The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

House in committee on Bill 107, an Act to amend the Municipal Act.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: We have a motion by Hon. Mr. Beckett on section 5, that section 5 of the bill be amended adding thereto the following subsections:

3. Paragraph 126 of subsection 1 of the said section 354, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1972, chapter 124, section 10, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

126. For prohibiting or regulating signs and other advertising devices and the posting of notices on buildings or vacant lots within any defined area or areas or on land abutting on any defined highway or part of a highway and any bylaw passed under this paragraph may provide that a sign or other advertising device that was lawfully erected or displayed on the day the bylaw comes into force but that does comply with the bylaw shall be,

(a) made to comply with the bylaw, or

(b) removed by the owner thereof or by the owner of the land on which it is situate, on or before the expiration of five years from the day the bylaw comes into force.

126(a) A bylaw passed under paragraph 126 may define a class or classes of signs or other advertising devices and may specify a time period during which signs or other advertising devices in a defined class may stand or be displayed in the municipality and may require the removal of such signs or other advertising devices which continue to stand or to be displayed after such time period has expired.

126(b) A bylaw passed under paragraph 126 may require the production of plans of all signs or other advertising devices to be erected, displayed, altered or repaired and provide for the charging of fees for the inspection and approval of such plans and for the fixing of the amount of such fees and for the issuing of a permit certifying to such approval and may prohibit the erection, display, alteration or repair of any sign or advertising device where a permit has not been obtained therefor, and may authorize the refusal of a permit for any sign or other advertising device that, if erected or displayed, would be contrary to the provisions of any bylaw of the municipality.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I’m sorry, but I didn’t realize you were going to read five or six pages. Is there a copy of this that we might have to follow along? I don’t have a copy; maybe there was one handed out previously.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have a spare copy?

Mr. Deans: It is here some place, is it?

Hon. R. B. Beckett (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Chairman, they were provided earlier. I am sorry if the hon. member didn’t get one.

Mr. Deans: It may be my own fault; I just want to find it.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, I believe the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) received --

Mr. Deans: I have it now, thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman: Do the Liberals have one? Right. All right, I am at the lower part of page 2(a) and I’ll reread:

(a) A change in the message displayed by the sign or other advertising device does not in itself constitute an alteration so as to require a permit.

126(c) A bylaw passed under paragraph 126 may authorize the pulling down or removal at the expense of the owner of any sign or other advertising device that is erected or displayed in contravention of the bylaw, and may require any person who,

(a) has caused a sign or other advertising device to be erected, displayed, altered or repaired without first having obtained a permit to do so, or

(b) having obtained a permit, has caused a sign or other advertising device to be erected, displayed, altered or repaired contrary to the approved plans in respect of which the permit was issued, to make such sign or other advertising device comply with the bylaws of the municipality if it does not so comply, or to remove such sign or other advertising device within such periods of time as the bylaw specifies.

That is an amendment to section 5. I would ask the minister, is part of section 5 removed?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Yes, it is.

Mr. Chairman: And this replaces the present section in the bill?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Chairman, I remember when we passed these bylaws, I think at the request of Scarborough or one of these places, they wanted the provision extended to five years. I remember when the original bylaw was passed, because of the contractual arrangements required for neon signs and whatnot, we thought the original three-year term was not sufficient. It was extended to five years. In other words, the five-year period is the time which a merchant, or someone displaying a sign, has to bring his sign into conformity with the bylaws.

Could the minister give a brief explanation as to why all the other page and a half of further sections is needed? The original 126 in the Municipal Act, as it was in 1970 and amended in 1972, remains in 126 and then 126 (a), (b), (c) and with subclauses (a) and (b) added. Was the original 126 not working properly, or what is the necessity now to say that the municipalities flow have power to further require removal of these signs? I thought that was all covered in the original 126 part of the bylaw. Could the minister give a brief explanation of why these extra sections are required?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, it’s my understanding that this situation, whereby the municipalities have requested these powers, is because of the fact that there was a court case which indicated that the bill, as formerly printed or as presently printed, was not of sufficient strength, and the municipalities, in effect, lost the case. So this bill -- pardon me, this amendment -- that is now before the House is an attempt to clarify that situation. We have resolutions from Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke as of the last two weeks. That is why this bill is here this evening.

Mr. Good: To tighten up the existing section 126, is that correct? Okay.

Mr. Chairman: Any further inquiries of the amendment to section 5? The amendment carries.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, on section 8, I had suggested during second reading of the bill that there should be in here powers to control not only the body-rub establishments but also the employees.

I mentioned this to the minister, and after speaking to the legislative counsel since we adjourned at 6 o’clock, I understand there is another section of the Municipal Act which says if the municipality has powers to license and control and govern and regulate the establishment, it automatically has powers over the employees of that establishment. I would appreciate if the minister would ask his counsels again just what section of the Act that was so that I will be able to refer to it.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the member for Waterloo North consulting with the staff on this during the recess. At that time, I believe they were able to ascertain that the points he brought up are covered under section 246(2) of the Municipal Act.

