes one way or another. It’s not some rich corporation sitting over there; it’s you and I and the rest of our fellow people from Ontario who are paying for this. I would like to see some sort of universal scheme to protect all people in these positions, but until we can afford that I don’t see that we can put the average person so much ahead on the basis of a few -- I say “a few” and you say “many” -- welfare cases -- I’m sorry, I don’t mean welfare, I mean hardship cases.

Mr. Deans: Oh I see. It is funny that the minister should use that word.

Hon Mr. MacBeth: I said I don’t want to make it welfare, but this is the --

Mr. Deans: That is exactly what you are doing.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, but these are the cases you are always bringing up. There are other means to assist these people, such as welfare. It is too bad, but if we make the average payments on the basis of making the welfare needs or the hardship cases the level of need then there are many who will be getting much more than they need to receive to get by. As a matter of fact, they will probably be much better off than they otherwise would be.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: The universal sickness and accident scheme which the minister refers to, that the member for Hamilton East spoke on in the debate, was first introduced by that member to this House back in 1958 or 1959 in the form of a written resolution on the order paper. It is not a new concept for this House. For the last 16 or 17 years, the government opposite has refused to have anything to do with that type of sickness and accident insurance that this province so desperately needs. We have been at some pains throughout those years -- and I’ve read the Hansards that have dwelt on this topic since the time the member for Hamilton East first introduced that resolution -- to encourage this; at times members have carefully explained how that programme should be funded to be an adequate programme. It isn’t a case of being able to afford it. There are three components by which a fund of that sort should be able to be funded. One is from the assessments upon industry for accidents which occur in that industry; the second is from the auto insurance accidents, when an accident occurs there; and the third, unquestionably, is from a general insurance premium for that type of coverage for every person of working age in the Province of Ontario. That premium would not need to be a very high one with both the automobile accident and the accidents which occur at the workplace figured into a complete province-wide scheme.

We are not talking about the province’s being able to afford it. The Workmen’s Compensation Board would be incorporated into that general insurance scheme as the group which is able to assess the industries with its experience of determining that an injury is work-related. That is the portion of the board which would be retained and incorporated into that scheme. The board with its present complement, without much adjustment, may well be able to administer the entire scheme for the province. The overhead would not be all that significant because there are areas of the board in connection with its present function and its own appeals and arrangements for appeals that would not necessarily need to be carried on. In fact many areas would disappear.

The overhead for this would not be very much. You can’t use the fact that for 16 or 17 years the government opposite, of which you are a part, had done nothing in this whole area. The country of New Zealand has had operating for three or four years now a scheme similar to what we propose. You can’t use the fact that you haven’t acted on that scheme as the means by which you won’t properly reimburse a widow whose husband has been killed in the workplace or a widower whose wife has been killed.

There can’t be very many of these a year. I just tried to leaf through the board’s annual report and couldn’t find the number of deaths that occurred in the workplace in the year 1974. I hope it’s in there and that I’ve just missed reading it. If it isn’t, it should be. There can’t be that many of them. The amounts of money involved are very slight. In a sense, by placing the amendment the way I have, I’ve fallen into your trap. I’ve fallen into the trap of looking at the Acts over the years and seeing that that pension to the widow or widower has been equal to the minimum pension for the totally disabled. That’s the minimum pension that you would pay out.

There is no reason why the pension to the widow or the widower should not be consistent with the rest of the Act, namely, three-quarters of the earnings which that person who was killed made and earned in the year previous to that accident, adjusted by the same percentages as your other pensions are adjusted. To be consistent with what it should be in the rest of the Act, it shouldn’t be equal to the minimum of the totally disabled, it should be 75 per cent of the total earnings of that person, again adjusted by the cost of living, which you seem to have done this year. That is what the figure is. It is not so small a figure as that I have placed in the amendment, that is $515; or which you, to be consistent with another part of your Act, should have placed in it, that is, $400 rather than the minuscule amount of $286 that you have put in here.

I stress again -- anti you are the one who has been doing this for the last two amendments to this Act -- when you get up and talk in terms of need about the example of a woman perhaps getting this pension and working side by side with another woman who has never been married and therefore being at an unfair advantage to that woman, it’s you who make a welfare scheme out of it rather than what this Act should be, which is replacement of earnings for an injury or an accident suffered in the workplace.

The most vital accident you can have is the death of that worker in the workplace. Pensions should be based on what happens in the rest of the Act -- that is 75 per cent of that worker’s earnings -- and not equal to the minimum of the totally disabled person.

We are really, in our amendments, letting you get away scot-free with something you shouldn’t be allowed to get away with. You can take every example you want of a widow of a worker killed in the workplace and what happens to the total income of that family as a result of it, if you do want to talk needs, because you’ve accused us consistently of taking the lower end of the scale. Take any sort of example you want. Take a man whose making the average salary per year in this province as of the month of June, $10,400, whether or not his wife is working. If he gets killed in the workplace, you are willing to replace $10,400, the average earning in this province, by $3,432. What it means in straight cold cash is a $7,000 drop. Whether or not the wife stays at home, whether or not the wife herself is working, whether or not she has a whole host of private income, the same $7,000 drop in income occurs in that family.

We are not just arguing the low end of the scale; it applies, no matter where it occurs. It means a $7,000 drop, and we are saying there is no justification for that amount of drop and that total difference.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s amendment to section 16 will please say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I believe there is one stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, there is one stacked.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It is our wish to divide on this amendment alone.

Mr. Chairman: Do you want to stack?

Mr. Renwick: We do not want to stack this amendment, no.

Mr. Chairman: Actually we only have sections 17 and 18 left in the bill. Section 17 reads: “This Act comes into force on July 1, 1975.”

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, since there are only two more sections, and we are almost through, I wonder whether they could not be stacked.

Mr. Chairman: We can deal with sections 17 and 18. That will be fine.

Shall section 17 carry?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No. Please, sir, I have an amendment for that. I think it’s acceptable to all sides. It is to change the wording to read: “This Act shall be deemed to have come into force on July 1, 1975.”

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on section 14.

Mr. Chairman: Section 14? Section 14 is already carried. We are up to section 17.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): That was passed a week ago.

Mr. MacBeth moves section 17 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: “This Act shall be deemed to come into force on July 1, 1975.”

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Section 18 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Now we will deal with the two stacked amendments.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bounsall has moved that section 5 of the amending Act be amended in the portion dealing with new section 41a(1) by deleting in line 3 the number “2” and substituting therefor the number “6”; by deleting in line 5 the number “4” and substituting therefor the number “12”; and by adding after “1974” in line 8 the words “and thereafter adjusted annually by the same percentage as the percentage change in the consumer price index.”

The committee divided on Mr. Bounsall’s amendment which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 29, the “nays” are 50.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

Section 5 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bounsall has also moved that section 16(1) be amended by deleting, in the third line, “by adding thereto 10 per cent thereof”; and substituting therefore “to $515 for a widow or widower and $120 for all children.”

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): We will accept the same vote, Mr. Chairman.

The committee divided on Mr. Bounsall’s amendment which was negatived on the same vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

Section 16 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 106, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with a certain amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 106, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves second reading of Bill 111, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister wish to make an opening statement?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): I would like to make a few remarks, Mr. Speaker.

When I introduced Bill 111 on June 13, I referred to certain of its highlights, undertaking to elaborate on other matters on second reading. There are approximately 19 important substantive amendments in the bill and I do not think it appropriate to take the time of the House to elaborate on each of them at this stage. However, now that the hon. members have had an opportunity to consider the bill in detail, I think they will agree with me when I say that a major theme, perhaps the dominant theme running throughout the proposed amendments is an increase in the jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to deal with a much wider range of problems. Let me give one important example.

Under revised section 79 of the Act, section 21 of the bill, the board is given increased powers to deal with contraventions of the Act by employers or trade unions, including contraventions of section 14, the section which obliges the parties to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to make a collective agreement.

Previously, allegations of bad-faith bargaining could only be brought before the board by the aggrieved party on an application for consent to prosecute in the provincial courts. Under the old Act the board could only screen such cases and was without power to develop any jurisprudence defining the ingredients of bargaining in good faith; nor did it have the power to grant any relief against the defaulting party. Under the amended section 79, the board will have these powers. They are, of course, powers which will have to be exercised wisely and responsibly.

I do not for a moment underestimate the difficulties which the board may encounter in attributing fault where bad-faith bargaining is alleged. However, I think it is entirely appropriate that this task be in the hands of a specialist tribunal, well acquainted with bargaining techniques and difficulties.

As the hon. members may know, in proposing this amendment we are giving to the Ontario board powers similar to ones now vested in the United States National Labour Relations Board. In my view, it is idle to suggest, as some have done, that good-faith bargaining offences can be codified or categorized exhaustively in advance. These determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis, and I am confident that the Ontario Labour Relations Board is the tribunal best qualified for this work.

The other important accretion to the board’s jurisdiction is the discretionary authority to grant cease-and-desist orders in all cases of unlawful strikes or lockouts. The board now possess this power under section 123 of the Act in relation to illegal strikes and lockouts in the construction industry. I am proposing, in the amended sections 82 and 83 of the Act, section 22 of the bill, to extend this important power to enable the board to exercise this injunctive relief to halt work stoppages in industry at large.

Although there has been some criticism from trade unions about this broadening of the board’s powers, I do not believe the criticism to be well founded. The Labour Relations Act is premised on the requirement that all disputes arising during the life of a collective agreement will be settled by final and binding arbitration without stoppage of work. The illegal or wildcat strike undermines the entire system. How can it be reasonably argued then that the board, which has broad powers to control employer contraventions, should be denied parallel powers to prevent union abuse. I make no apology therefore in proposing that the board be given this important countervailing power aimed at deterring illegal work stoppages.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate on this important bill. In my view, it is in the public interest that it be enacted with the least possible delay. At the end of the formal second reading, Mr. Speaker, I am going to suggest that it be referred to standing committee so that the thoughts of some of the public may be obtained. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate receiving the minister’s comments, particularly that he is going to refer the bill to the standing committee. I think there are some important matters in the bill that should be discussed by those persons who are involved in labour relations in the Province of Ontario; the unions in particular will have some input into the matters concerning the standing committee.

I want to relate a few comments concerning the second reading of Bill 111, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, and to inform the members of the Legislature that the official opposition party supports the principle of the bill but with some reservations.

The bill itself is perhaps an improvement on piecemeal legislation. The proposed amendments are no doubt based upon some of the 17 recommendations brought forward in the report of the royal commission on certain sectors of the building industry, perhaps better known as the Waisberg report, as it relates directly to illegal activities uncovered during the investigation. The report itself contains some interesting and alarming information. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the final analysis of the report indicates to the government and to the public what a handful of men led by certain union business agents can do to a city and province by causing complete disruption and corruption in the construction industry in Ontario.

We in the Liberal Party strongly endorse the principle of free collective bargaining. Strikes are an integral part of the collective bargaining process, particularly in good faith bargaining. This has failed, not in a great number of cases -- perhaps less than five per cent -- but in a sense that the public has been alarmed by the number of labour disputes across the Province of Ontario and perhaps throughout Canada. The proposed amendment gives the Ontario Labour Relations Board the power to issue injunctions to an illegal strike and easier for the unions to obtain certification without a vote.

We in the Liberal Party have, on numerous occasions, suggested that the application for certification for employees’ representation shall be 50 plus one, a reasonable approach which would remove the very contentious areas between employer and employees for collective bargaining rights. Perhaps where there are objections by any employee in a proposed union agreement or application for a union, then perhaps it should follow the principle -- as it is under the Ontario Municipal Board -- that where there are objections there should be a secret ballot called to make sure that the proper steps and procedures in certifications are there.

I think the Province of Ontario is the only province in Canada which requires more than a single majority for certification without a vote. The Ontario Federation of Labour’s 1975 legislative proposals stated that “evidence of a simple majority of 50 plus one should be enough for automatic certification.”

That, again, is perhaps where the Province of Ontario is falling behind the other provinces in Canada, by not following the 50 plus one majority vote.

The Waisberg report, Mr. Speaker, speaks out strongly on the issues of scandal and illegal activities and labour rifts between organizers and management, and management has not been innocent in this issue. Perhaps this report is a spin-off from the Quebec construction industry report on scandals and corruption, as mentioned in the Cliche report. Both reports have tarnished the labour movement in both provinces, and I do hope that both reports are taken seriously by all unions and management and by government and that an improvement in their images can be advanced for the public good, without further involvement of government actions and, if necessary, on a voluntary basis with both management and labour. We in this party strongly support the free collective bargaining concept and do not want to see any further erosion of that concept.

From all illegal activities and corruption in certain sectors of the building industry as it relates to the Waisberg report, the minister has accepted some of the recommendations of the report and has attempted, in some small way, the restructuring of the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Speaker, I believe when the report was tabled in the House here a statement was made by the hon. Robert Welch, QC. This is dated Dec. 19, 1974, and it says:

“I wish to assure the members of the House that the law officers of the Crown have worked closely with the investigating staff of the commission, as a result of which certain charges have already been laid. There are some matters in the report which are presently under police investigation, and I expect further charges to be laid in the near future.

“The commissioner’s recommendations with reference to labour-management relations in the sectors of the building industry which formed the subject matter of this inquiry will be considered, of course, by the Minister of Labour.”