Mr. Deans: Could I ask you one question?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I’m asking this because I don’t know the answer. Section 8(3) of the bill says a bylaw “may limit the number of licences to be granted in respect of body-rub parlours in any such area or areas in which they are permitted.” How would one go about interpreting that? Let me just put what I’m thinking about. When you talk of “area or areas”, are you going to designate certain parts of a municipality where it will be possible to have a body-rub parlour and then say there can be only one or two? Is that the intent here?

An hon. member: They’re going to issue them like liquor licences.

Mr. Deans: Lots of luck. I can see the hon. member in court -- not with me, but with somebody.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for the delay. My original answer was going to be that in many cases the zoning of a municipality was considered to be suitable, and it is not; but it will now be possible under the authority of this bill, for a municipality actually to designate an area.

Mr. Deans: I want to ask you about that then. I know the zoning can’t do it; the zoning may rule commercial or whatever else it wants to. Can you tell me what sort of bylaw they might bring about that would say that there can be only one, two, three or whatever within a specific zone?

To tell you the truth, the reason I’m asking is that I can’t imagine that you’re going to get away with this very easily. I really can’t. It isn’t done by zone -- would the member for Waterloo North stop chattering? You’re forever chattering in my ear when I’m speaking.

You start out by telling me it’s zoning when it isn’t; now you’re telling me everything else. I’d like you to tell me how they might go about doing it. Okay?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, it is our belief that the municipality will be best able to decide for themselves what areas they may wish to permit this type of a use and that they may decide it will be sufficient to have X units within that area. I think the member pretty well answered his own question with his query, that it’s strictly up to the municipality to decide on a certain area where they wish to permit licences and to decide that they don’t want one in every second house. They’re going to decide these things.

Mr. Deans: I’ll watch it with interest! I hope it works; I really do. I’m not too sure that it will. I just wonder, when a person goes to court and says you’re restricting his or her right to do business within a designated zone --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That’s the rub!

Mr. Deans: I bring him along for comic relief.

I just don’t know what happens when a person goes to court and says: “Look, I’m in the right zone. Are you restricting my right to do business in that zone? I’m prepared to comply with all the building standard, the health code and all of those things.” I just can’t think of another example of where it’s done. Could you give me one?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, we hope that the municipalities would perhaps employ the same method that they do now with billiard halls, for example. They may decide that X is enough of that particular type of use in a particular area. Billiard halls is the best example that I can think of.

Mr. Deans: Okay. Thank you very much. I don’t think it will work.

Sections 8 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 107, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves 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 107, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): Mr. Speaker, the member for Kitchener suggested it might be easier if I occupied a seat other than my regular chair. I presume I have the permission of the House to proceed.

Mr. Speaker: Is permission of the House granted?

Agreed.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Walker, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Miller, moves second reading of Bill 125, An Act to amend the Health Disciplines Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, in the initial statement made by the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) back on April 2, 1974, when what had been Bill 22, the Health Disciplines Act, was introduced, there was of course a series of substantial changes made to the general operation to the health disciplines in Ontario. Now we have before us this evening some amendments which carry on certain particular items that deal with those first six parts of the Health Disciplines Act.

I would think that it may be worthwhile for us to go into committee if there are any particular questions. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the only items that are perhaps of interest are the ones dealing with certain penalties for the improper use of professional titles. This seems to be worthwhile clarifying as we now complete the tying together of the various health disciplines, so that terms such as doctor and surgeon and physician or optometrist are all quite clearly known within our general Ontario society. It has been, of course, in the past, on at least a number of occasions, the result of various hoaxes of one sort or another whereby these titles have been used improperly and incorrectly. I think it’s worthwhile now to put this into the form of legislation so that there is a clear series of penalties in case persons are misled by the improper use of those titles.

Other than that, the bill has a number of minor amendments that appear to us to Fe housekeeping and we will support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): There are only two points that I want to bring up. I don’t really think that we need to go into the committee stage unless the member for Kitchener thinks it’s a good idea.

Mr. Walker: I am sorry. Would the member repeat that last comment?

Mr. Breithaupt: I coached them for that.

Mr. Dukszta: It’s just a point that maybe the parliamentary assistant could answer. Is section 4 brought in now to fit to the other major disciplines? And could he give an answer why the fines were changed from the original discussion when the Health Disciplines Act was going through?

Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can give a bit of an overview of some of the items contained in this amendment. Some of them are very technical and housekeeping; others represent basically a reversal of policy within the ministry.

The first section deals with the dentistry review committee. Basically, that is to ensure that the dentistry review committee is set up and is a committee of the college. The second section is related to section 3, and is related further on to section 6. This represents the question of titles, but it is a reversal of policy in the Act as it was passed in 1974. It was felt at the time that a person would not be referred to formally as “doctor”, as a reference directly from the Ministry of Health, but rather if a person had a title of doctor from an accredited college or university, then that person could use that title. For our purposes we would ignore the word “doctor” and we would only consider the words “John Jones, medical doctor” or “John Jones, chiropractor” or whatever the particular discipline was would be indicated following his name and perhaps even a specialty.