We have some amendments to the bill here today, but the point is that there are further charges to be placed before the courts and, hopefully, the minister is following the suggestions by the former Attorney General of the Province of Ontario that these matters will be dealt with and those persons involved -- in particular, those innocent persons, the employees themselves -- will have their day in court. I make reference to that particular comment in “Worker Wins Probe of Allegations that Union Manager Coerced Him.”

I do have some involvement, perhaps in a small way, with this particular person. He did come into my office one day, I believe it was about two years ago, and I had made reference to the labour branch of the Ministry of Labour, with very little result, on the matter of his wanting to testify at that particular hearing. Eventually it ended up with the Attorney General’s department and from there on they certainly did look after him and his complaint about being coerced through certain union activities within the Province of Ontario. Particularly it related to his personal bodily injury, which occurred to him during that special incident.

I’m speaking only from memory now, Mr. Speaker, but I recall he did have a severe bodily injury and threats to his life and perhaps to his personal property and so forth. I feel he is now having his day in court and hopefully the courts will side with him on his complaints to the Ministry of Labour that perhaps they were not doing their jobs as they should be. The report also indicates to curb the wheeling and dealing by both employees and union business agents for their personal gains or favourable positions, too often at the expense of the labour worker in the construction industry, in some instances amounting to action to coerce and intimidate the worker with bodily harm.

The report says illegal tendering practices and bids for contracts were often rigged, not for the benefit of the employees but for the vested interests of the union business agent or heads and management. As to whether the amendments to the Labour Relations Act will control the illegal activities, the blacklisting of employees and the blackout of labour production in the related industry, only time will tell.

Perhaps much of the fault lies directly with the Ministry of Labour as it relates directly to the Labour Relations Act and the Labour Relations Board. Many grievances and applications placed before the board are time delays, which continue to be present. I have noted the complaints raised by both unions and individuals that some hearings continue far beyond a reasonable time. All one has to do is look at the monthly reports to see the Ontario Labour Relations Board is almost as terrible as the Ontario Municipal Board in hearing applications; in both instances it takes up to two years to finalize an application.

There is no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, the operations and functions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board have become too technical in their approach to labour disputes. It has become an adversary system; a courtroom approach far above the normal understanding and input of the employee, or even the union, to be effective in any arbitration hearing or certification application. The board is out of reach of the working class of people in Ontario, to understand its proper function as it relates to industry and labour groups.

Mr. Speaker, to back that argument up, one has to go back to page 337 of the Waisberg report on labour-management relations and some of the recommendations there. It is section 5, labour-management relations, about which Judge Waisberg said:

“I was told that the procedures before the board had become very technical and complex, that it was necessary to be represented by legal counsel, and that proceedings had become very expensive. This is far from the original concept of the board, which I understood was formed to provide a practical approach to labour problems. Section 103 provides that no proceedings are invalid by reason of defect in form or technical irregularity. Then section 91(3) provides for rules to expedite proceedings. Something should be done to bring the board back to its original concept.”

There is a strong recommendation in the report and perhaps the minister should be looking at that particular section as it relates to certification, accreditation and arbitration. He makes two or three strong recommendations, particularly on these sections, and I thought perhaps the minister would have additional recommendations in his report.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the time has come for the Minister of Labour to implement a programme of action for a complete review or in fact to initiate an independent study by a competent person or a select committee to revamp the Labour Relations Act and its regulations and procedures. It is time that Ontario had a new labour court, one that has understanding and purpose and is not out of reach of employees in industry. Delay in arbitration hearings and certification must be settled in a more efficient and less time consuming manner if we in Ontario want to remove the feeling of despair and frustration to unions and employees.

This piecemeal legislation is not the answer to Ontario’s labour problems. Delays are costly and irritating, causing much unrest to the parties concerned and the general public.

Mr. Speaker, if I may deal with the bill in more detail, and in particular with section 1, I must say I am a little bit lost on the interpretation of this particular section as contained in the explanatory note, which reads: “the term ‘employee’ is defined to include ‘dependent contractor’ to bring dependent contractors within the application of the Act and the term ‘dependent contractor’ is defined.” It goes on to say in subsection 1:

“‘Dependent contractor’ means a person, whether or not employed under a contract of employment, and whether or not furnishing his own tools, vehicles, equipment, machinery, material, or any other thing, who perform works or services for another person for compensation or reward on such terms and conditions that he is in a position of economic dependence upon, and under an obligation to perform duties for, that person more closely resembling the relationship of an employee than that of an independent contractor.”

Well, I am afraid the minister is going to have some difficulty in actually following that particular section and in enforcing it.

I want to make reference to the monthly report of the Ontario Labour Relations Board for October, 1974, which I think I received in February, 1975. On page 725, at paragraph 28, there is a decision that perhaps I should read into the record. It is not clear to me what the minister is trying to bring about under this section 1(1). I will read the decision anyway:

“Although it was not argued before us, we wish to refer to the report of the Hon. Mr. Justice Roach, sitting as a royal commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act in Re Individual Dump Truck Owners Association and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, 1958 (unreported). One of the questions before the commissioner was whether independent dump truck contractors could become members of the Teamsters’ Union. [In] the decision, the commission states:

“‘Mr. Lewis sought to get some comfort out of section 3 of the Act which reads as follows: “Every person is free to join a trade union of his own choice and to participate in its lawful activities.”

“‘It is perfectly clear from other sections of the Act that the words “every person” in section 3 do not include and were not intended to include an independent contractor because an independent contractor is not an employee. An independent contractor, if not presently an employer, is a potential employer. Once an employer joins an organization which includes employees in its membership, then that organization becomes not “an organization of employees” but an organization of employees and employers, and accordingly, though it may have previously been a “trade union” within the Act, it at once loses its character as such and thereby loses its powers and privileges under the Criminal Code to which more particular reference will be made later.’”

And later, at page 93:

“‘Each employer truck owner who paid to the union an initiation fee or union dues or some amount on account of both or either, thereby contributed financial support to the union contrary to the prohibition contained in section 45 [now section 56] and if the board gave its consent to prosecution under section 65 [now section 90] was liable to the penalty prescribed by section 61 [now section 85.]’”

He goes on to say in paragraph 30:

“‘As counsel for the complainant suggested in argument, there may well be valid policy reasons for extending protection to certain classes of managerial employees in certain carefully defined circumstances. We appreciate that, ultimately, an employee found by the board to be performing managerial functions may in good faith believe he is an employee entitled to be represented under the Labour Relations Act. Acting on this belief, he may quite innocently participate in the union’s organizing campaign and may later be intimidated or coerced because of that activity. Our interpretation of section 61 of the Act as a whole is that such a person has no protection under the Act. Whether there should be such protection is a matter for the Legislature. However, the board cannot, by a misinterpretation of the statute, legislate a right where none exists.’”

I leave that with the minister. I think this particular section, section 1, is rather confusing. As to whether the minister can enforce it under legislation or bring in legislation that is acceptable to those persons involved in this particular section is questionable.

There are other sections of the bill, Mr. Speaker, which I can just breeze through here but which I feel should be discussed in further detail. One is section 3. I was also particularly interested in section 20, dealing with pension funds, construction trades and so forth. I believe the minister has made reference in that particular section to one of the recommendations of the Waisberg report dealing with pension funds. I think this may provide protection to those persons in the construction industry who are working in a particular zone and leave that zone for employment in another zone. The pension funds that they contribute in that order zone will be portable and will be carried with them, I believe for all time.

Under the present circumstances, under the union understanding of that particular section they used to inform an employee he had to pay union dues, regardless of where he was employed. But in a number of instances the funds that have been allocated for union pension funds do not carry with that employee. I feel in a sense that this person is being shortchanged and that any pension fund in the Province of Ontario should be portable wherever that employee goes, where he is being employed or working under those circumstances.

The minister mentioned sections 21 and 22. These can be gone into in more detail.

In summing up, Mr. Speaker, the bill is a vast improvement over the others. There are some objections by persons more interested perhaps even than members of the Ontario Legislature who will have their say in standing committee. I wish when the minister sets up the Labour Relations Board in the new proposals that he is putting forth in the amendments that the board sit seven days a week, not only in the city of Toronto, but in major cities in the Province of Ontario.

I speak particularly of northern Ontario. I think there is much time lost in hearings before the board because of the distances certain unions in different cities and towns throughout Ontario have to travel to Toronto to have grievances and complaints heard. I think the board should be the group that should move similarly to the present circumstances that follow the Ontario Municipal Board where an inquiry officer or a hearing officer may go in and hear right there instead of having long delays waiting for a hearing before the board here. The board itself should move about to hear these complaints throughout Ontario.

By taking it to the doorstep of the problems I think you will get a quicker settlement there, perhaps agreed upon by all parties concerned, and we won’t have a confrontation on the streets in the Province of Ontario in any labour dispute. I think this is what we want; and I am sure the minister is looking for this, too -- some way to speed this up. I think this is one of the suggestions and we will be getting into the bill in more detail in clause by clause. I do have some comments to continue with in certain sections of it -- and I am sure my colleagues will -- but we do support the bill in principle.

An hon. member: Way to go.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton East.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to say just a few words in regard to this bill, mainly because for 10 years I was the labour critic for the CCF and then the NDP. I saw efforts by ministers and members to make the Labour Relations Act more efficient and more amenable. It’s a struggle to come to a conclusion as to how the government is going to fulfil the objectives of bringing about more harmonious relations in the industrial fields. We must recognize and remember what happens when collective bargaining fails and strikes take place. Even before they start, sometimes the union or management can tell or maybe proclaim that there is going to be a strike because of a particular issue.

I noticed this in my own direct participation in collective bargaining in maybe 10 sets of negotiations in the biggest plant in Ontario at that time; we could almost tell what was going to happen. You look at the political atmosphere, the economic atmosphere, the feeling of the people in the plant, and the atmosphere of the company in its approach to production. All of those things mount up prior to the main strokes or the important strokes of collective bargaining.

It took us some time to convince Ministers of Labour to put into the Act the preamble that is there today. I would just like to read it, because it does strike a note that has to be recognized if a bill is going to be workable in the industrial fields. I quote:

“Whereas it is in the public interest of the Province of Ontario to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedures of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely designated representatives of the employees.”

This encouragement for the unorganized to join unions has been needed in this province, and also the change from the criticism of the bad unions that was continuously imposed by the press and by the employers and by the reactionaries of the country. At the same time, they have recognized that it has been the trade union movement that has developed more programmes and policies and better conditions for the working man than in any other democratic institution in the country.

I am glad that we now have the word “encouragement” in that preamble; and it should be used more by the Conservative government and in the Conservative Party philosophy. Nobody is going to find a way to avoid strikes. Ontario and Canada have not had a bad record, if you really apply the statistics as they should be applied -- not the twisted figures that we have been using across the country in the last few years.

I just want to say a word about the programme of the Liberal Party. As long as I can remember they have promoted the need for a labour court. They have never elaborated or enunciated just exactly what they mean. But what I do know is that some of the most anti-labour lawyers in this country are active Liberals in their own right in political involvement. And a labour court would be the worst thing that I think we could devise to settle disputes. The legalistic approach to it is not going to do the job, and I wish that the Liberals would get off that constant call for a labour court.

We’ve had enough of legalistic approaches to collective bargaining and the interrelationship between employers and employees unless they define exactly what they mean by a labour court. Over the years we have had to reduce the legalistic approach to the problems in our own Labour Relations Board and we have come to a point now where I think the Labour Relations Board works fairly effectively inasmuch as we have seduced the legalistic approach to the problems.

I would hope that at some time or other the Liberal Party would try again to define the meaning of the labour court or else enunciate an-I expand upon exactly how they mean to make it operate. I see the greatest problems arise, and confrontations are generated, when the companies refuse to do their own bargaining and hire so-called labour lawyers. There are quite a few of them around. Some of them specialize in doing nothing else but getting into the labour relations phase. I would bet anyone that when you see a labour lawyer get into the negotiations, they’re in for trouble.

It’s hard; the confrontation is stronger when management stays away from the table because that labour lawyer makes them believe he’s got all the answers and they listen to him pretty closely because they’re paying him a good buck. I would hope we won’t pay too much attention to the need for more lawyers or the term “labour courts” to settle the differences. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to this bill? The member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve just received advice from the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta) on my participation in this debate; if we’re not opposing the bill we are probably supporting it so why don’t I say that and sit down, as the bill is going to committee anyway? I can’t take that advice entirely but I’ll be guided by that advice and not go on at undue length.

My feeling, Mr. Speaker, is that where the bill errs is not in what is in the bill but what it hasn’t done; what it hasn’t confronted. I’m sure that various of the ministry officials and the minister have looked at various sections of the Act which don’t appear in an amended form here; they have discussed them and have decided to put them off for another day. That’s a little unfortunate because there’s little enough in the bill before us.

It’s been almost five years since we had ally amendments to the Labour Relations Act; in fact, I believe the Act which came in in 1970 was a new Act, totally rewritten. We’ve had no changes to that Act in spite of the need for them. The bill, therefore, errs on omissions rather than commissions even though there are a few sections I am a little bit uneasy about.