Since then, with discussions involving a lot of cross-pollination among optometry, dentistry and medicine, it was decided that the word “doctor” was in use. We basically would accept that and, in effect, that is what sections 2, 3 and 6 of the Act achieve, that is, the use of the word “doctor” where there is, let us say, a doctorate of optometry granted to a person. About 50 per cent of the optometrists, I understand, would be entitled to use that. Where there is doctor of dental surgery, then that particular dentist would use the prefix “doctor” and, of course, physicians and surgeons would continue to use the familiar term. This formalizes that. It represents a change in policy that I think really admits the very obvious -- that doctors are doctors and they are going to remain that way, no matter what we may say in our legislation.

The balance of the legislation is somewhat technical. Section 4 involves section 87(b) and inserts the words “within 30 days.” That’s merely a formality to tighten up the piece of legislation. For instance, if a physician fired his nurse for medical incompetence or for some type of disciplinary offence, he is required by this section, as it now stands, to notify the College of Nurses because they may wish to discipline that nurse, if it were some form of incompetence or incapacity or professional misconduct.

The doctor might well provide us with the defence: “Well, I realize it has been a year now, but I intended to do it next month. As a matter of fact, I just sat down last night to frame the letter that I intended to send in.” In fact, it was so loose that we couldn’t really provide any type of prosecution or at least the nurses could not have any prosecution. This will allow a cleanup of that particular Act.

That’s just about it. On the question of fines, I didn’t realize that there had been a change in the actual amount. My understanding was that the amounts were the same. These amounts do reflect what we think is an appropriate level of fines under the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to enter this debate?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 125, An Act to amend the Health Disciplines Act, 1974.

HEALTH INSURANCE REGISTRATION BOARD REPEAL ACT

Mr. Walker, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Miller, moves second reading of Bill 124, An Act to repeal the Health Insurance Registration Board Act.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 124, An Act to repeal the Health Insurance Registration Board Act.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Walker, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Miller, moves second reading of Bill 96, An Act to amend the Ministry of Health Act, 1972.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have some amendments to make on this, and I would indicate that I would be prepared to go into committee on this at this moment, if that’s possible.

Mr. Breithaupt: There might be a few comments that members may wish to make. I would be content to take second reading and go into committee, if the parliamentary assistant wished.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Clerk of the House: Order for House in committee of the whole.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 96, An Act to amend the Ministry of Health Act, 1972.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, comments or amendments to any part of this bill?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): This is a state of affairs. You have a three-ring circus around here and you haven’t got a backbencher to act as chairman. During the first six weeks you did nothing.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Don’t get ornery.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): It’s the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Ruston). Now we will have an impartial chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Stokes: In the first six weeks of this session you did nothing, and now you have a three-ring circus.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have got four ministers to your five members.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): They are out in the Shriner parade.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We have an amendment to the bill. What section is the amendment in?

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): Section 2 and section 3 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Does anyone have anything on section 1? Any comments on section 1?

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Walker moves that clause (f) of section 10 of the Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out “and surveillance of miners’ chest diseases” in lines 3 and 4.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, it is apparent how the amendment will now read. Can the parliamentary assistant advise us as to why this presumed continuing surveillance of these particular problems is not going to be continued?

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, during the period leading up to the bill, the members for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta) and I had a discussion on what appeared to be a blatant ambiguity in the actual reading of that section. One could say that miners’ chest diseases and other respiratory diseases were so interconnected as to make it unnecessary to distinguish between other respiratory diseases and miners’ diseases. It was accepted as being an ambiguity. We have now struck out some words so there will be no ambiguity and it will show that we are really reviewing the diagnosis of respiratory diseases. Section 3 requires a complementary amendment to it.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Mr. Chairman, can I comment on this?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Parkdale.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Chairman, if I can point out to the parliamentary assistant, diagnosis and surveillance go together because that’s the process. What we need to strike out is only the “miners’ chest diseases” and then the amendment would read “diagnosis and surveillance of respiratory diseases,” which is very generic.

Mr. Walker: Yes, that’s okay.

Mr. Dukszta: Yes, that’s right.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The thing is generic.

Mr. Dukszta: It has to be diagnosis and surveillance is a follow-up.

Mr. Walker: I am prepared to accept that amendment. If you would care to make the amendment, I will accept that.

Mr. Chairman: Maybe I should put Mr. Walker’s amendment and then we will add the amendment of the member for Parkdale.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could agree that Mr. Walker’s amendment will be to remove only four words -- “miners’ chest diseases and.”

Mr. Walker: That is acceptable to me.

Mr. Chairman: The motion would then read that clause (f) of section 10 of the Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out in lines 3 and 4 -- ?