I would like some further amplification before I could say I totally support a particular section but, in total, it’s not very much, it’s late and the progress is at a snail’s pace. There certainly are movements in the right direction in this particular bill and because of that, Mr. Speaker, we certainly won’t vote against the bill.

One of the things I felt disappointed about was there is really no great imaginative step forward toward the problems of the industrial era as we see it today in Ontario. Here we are in the middle of 1975 and there is really no novel or original outlook taken toward labour relations and how one could encourage what occurs in the preamble to the Act -- the practice and procedures of collective bargaining. I would have hoped there would have been some innovative sections which would have helped that.

One of the sections of the bill deals with the figures required for automatic certification. That is a step forward in a sense but it is really a step backward in the sense that all we’ve done is return to the pre-1970 era.

I look the time this morning to dig out the debates which occurred in 1970 in the House when this. Act was introduced, where in that Act we increased from 55 per cent to 65 per cent the percentage needed for automatic certification at the same time the requirements for a vote dropped from 45 per cent to 35 per cent. That was universally hailed by speaker after speaker on the opposition side of the House as an anti-labour piece of legislation, and in direct contrast to the preamble of the Act which was to encourage the practice and procedures of collective bargaining.

Contrary to that preamble, it would have prevented and further discouraged the formations: of: collective bargaining units in the industrial ghettos here in Ontario. I haven’t heard that term used now, for a couple of years because I believe the Steelworkers have been very active in the industrial ghetto in the west side of Toronto in particular where one had small units of 40 or 50 or perhaps as many as 100 workers on a given industrial site in virtual sweat-shop situations. They have had to work exceedingly hard to get whatever certifications they have been able to win in that industrial ghetto in the west side of Toronto and in other parts of the province with this 65 per cent figure in the Act.

It was hailed at that time as something which would make it much more difficult and it certainly has. What we have done is returned to the pre-1970 situation in dropping from 65 down to 55. In that sense, it certainly isn’t an anti-union move. That drop will enable more certifications to take place, I am sure, than have occurred in the recent past on over the last 4% years. For the life of me, I cannot see why the minister doesn’t do what other jurisdictions have done in Canada and drop it to 50 per cent plus one.

Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia all have 50 per cent plus one for automatic certification. The procedures for automatic certification are not the simplest. I have had it expressed to me that it is simpler to buy a house in the Province of Ontario provided one has the money, and no one has the money any more. But, provided one has the money, it is a simpler procedure to buy a house than it is to sign up a member into a proposed bargaining unit in terms of forming that bargaining unit and applying for certification.

There is no doubt in my mind that 50 per cent plus one is the fair figure. This is the democratic figure. This is the figure that is accepted in any democratic situation for indicating that a majority of persons want a particular thing. With the procedures that are required when one is signed up, where the signature is witnessed, and $1 is paid, no one goes through such procedures without knowing what it is about, particularly those workers to whom the won “union” is mentioned. They have to consider what, for many of them is a very frightening step, whether or not the place has been organized, of being in their minds as going, against their bosses.

When they have to go through that procedure, they have feelings which they have to overcome -- feelings that many workers have, although perhaps they decrease with the particular size of the organization but less so in a small, organization -- feelings of just loyalty to the person who gave them their jobs, particularly if they were young persons and were appreciative of getting a job, having come out of school some two or three years previous to this or perhaps just immediately before. They have that feeling of loyalty to the person who has employed them. Someone comes along and says, “How about joining a union? It will allow you some job protection.” This is in my way of thinking the main purpose of a union.

They have to overcome those feelings of loyalty. They have to sign that card. They are perhaps feeling sort of half-guilty about being disloyal and they have to sign that card and pay $1 to see their signature witnessed. That is not a step which is taken lightly or is taken unthinkingly by any worker in the Province of Ontario. Anyone who suggests that this is the case just doesn’t know the difficulties that are involved in the signing up of workers in the workplace.

Therefore, I can’t follow the reasoning of anyone who suggests that 50 per cent plus one, which is the democratic figure, is too low a figure and that it should remain at 55 per cent, particularly where this is some place in this Act where it appears that the bias of the government may be coming out. Although the union wishing to organize a particular company must get 55 per cent, the employers do not have to go through that same 55 per cent vote. Sections 115 (a) and (h) of the Act, where employers get together and take a vote so that there can be a bargaining agent acting on behalf of employers in this province require only a 50 per cent vote.

Here the minister has a group of employers able to come together and form a bargaining agent which will act on their behalf by a simple majority vote. Yet in this section of the Act we continue to require union members to have a 55 per cent vote. Granted it’s better than 65 per cent, but at 55 per cent they are being discriminated against, whereas employers have to have only the simple majority. This discrimination should end without question, Mr. Speaker, and 50 per cent plus one should be the criterion for automatic certification for unions, bearing in mind the fact that the procedure of signing the cards and paying the dollar is not that simple a procedure and certainly not a procedure that someone takes lightly or that someone does in their sleep or late one Saturday night after a few drinks in the bar of a hotel. It’s not lightly taken and it should be 50 per cent plus one without question.

Another couple of things which disturb me about the Act are the exclusions which are still represented in it. This amendment Act did not knock out the exceptions for domestics employed in private homes or persons employed in agriculture, hunting or trapping or those persons involved in agriculture or horticulture. Those are exclusions which I would have hoped would have been dealt with and removed as exclusions from this Act.

No one has any doubts that domestics in homes are going to be easy to organize or that any particular onion wanting to take on the organization of domestics in private homes in a large city like Toronto, for example, would have an easy task of it. They are, by and large, immigrant persons who don’t speak the English language very well themselves.

If one got a group of 50 of them together, there would probably be 15 different languages spoken. It’s not a group very readily got together in the first place. When one gets them together, they can’t speak the same language. But without doubt they are a group, if I can look at them as a group in our society, which is discriminated against, partly because they are immigrants. These domestic servants should not be disallowed being able to form a union should they so wish.

I have no doubt that there is not a great lineup of domestic servants wanting to form a union. It would have to be done on some sort of an area basis, but should they so do. People who are severely discriminated against as a group, as they are, should not also bear the additional discrimination of not being able to organize.

As for agricultural workers, Mr. Speaker, in the amendments to the regulations accompanying the Employment Standards Act, the minister took some steps forward this year in terms of part-time agricultural workers being able to qualify for benefits and for what benefits. Hearing that a Labour Relations Act was going to come forward later in the year, at that time I hoped that something would be done about agriculture and horticulture workers being not continued as an exclusion under this particular Act. However, we are doomed to disappointment in that respect.

It’s an unusual one. This is the year 1975 in the Province of Ontario. England by and large settled this back in 1836. We are 140 years behind times in our approach to agricultural workers. It was the Tolpuddle martyrs incident in England which cleared up the situation.

Agricultural workers back in the 1820s were particularly depressed but agriculture took a step forward back in the 1830s in England. However, in 1834, agriculture had a bad year and six Tolpuddle men decided to look into joining the Grand National Union. They joined the chapter and took an oath, an oath being required of all persons joining the Grand National Union. At that time the Home Secretary, Lord Melbourne, was very fearful of trade unions and anti-labour. He was determined to stop their progress and these six men became the victims of his determination in that he had them arrested for illegal oath-taking, even though all union members were required to take an oath. The penalty was transportation to Australia for seven years.

However, that was in 1834. In 1836, Lord Russell became the new Home Secretary over there. He did not have those same feelings of fear or discrimination and he pardoned the men. They all came back to England and that made the point that agricultural workers could join the national unions in England and were not prevented from so doing. That happened in 1836.

It is interesting to note what happened to these six original Tolpuddle martyrs. They all returned to England and all but one of them subsequently came to Canada. Here we have a heritage of five agricultural workers in Canada who had in fact belonged to an agricultural union in England, 140 years ago, and we still have this exclusion under the Ontario Act.

In the horticultural field in particular, because of the way agriculture is changing and developing large acres -- corporate farms in essence -- it makes it even more appropriate, I think, for the late 1970s that agricultural workers be allowed to form unions. In the area of horticulture where we have people working very much like industrial workers in the area of concentrated flower-growing and so on and in greenhouse conditions where the work virtually goes on all year long, the fact that these workers should not be able to form a union like any other group of employees, when all are doing virtually the same job virtually all year around is a discrimination which should end in the Province of Ontario.

There are several other sections in the bill itself which bother me slightly, Mr. Chairman. One is section 9, where unions can request that the collective agreement contain a provision for a dues checkoff and remittance, but upon the written request of the employees. In this day and age in labour relations an automatic company checkoff should be provided. There is no reason in this day and age why that should become a stumbling block either over the negotiation table or upon the written request of each employee.

In Canada we are certainly not leading the pack by this suggestion. In Canada Manitoba and Saskatchewan already have automatic dues checkoff at the first contract. In Prince Edward Island, a province in Canada where one doesn’t normally expect to have many industrial problems or therefore to be that forward-looking or leaders in the field in any area of industrial relations, upon the request of a union a vote is held and, if a majority is obtained, automatic checkoff is put into the contract. These three provinces have better legislation than we do in this area and I cannot see why Ontario must continue to place itself with the other provinces in Canada where the employees must specifically authorize a checkoff of their dues.

With the locals which are formed this presents not that large a problem, by and large. People have voted to accept the union; they become certified and they willingly sign those checkoff forms. Why, in this day and age, one has to put the union which has just been so formed, with all the problems of so forming, through the particular hassle of the paperwork involved in getting the employees to sign the checkoff again is beyond me. If one really believes in the preamble to the Act, to encourage the practice and procedures of collective bargaining, Steps of this sort -- this sort of busy work -- should simply be removed from the back of one of the participants so they can get on with the job of representing the case of the union, representing the workers.

They can get on with the things which should be going on between unions and employers -- that is, the bargaining which should take place between them for the contracts they hope to form and the proper working out of those contracts once formed. The working out of labour relations is an ongoing thing which must take place for industrial peace and sanity to be maintained. They must get on with that job of establishing proper working relationships between themselves and management. To add this sort of busy work for them, seeing that the employees sign the consent forms for payroll deductions and the problems involved in that, seems one other chore which needn’t be done.

I had hoped, as well, that the Act would have outlawed the round-robin petitions which take place in companies as they approach certification. The round-robin petition starts when, at the signing up of a group of employees into a union, someone in the company -- usually a foreman -- writes the petition saying the following employees don’t want the union. It’s often typed up on the typewriter which resides in the personnel office.

The workers assume, not knowing where it derived from in most cases, that if they don’t sign that form the company will know about it and, should the union fail to be certified, the appropriate action will be taken -- the appropriate action meaning the loss of their jobs. This is the type of hassle which shouldn’t be allowed to occur.

It occurs in most companies, in most locations, where a union organizing effort is about to occur and a simple outlawing of procedures of that sort, which produce fear in the workers -- a direct fear of the loss of their jobs should the union not be successful -- is a section I would have welcomed in this Act. I think for the promotion of harmonious industrial relations it would be better that a section of that sort come into the Act.

One other section of the Act which bothers me a bit is one which relates to the financial statements. I’m generally in favour of the Waisberg report recommendations, certainly where there have been unions which have not been making proper financial statements and there are some -- probably no higher in percentage than companies which don’t make adequate financial statements. They should be required to do so. However, the one thing that bothers me is those locals which don’t have adequate financial statements or have financial statements which a particular complainant feels are not adequate. According to the Act before us today, the complaint is registered with the board. The board can inquire into the complaint and order the union to prepare another financial statement in a form the board considers appropriate. It must also contain other particulars the board considers appropriate.

Now that it’s specifically stated anyone in a union local can complain that the financial statement is Inadequate and the Labour Relations Board has to inquire into it, should the board not prepare suggested financial statements for use at the local levels, outlining or clearly giving as a guide to the unions the form the board considers appropriate for financial statements? Perhaps there should also be an accompanying guide saying to what degree of detail they think each category should cover.

Let’s face it; at election time with this section in the Act, one of the things everybody running for financial secretary is going to do is to claim the incumbent financial secretary of their particular local has not provided enough detail. A complaint will then come before the board. If the union has used the particular forms which the board has provided and suggested as a guide, then the board can speedily come to a determination as to whether or not sufficient information has been provided.

If they are going to have to spend time inquiring into it, and in preparing financial statements to meet the requirements of the board, I would think unions would find it helpful to have this sort of standard reporting form and a guide from the board. Otherwise the board will, I think, be doing a lot more work than perhaps would be necessary. This will result inevitably in this sort of thing coming forward anyway. We’ll go through two or three years of uncertainty as unions draw on the experience they get from complaints having gone in, and the board coming back and saying, “Look, why don’t you do this in your financial reporting?” Surely, it would be simpler if the board prepared some standard forms for perusal by the locals across the Province of Ontario.

One other thing about this section which bothers me perhaps even more is that I assume that the definition of union here in section 19 is not the narrow definition provided in the definition section in the Act, which limits it to a provincial, national or international union. We’re really talking about the individual locals of a provincial union or a national union. Now, some of those locals are very small. These are the ones that are least capable of preparing a financial statement. And yet, under section 19, the board may further order that the statement be audited by a certified person licensed under the Public Accountancy Act. I’m wondering if the ministry really knows the financial pressures they may be putting many local unions under, when you state their financial statement be certified by a person licensed under the Public Accountancy Act.