Mr. Walker: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: How would you have it read then?

Mr. Walker: Clause (f) would now read “establish and maintain and operate facilities for the diagnosis, surveillance and treatment of tuberculosis and for the diagnosis and surveillance of other respiratory diseases.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may, on a point of order, through you, ask the acting House leader sitting opposite if he would mind prevailing on a couple of his members to drop by and we might have a quorum.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What is your problem?

Mr. Deans: I would like you to bring in just two or three back-benchers, three, four or five so they can listen to the debate.

Mr. Lewis: They are all out marching with the Shriners, that’s why. They are all wearing Tory fezzes and marching with the Shriners; we would like them here in the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member decided, when he was out watching the parade, that he would come in here and make a virtue of his presence.

Mr. Lewis: I haven’t yet watched the parade.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Shame on you.

An hon. member: I am here every minute of the day.

Mr. Lewis: Just because we passed the amendment doesn’t mean we passed the section.

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

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

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, we had just finished an amendment made to section 2 of the Act to amend the Ministry of Health Act. I am now proposing a complementary amendment, which achieves precisely the same purpose, to section 3 of the Act which clarifies the ambiguity brought to our attention by the member for Parkdale and the member for Riverdale.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Walker moves that clause (h) of section 12 of the Act as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “miners’ chest diseases” in lines 6 and 7 and adding the words “other respiratory diseases.”

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister’s amendment carry?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, before it is carried, I am concerned about section 2. I was on my feet before the quorum bells began to ring. I want to understand exactly what has transpired here, only I don’t have a copy of the bill. That can be debated on this section as easily as on the previous one.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister’s amendment on section 3 carry?

Mr. Lewis: Before it is carried, as I heard it on my speaker sitting in my office -- I seem to spend most of my time racing back and forth -- we abandoned the debate on second reading so that the parliamentary assistant could make these amendments in committee. I want to say one or two words about these sections of the bill before they are carried because they speak to the heart of an issue which ironically and coincidentally I raised with the Ministers of Health (Mr. Miller) and Labour (Mr. MacBeth) at question period, and which issues have been bothering me for some time.

If I understand it correctly, what this bill does in these sections -- section 2 or section 3, it matters not -- is to establish in law the rights of the occupational health branch to enter a particular industrial or mining premises to do x-rays, surveys, etc., of the men who are employed there; to do the diagnostic work, to set up the stations, to report back. Just before the section is actually passed, I want to make one or two points about its usage and implications.

I hope it is recognized in the Legislature that this authority has been exercised before now in the absence of formal legislation. The problem is that no one takes it very seriously in its application. Therefore, the legislation, imply putting into law what is now practice, doesn’t really have to change the nature of the process very much.

In June 1974, using the powers now conferred on it by law, the occupational health branch went into the Johns-Manville plant in Scarborough and did chest x-rays of all the men in the plant. At that time they said, as they always say, I understand: “If you don’t hear from us in a reasonably short period of time, or if we do not inform your physician, then you can assume that the chest x-ray was normal and you need have no qualms.”

Suddenly, literally one year later, men are now being informed at Johns-Manville that the chest x-rays taken in June, 1974, showed abnormalities and they are being asked to check with their local physicians and to have further examinations.

More important still, one of the men, who was assessed in January, 1974, at 10 per cent disability for asbestosis, suddenly turns up now at 25 per cent asbestosis. I know his name; I haven’t checked with him, therefore it’s probably not fair to reveal it. That’s a most extraordinary jump in one year’s time. One wonders what responsibility the occupational health branch feels for having allowed the man to be exposed to asbestos emissions throughout the entire one-year period, only to find at the end of it that his disability has increased from 10 per cent to 25 per cent.

There is another man whose chest x-ray allegedly showed no abnormality as of January, 1974, but who has now been assessed, one year later in effect, at 25 per cent asbestosis disability; and the case has been approved by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. How is it that this man, who jumps from zero disability to 25 per cent compensation, was allowed to be exposed to the dust for an entire year before the chest x-ray results were conveyed to him?

Further to that, on May 6, 1975, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour stood in their places and said -- this specifically related to Elliot Lake but extended to Johns-Manville -- those workers who has partial disability pensions, claims honoured by virtue of a 10, 15, 20, 25 per cent silicotic or asbestosis disability, would be approached by the government and encouraged to seek rehabilitation or alternative employment. That was two months ago.

From that day to this, not a single worker at Johns-Manville assessed up to 25 per cent disability has been approached by a government ministry. How is that possible? What does that say about the seriousness of the approach which this clause now embodies in law?

Some of these men have been allowed to work for a year in unsafe conditions, with abnormalities in their x-rays which were never reported to them. I don’t understand that. Others have been working for two months since a public government undertaking was made in this Legislature and no one has informed them of their alternative rights.