For a large union or a large local this is no problem. But an audited statement Certified by a chartered accountant or someone who’s licensed under the Public Accountancy Act is going to be an expense many small locals will not be able to assume. That’s one point I find a little heavy financially for some locals, even though I certainly don’t disagree with the principle of full and open financial reporting.

It would be no problem in Windsor for the Chrysler Local 444, 8,000 to 10,000 members strong, but what about the 40 or 50 persons in the Laundry, Dyehouse and Drycleaning Local which, perhaps, needs the financial reporting to be sharper than does UAW Local 444, but the certified statement of the person under the Public Accountancy Act is rather a large expenditure of money for a local composed of that few members. Perhaps they get around it by having the provincial office or national office or international office pick up that sort of expense but I wouldn’t count on it. That would limit the other activities that local could undertake on behalf of its members under those circumstances.

Another area of the amendment Act which I find very disappointing, in that no mention is made of it, is the outlawing of strikebreaking or strike-breaking companies providing services. In 1971, 1972 and part of 1973 there was a lot of activity by one or two strike-breaking companies in Ontario which were selling services of a certain kind, one to move goods in and out of the plant; in some cases to move persons in in their sort of armoured vehicles, fully protected so they couldn’t really be sabotaged in any way. Whenever they came in they certainly disrupted labour relations at that site.

Due to certain transgressions of the law in other parts which these companies made, they have not been very active in the last year or year and a half, by and large, but there is nothing in this legislation which would prevent the recurrence of strikebreaking companies whose purpose is to operate in the industrial field where a plant has been struck, with the inevitable hard feelings that result. Incidents which happened at Dare Foods Ltd. in Kitchener come to mind where, finally, that type of activity provoked the workers to such an extent that damage was done to the property. It is not above suspicion that the damage was done to the property by workers incited by persons in the employ of that strikebreaking company.

I am disappointed to see, in this day and age, nothing in the Act against strike-breaking, or strike-breaking companies; or, if you are promoting harmonious relations between employers and employees, nothing in this Act which would severely limit the type of advice which can be given; the type of advertising which can be done by firms whose sole purpose, by and large, is to purport to companies that they know how to handle strikers should a strike arise and they know how to handle the negotiations in such a way that one can defeat the strike and eventually cause decertification of the bargaining unit, with all the labour relations problems which result and which will drag on for years when an incident like that occurs.

I had hoped that in this Act there would be some pretty strict and tough measures against the operations of firms providing strike-breaking services or firms which provide advice to employers that they can break the union which exists at that particular workplace. Firms which operate in this area and so advertise, I understand, from time to time, certainly are not providing harmonious relations between employers and employees.

I am disappointed that something of this sort is not in this Act. It is much needed. Just because we have had a few months when this has not been a big problem in Ontario does not mean that next month it can’t start again and with a vigour which could turn the ministry’s efforts into a shambles, in terms of hoping to promote peace and harmonious relations in the industrial area.

The minister, in his remarks today, talked about the increase in the jurisdiction of the board where they can form, as I gather from the minister; a specialized tribunal to deal with good-faith bargaining. We on this side of the House have said to the minister that he should personally get involved in the good-faith bargaining process. He should move in and say to the people who are having the problems that have arisen because of bad-faith bargaining that it is not right to bargain in this manner. He should also let the public know which side is not bargaining in good faith.

I don’t know what would be the best mechanism if the minister is not going to take this on himself. I am not sure whether there should be a committee of the ministry to take care of this particular area or whether he needs a committee such as the education relations committee or the college relations committee which, under the proposed legislation for community college teachers will have the power to do this.

The minister has chosen to put that power into the Labour Relations Board itself. This causes some slight worry because the board, which has been viewed as being above the fray in giving judicial decisions on matters, is now involved with coming in and charging, or being able to identify, one of the participants as not acting in good faith. It may well be the wrong place to have it.

I know the procedures about good-faith bargaining are rather cumbersome as it affects the operation and determinations of that board. They look into it upon being asked to so do and prosecute when necessary and so on, but that is upon appeal and upon the case being brought before them. They hear it in a judicious manner and give them leave to appeal.

To involve the board -- whose reputation is, by and large, rather a high one, feeling that the board is to be trusted in these matters -- to have the board now have the power to make a determination of this sort is not wise. I would think whatever group had this power would not be shy of using that determination. To have the board, heretofore thought of as being above the fray, semi-judicial and wise in its decisions, involved may cause a loss of respect for the board in the sense of people charging the board itself with not being reliable.

I would sooner see that particular decision-making about good-faith bargaining residing somewhere else. just exactly what the mechanism of it would be I can’t say at the moment, but to have it residing in the board is causing some concern or may well cause some concern as time goes on, about the fairness of the board to rule on matters and whether the board is able to operate in a non-discriminatory manner on other matters that are not concerned with good-faith bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, there are other sections of this bill that I could talk about. There are other improvements which can be made and should have been made in the Labour Relations Act, which haven’t taken place. Perhaps we could leave that to the committee stage. It is going to committee, I understand, outside the House.

However, there are certainly some positive positions and improvements in the Act itself. They included dependent contractors as employees. This follows a decision made by the board that dependent contractors were employees and so it ratifies that feeling. At the same time one would have hoped that perhaps at this stage of our industrial development in the area of labour relations, where increasingly the public sector is involved in negotiations in a way they weren’t 10 or 15 years ago that some of these people could now be covered by the Labour Relations Act or, in their own Act, and be allowed the right to strike as employees, who come under this particular Act are.

However, the inclusion of dependent contractors is a step forward. One would have hoped, however, that included in this Act at this time would be that very interesting area of supervisory personnel as eligible to form a collective bargaining unit and be certified by the board.

As the minister knows, the interest in this area has increased of late. When the McIntyre Porcupine mine situation was looked at by the board, the decision as to whether the sub-foremen could form a bargaining unit was in the negative. I gather that an application from Sunbeam’s foremen came before the board, and the company and the Sunbeam foremen settled without a decision being reached. Before the board now are the foremen at the large Chrysler plant in Windsor. I would have hoped that as in other jurisdictions -- notably British Columbia, I believe, and Manitoba, I guess, as well -- in Ontario supervisory personnel could be included as being eligible to form collective bargaining units under the Labour Relations Act.

This is an omission which is to be regretted -- it is certainly topical at the moment. One can be supervisory without being management and there is a large difference. One should have attempted to define this. There are other provinces in Canada which have made the definition so it’s clear that supervisory personnel can form a bargaining unit and act as a union.

If one wanted to be careful in the first stages, one could have thein in the same position as security guards, in that they couldn’t belong to the same union as the men and women they were supervising in the plant. That seems a fairly reasonable restriction to put on the union of supervisory people but it certainly should no longer not be allowed. The cases can be heard before the board but I would have hoped it would be much more positive and there would be a statement that they be allowed to form with some definition of that.

I think the restrictions on security guards not being able to be part of a local labour association and so on are needlessly strict. They should be able to form part of the general labour movement in the area without the strictures on them of not being part of the same union among which they operate, and must have their own separate union. Security officers aren’t actual working brothers and sisters of those they have to impose security on. I think the same could be said for supervisory personnel. At the same time we should allow them to participate in local labour councils. I feel this is a very serious omission and supervisory personnel could well be included in this bill.

There are people all over Ontario watching the actions of the Labour Relations Board very closely at this time with respect to the Chrysler application and the findings that are going to be made there. There will be a lot of disappointment if the majority of those foremen are not found to be eligible for a union of their own. If that occurs, we are still no further ahead than we have ever been and this was the time to make that very clear in this Act.

Again, the Act is deficient in another area and that is in the automatic first contracts, as in British Columbia. I think this would have been a major step forward in the legislation and one we could have tried in Ontario; it has been tried now for a while in British Columbia. If a certain length of time goes by and agreement on a first contract cannot be reached and a strike is occurring in order to get that first contract, the first contract could be imposed by the province for one year, the terms of that first contract being known by both sides beforehand.

It would be a first contract that perhaps talked in percentages of standard wages which were prevailing at the time and a certain set number of automatic benefits built into it. The minister knows very well that the majority of strikes that take place occur in small companies trying to achieve their first contract with their employees -- small groups of employees.

If one had the automatic first contract and had both sides dealing with each other for a year over that contract, one would stand a much better chance in arriving at a second contract than you have in many instances in their trying to arrive at that first contract. It sets up a situation where both sides need to talk to each other and the labour relations dialogue is starting to be established.

That was one thing which, had the minister included it in this Act, would have made it in Act which I think the people in Ontario could have been rather enthusiastic over. Its omission simply means that we’re not willing to really be in the vanguard of the labour relations movement taking place in this province.

There are other areas, Mr. Speaker, where certainly the Act is a step forward. The disputes advisory committee is a useful concept and an interesting concept. It contains both employer and employee representatives; there is no specific provision that they be there in equal numbers. I suppose this will come out at the committee stage.

Certainly, in another section, if an employer contravenes the Act and makes it difficult for employees to register their true feelings, the union may apply and the board can certify them. This certainly is a step forward. The onus falls upon the employer to prove that a union person was not fired for union activity. That whole section which the minister alluded to is a step forward.

There are steps forward in this Act, Mr. Speaker, and because of those few steps forward, we will not oppose the bill. I simply regret that there were not a great many more positive provisions made in this Act and some new ground ploughed. New ground has already been ploughed by other provinces in this country, which was not seen as worthy to be included in this Act. But, in spite of that, there is enough in this Act, Mr. Speaker, to justify members of this House passing it -- and, in fact, dealing rather quickly with it in committee.

I would have thought there may well have been so few controversial sections -- except for the very great feeling on our part that 55 per cent for automatic certification should have been 50 per cent plus one only -- but not enough in this Act that would have required amendment to any great extent; not enough, in any event, to have it sent outside to committee. But I gather the minister is sending it there, so we will save the rest of our remarks for that time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By the looks of the time, I will be brief. I wanted to say a few words with regards to Bill 111. A great many of us are concerned about our bargaining system. I often think of the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) who on a number of occasions -- I think the first or second year he was here -- has spoken to the Legislature with regard to the matter of bargaining and our system of bargaining in Ontario and that we should be looking at either having a royal commission or a special committee of the Legislature to study our entire labour relations in Ontario I think it would still be a good thing to do at this stage of the game

Now, I believe there are 19 major amendments, but I was looking at section 7 of the present bill, which is 34a of the Act, with regard to the appointment of a conciliator and a person to report in 30 days. And then 34b, where the Act refers to the disputes advisory committee. This is going to be of some benefit, I would hope, in the future in bargaining and when bargaining seems to be at a standstill.

We have some problems in our own area. In fact, there’s a strike in the town of Tilbury in my riding that’s been on for about 40 weeks. I think the mayor of Tilbury just recently contacted the American owners and they said they weren’t going to talk. Well, now they’ve opened up the plant and some people are going in. There is bad feeling throughout the community. The wage scale was very low at the time, about $2.50 an hour, or $2.55 to $2.65 for machine operators, and they’re now paying some of the workers who are in there about $2.95 an hour.

It’s just a bad situation. It seems to me it could be classified as bad-faith bargaining on the part of the company. I’m sure from what I can gather that the union has been willing to meet with them. I didn’t think their request was all that unreasonable. I think the union was asking for a 50 cent an hour increase over a period of three years, and the company offered 25 cents an hour over a period of three years. That isn’t very much of an offer by the company when you consider the escalating cost of living.

The method of bargaining now is a great concern to many people. We need some teeth in the legislation to try and get the people together. There’s another strike in Omstead Foods and at the Terminal Warehouses, where frozen foods are stored, and the farmers are very upset. I saw a comment in the paper the other day by the president of the Federation of Agriculture condemning the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour and saying that if one snap bean is spoiled Mr. Archer should resign, because he had asked for the resignation of Mr. Whelan.

I don’t think that’s the way we’re going to solve our labour problems, by one condemning the other one all the time. We do need a better system, especially when you see hundreds of acres of good crops out in the field ready to be taken in, and then if you have no place to store them or freeze them for use for the next season, why it’s very alarming to the public. It’s a very, very serious situation to a farmer who has hundreds of dollars invested per acre in a crop. If he can’t get the crop off because of a strike, it sure isn’t good.

These are things that are of concern to many of us. I know the member for Welland South mentioned a labour court, and the member for Hamilton East remarked on the Liberals having mentioned this and said it would be more lawyers who would be running it. In my interpretation of a labour court it wouldn’t be filled with lawyers or judges, or it wouldn’t be like a court as we classify it in a regular court system. It would be more of a board or a commission that would have people from all walks of life on it to look after the requests that come to it for assistance. I just wanted to make that point quite clear, Mr. Speaker.

I could go on, but since it is 6 o’clock I’m sure the minister would like to reply. I think that will be enough of my words now.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill before the minister replies? The minister will want to take more than one minute, I presume?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, Mr. Speaker, I won’t. I’m quite content to save the comments that I would ordinarily make for the committee stage. In view of the hour, I would propose to do just that, sir.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this bill is to be referred to the standing committee. It is so ordered.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, could the minister indicate when that bill would be going to standing committee? We have two other committees presently sitting downstairs, and I was wondering if he could perhaps indicate to the House just when that will go forward?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am certain the House leader will be taking it under advisement right away, but we’ll have to wait to see what progress the other committee makes, sir.

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