Now there are 69 men at Johns-Manville, out of that work force, who are on partial disability pensions for asbestosis or are having their claims presently processed by the board; there are 28 men at Johns-Manville who are now removed from the work place with 50 to 100 per cent asbestosis disability pensions; and there are now over 20 men at Johns-Manville who have died from asbestos-related diseases -- one as recently as January, 1975, one in April, 1975, one in May, 1975, one in June, 1975 -- and, alas, it looks as though there is going to be another this month.

So when I look at this kind of clause I ask myself, what are the intentions of the government? The clause tries to make law of the alleged practice, but the fact of the matter is that the practice has never been followed,

The occupational health branch argues -- and will argue under this Act -- that it conveys the information within a matter of three or four weeks, either to the Workmen’s Compensation Board or to the company doctor. I believe the occupational health branch; if they say that, I am sure they do. What happens to it? How does it sit at the Workmen’s Compensation Board for 10 or 11 months before it is passed on? How does it sit with the company doctor for several months before the information is passed on to the men?

I do not understand, nor do we appreciate, the frivolousness, the sheer frivolity with which medical reports demonstrating disability are treated by various government ministries, and if this clause is meant to take it more seriously, then of course we approve it. We particularly approve the broader definition that you have applied by your amendment. But I say to you, as the parliamentary assistant who I know understands these matters, that there is a terrible gap between the intentions professed and the information conveyed. It is a gap so great that men are identifiably more disabled one year later through exposure which could have been stopped had the x-ray information, been passed on. I would call that negligence, were it not that in this crazy world of occupational health there are several levels of negligence, some of them merely civil, others of them virtually criminal.

Through their union, the men at Johns-Manville -- and I’ll bring this to an end; it gives me a chance to elaborate it for a moment to the few of us who might care -- approached the company for the x-ray information on all of the people who have recently been found to have claims. The company refused. They said they would only give it on the authority of a doctor. A doctor from the University of Toronto was enlisted, and he intervened to receive the x-rays of the men, and they got the x-rays of about 105 or 106 of the men.

I am told by the president of the union, as recently as 1 o’clock today, that the reading of the x-ray’s shows, in some instances, that the abnormalities showed up on the x-rays eight and nine years in advance of the worker having been told. You as a parliamentary assistant know the men are denied suit of the doctor. They can’t take the doctor to court. There is a one-year statute of limitations, I guess -- maybe two now -- and the doctor is beyond being sued. Once you get a workmen’s compensation claim you surrender your right to suit.

What the union and the lawyers are trying to do -- and they think they have a case -- is to institute a suit based on the situation prior to the approval of the claim by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. But the question to be asked is a very straightforward one. Eight and nine years ago, the occupational health branch knew of the x-rays at Elliot Lake and at Johns-Manville. How is it that the evidence on the x-rays was not scrupulously reported to the men who were affected? It raises a very important point.

I don’t consider this member culpable or the minister culpable, and I sense, in the occupational health branch, a wish to deal with things differently. But there has been a terrible moral delinquency in dealing with these diseased and disabled people in the resource and industrial sector -- a terrible moral delinquency.

There is no defence in law, in justice or in civilized human relationships for the information not being passed on immediately. And there is no recovery for the men involved, whose disabilities increase with the years of refusal to inform them.

I wanted to say those things on these clauses because this is what we’re trying to correct. These clauses supposedly give to the occupational health branch the right to move in and take the x-rays and do the surveillance, and follow it up.

I plead with you, and all of those in the ministry who are involved, to make sure that it’s done in a way which is absolutely relentless -- and that no other government department, whether it’s Labour and the Workmen’s Compensation Board or Natural Resources and the mines inspection branch -- gets away with the non-transfer of important medical x-ray tests, or lung sputum tests, or lung cytology tests of any kind.

It’s all right to say, as the Minister of Health said in an answer yesterday, that there’s going to be some testing around the plant. I didn’t want to engage with the minister on it, because I know how harassed a man he is. But all that’s happening is that a few students from the University of Toronto are joining with the medical officer of health in Scarborough to do what will be one of the most elemental tests imaginable. The very serious stuff that’s being done, like that through McGill and U of M in Quebec, on the families of the asbestos workers -- one of the finest studies imaginable, co-sponsored with National Health and Welfare -- is not happening in the Province of Ontario around the Johns-Manville plant.

I think that’s a very great pity, and I don’t understand why it’s all right for Quebec, but not all right for Ontario. It seems to me it would be perfect to coordinate the two studies, one in Quebec and one in Ontario, and, to pool the information. It would be immensely valuable in understanding the long-term effects of asbestos fibre emissions.

This clause also gives you that right. It is a right as yet unexercised. So I guess I’ve said what I want to say, that the clause means nothing unless it is taken seriously. And on the basis of the information we now have, it has not been taken seriously. As a result the disability mounts and the deaths become monthly, from one plant in the Province of Ontario. Surely, you and your minister will insist that the occupational health people follow it through with immense vigour.

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

Mr. Ferrier: I’d like to add a few things. The situation among the gold miners in my riding is a little different than it is in the other two cases that have been mentioned. But in terms of the diagnosis, surveillance and treatment of these chest conditions, the miners develop a serious chest ailment where all the clinical findings indicate that there is a severe chest condition.

They go to the miners’ chest x-ray station and the advisory committee on occupational chest diseases, and they are told, “No, you don’t have silicosis because it doesn’t show up in the x-rays.” Everything else is there, but because it doesn’t show up on the x-rays, they’re turned down for any claim and they’re not told to get any treatment or anything else.

Occasionally, after a number of years and when the condition finally progresses to where it does show on the x-rays, they’ll allow these men a claim. Or, in some cases, they will go to some specialist here in Toronto for lung biopsies or treatment, and you’ll get a leading specialist here who will start pushing the man’s case. With that kind of backing they sometimes can get a claim allowed.

As for the occupational chest disease group in the ministry, they have made the conditions so stringent that no matter what the clinical findings are, unless it shows up clearly on the x-rays, a man never has silicosis. Perhaps they follow him up, and perhaps they don’t. In a number of cases after the miner has died and his heart and lungs are sent down here to Toronto to be examined by the pathologist at the University of Toronto, they find that there is some silicosis present, although the pathologist usually says it is not of some functional importance. But the man’s doctor at the time will often say that it is and that he has serious chest conditions.

It’s only when it reaches that final stage that these claims are allowed. I think that there has to be a better way of dealing with the miners from my particular area who come into ministry offices and are choking. They are short of breath and have major problems. The doctors up at home say they tried to fight these but have been slapped down enough and have retreated with their tails between their legs. I just wish to make an appeal on behalf of the whole way that this is treated, and how the ministry surveys these people and the way that it adjudicates the claims and prepares for their future treatment.

It sloughs them off and says: “You’ve got something else. You’ve got a bit of bronchitis or you’ve got some emphysema or something like that, but you’ve never got silicosis.” Having worked in the dust, they know they’ve got silicosis. They know the clinical symptoms. They’ve got shorter breath. Some of them are sleeping in a chair. They can’t go to bed because they cough and choke so much. They can’t climb a flight of stairs. They can walk a block on a cold day but they have to stop and sometimes go along to a telephone post. I think the minister needs to beef this up as far as the situation in my area is concerned for the kind of older miners that we find in an area like Timmins.

The other thing that this clause reminds me of, that I think is pertinent here, is that in an area in Matheson Johns-Manville operated an asbestos mine. I got a commitment from the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) and this ministry that a team would go tip and check out the miners at the Reeves mine that closed and also at the one at Matheson. Letters were sent to the miners at the Reeves mine but in the case of the one that closed 10 or 15 years ago at Matheson the ministry said it couldn’t get the list from the company. No effort was made to try to compile a list so that those men could be checked and could be followed along.

This clause is going to give the ministry the legislative grounds to make an effort through the news media or through the union representatives or somebody to keep a list or compile a list as carefully as it can. Granted we know that the companies have closed down, but the ministry can get a list of those people so that there can be a follow-up and when things start developing they can get treatment and not develop to the extent that it is too late for them.

I hope the minister will consider these things as far as the particular situations that I have in my riding goes. I feel he should take a much more careful look at it and try to do justice by them in a way that I don’t think his people have up until this point.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, the member for Scarborough West and the member for Cochrane South have expressed very legitimate concerns and no doubt those concerns will be alleviated by (a) the fact that we are codifying, for the first time, the permission to allocate funds for establishing, maintaining and operating the facilities which will accommodate the concerns they have expressed; and (b) it will provide the clear intent of the ministry to attack the problem with the tools this will now give us.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that these sections are appropriate and warranted. It will now signal to whatever part of government that it’s the intention to ensure that the problems are resolved properly.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.

Bill 96, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Grossman moves 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 certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 96, An Act to amend the Ministry of Health Act, 1972.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Walker, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Miller, moves second reading of Bill 95, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of particular items which are dealt with in this bill. The amendments which are made might be of more particular interest to us if the bill was to go into committee. The only items I’ve found of some interest, of course, are those dealing with the submissions and payments of accounts that appear in sections 3 and 4.

The fact that there is now going to be a facility by which to recommend various reimbursements of overpayments by the plan is, I would think, somewhat long overdue. The mechanics of this recommendation are clearly set out in section 4 and I would think they really need not detain us particularly for any length of time.

Matters are also before us with respect to the kind of notice which has to be given to a practitioner or a physician as a result of any claims for reimbursement. Following that area, there are certain comments with respect to the parties who can be available in a hearing before the Health Services Appeal Board.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the various items to which I’ve referred are really the only items in this particular bill. There are some minor amendments which deal with some housekeeping matters. As a result, we will approve the bill and support it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that some teeth had to be put into the Act to recover some of the money which physicians have tended to overcharge. That is to be commended.

I want to bring up a couple of other points which I don’t fully follow. Maybe there has been another change of policy which the parliamentary assistant can tell me about. Section 9 suggested that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may by regulation designate the disciplines which were billed directly to OHIP. Does this suggest that there is a change of policy going in the ministry, that some new disciplines are going to be included besides the ones which already can bill OHIP directly?

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): Mr. Speaker, I’m going to ask that the bill go into committee of the whole, and that might provide an opportunity to go through it in more detail. It is a bit complicated when it gets into some of those areas.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Clerk of the House: Order for House in committee of the whole.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 95, an Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Mr. Chairman: Any member wish to speak on any section?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Does the parliamentary secretary have any amendments. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman, to section 9 of the bill, which will add two subsections.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 9?

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Yes.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Parkdale -- on what section?

Mr. Dukszta: On section 3.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Dukszta: I don’t understand what you mean by medical practitioners other than physicians. You suggested some other practitioners. Could you explain other practitioners -- besides medical practitioners in section 3 -- who can bill directly? I think you really mean within the medical profession or do you?

Mr. Walker: I am sorry, will you repeat that? I am having trouble hearing it.

Mr. Dukszta: Yes. In section 3, it suggests that it allows other practitioners, besides physicians, to bill OHIP. Do you mean within the medical profession, or other disciplines?

Mr. Walker: It’s a very long section. I’d ask you just to draw my attention to the line you have in mind.

Mr. Dukszta: The explanation, really, is one which I can quote you on the left-hand side:

“This section provides for the submission of accounts to the plan by practitioners engaged in the practice of disciplines designated by regulation in a manner similar to that provided for physicians under section 20 of the Act.”

Which practitioners do you mean?

Mr. Walker: Section 20 of the Act covers billing of the plan by physicians. This is section 20(a) which is in effect a new section. It’s confusing perhaps, but it’s the way the numbering goes and relates to billing of the plan by practitioners rather than --

Mr. Dukszta: Which practitioners?

Mr. Walker: By practitioners who would normally bill the plan, such as chiropractors.

Mr. Dukszta: Oh, which means chiropractors.

Section 3 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anyone wish to speak on anything before section 9? The minister has an amendment, I believe, to section 9.

Sections 4 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 9:

Mr. Walker moves that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

(2) Subsection 1 of the said section 51 is further amended by adding thereto the following clauses:

(n) (a) providing for the times when and manner in which practitioners may submit accounts directly to the plan under section 20(a).

(o) (a) exempting any class of accounts from the application of section 20(a) or any provision thereof.

And that subsection 2 of the said section 9 be renumbered as subsection 3.

Mr. Walker: By way of explanation, clauses (n) (a) and (o) (a) are complementary to subsection 1 of section 20(a) of the Act, set out in section 3 of the bill and are similar to clauses (n) and (o), which apply to physicians. The chairman has a copy of this.

Motion agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other section of the bill that any member would like to speak on?

Mr. Dukszta: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant could answer the question I asked him during second reading, which is that --

Mr. Chairman: Which section is that?

Mr. Dukszta: Section 9. We are still on section 9 actually --

Mr. Chairman: Section 9 has been carried, but we will let you ask a question.

Mr. Dukszta: I thought what we carried was the amendment. Can I still ask my question?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Dukszta: Is there any other discipline, besides the ones you mentioned, which you perceive or intend to allow to bill into OHIP?

Mr. Walker: There are no new disciplines going into OHIP, but right now optometry will be covered under this section and possibly dental surgeons as it relates to certain surgical practices.

Mr. Dukszta: Do you mean surgical practices in hospital or are you actually going outside the hospital in respect of dental surgeons?

Mr. Walker: In hospital.

Mr. Dukszta: In hospital? Fine.

Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.

Bill 95, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Grossman 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 95, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Walker, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Miller, moves second reading of Bill 123, An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, there are only two particular points in this bill, besides a number of other particular housekeeping amendments. The first that I think is worthy of note deals with the rights of the associate medical officers of health to take on certain responsibilities and to act in accordance with certain terms and conditions, especially during a vacancy in the office or the illness of someone who is appointed as medical officer of health.

The other area the bill deals with particularly, in a series of sections starting with section 7, is the operation, control, repair and general production of microwave ovens. It would appear, of course, that these items are more particularly in operation, especially in a number of the fast-food outlets across the province.

I presume the ministry has come to some conclusion that there are certain particular problems which can occur as a result of repair and perhaps careless or thoughtless operation of these particular items and, as a result, the ministry has chosen to bring them into this piece of legislation.

Perhaps the parliamentary assistant (Mr. Walker) can advise us as to any other reasons or concerns which the ministry has had that has caused the matter of microwave ovens to be brought before us at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): I’d like to make a couple of critical points on the omissions in the amendments and to ask the parliamentary assistant if he would take into consideration a couple of suggestions.

Recently, as the member knows, three members of the board of health of the city or Toronto have been taken to court, because I think section 26, subsection 1 of the 1974 Act is unclear and ambiguous in terms of providing support or protection for the elected members of the board against what I think is often a malicious, irresponsible harassment; in this case, malicious and irresponsible harassment by Toronto Refiners and Smelters Ltd., which has resulted in three members of the council -- including Anne Johnston and Dan Heap -- being taken to court and accused of being biased in terms of their relations and their statements toward alleged polluters.

The Act allows the city of Toronto to pay the legal costs, but there is enough ambiguity that the company has taken those three members of the board of health to court. The cost so far has been horrendous for these members. I think it has come to $12,000 for Ald. Johnston and something like $7,000 for Dan Heap. The final effect of this is that people are going to be rather wary of, one, running for the board of health and, two, assuming any responsibility.

I think this is something that should be taken into account if the ministry really genuinely believes that the board of health of a municipality like the city of Toronto should have some power and be able to take some action according to the members’ consciences and what they perceive as proper and legitimate functioning of the rules and regulations and the laws that they are supposed to take care of. In this case those two I mentioned, Ald. Johnston and Ald. Heap, are obviously going ahead, but there should have been an amendment and the ministry should consider a future amendment to protect these individuals and any other future board members from what I perceive as malicious and semi-malicious harassment by the company.

The other section which I think needs amending is section 42, subsection 1, which protects the medical officer of health who is acting in good faith; but that is contradicted in some sense in subsection 2 of the same section 42, because it does not relieve board of health members the way it does the medical officer of health. Though the medical officer of health is relieved for responsibility and worry if he is acting in good faith, the board of health can be brought up short and taken to court. I think that needs to be spelled out in more detail; obviously, not in this Act, but I want to leave those thoughts with the parliamentary assistant if he would consider them in terms of making the Act much more efficient. Otherwise, there is no objection.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): Mr. Speaker, certainly the comments made by the member for Parkdale will be taken into consideration. Those amendments, quite obviously, are not before us at the moment and are not really related in any way to what is before us. But the points were made, we have heard them and we will certainly consider them.

The member for Kitchener raised two or three points relating to the associate medical officer of health and to the operation of microwaves.

I would say, in respect to the medical officer of health, that sections 4 and 5 of the Act merely cover a situation that is basically technical. They cover a situation where perhaps the MOH is sick, perhaps he is out of the country, or in some way totally incapacitated, and therefore cannot give the direction that the Act presently embraces. The present Act says that the MOH shall direct the associate. This allows the associate medical officer of health to be appointed by the municipality and given all the powers the MOH had; this would be during his term of absence.

The second question was on microwaves. Microwaves have become quite a bit of a problem in the last four or five years but we now have vending machines that are, in effect, microwave ovens. People can go and put their piece of pie or sandwich or whatever it is into the microwave; it’s a commercial machine.

The possibility of leakage is starting to develop and microwave leakage causes burns and cataracts. Perhaps we haven’t reached the point of being in great concern at this point in time, but this is a bit of preventive medicine allowing us to set up machinery to ensure that the microwave machines used throughout the province are properly repaired and properly looked after and, by and large, properly maintained and inspected.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 123, An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moves second reading of Bill 103, An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Does the minister have any particular comments to make at this point which might allow us to avoid having the bill go into committee and which possibly could allow us to move through somewhat more rapidly?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, this bill is basically housekeeping in nature. Many clauses are changed to clear up possible misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the previous bill. The overall bill is very technical in nature dealing with the public service superannuation fund.

The two items of substance in the bill relate to the arbitration award made by Judge Anderson -- I believe it was -- last year. This amendment to the bill is necessary for the government to implement that award.

The second item of substance relates to a commitment I made last year when this bill was amended, to give consideration to members of the armed services of certain allies and the British merchant marine who now, under this provision, would be eligible to pick up their military service.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased with some of the matters which the bill contains. It is interesting to see the correction the minister is making with respect to the interest payable under the Act so that the amount is moved from three to five per cent. That does not sound like a large amount, but of course on actuarially-based long-term extensions, especially where pension and superannuation funds are concerned, the five per cent figure can be a substantial one as it compounds itself.

One of the things we had talked about some time ago was the benefit of allowing additional service credits to be entered for those persons who had seen military service on active service within either World War II or in Korea. It’s most pleasing to see this particular change, especially as it adds those who served in the merchant fleets. I think that this no doubt on occasion could be considered to extend to service in other allied merchant marine units. This kind of service, while particularly hazardous, is something that has often been forgotten. Those persons who were clearly in the King’s uniform in those days are somewhat of a higher profile perhaps than those who laboured in long and various dangerous positions, especially in the merchant navy, with very serious losses.

I am pleased this term has been added into the service. I think those credits are honourably earned and there will not be a very large number of people who will be involved, but people who should in all justice have ability to contribute in respect of that particular form of service.

There are a number of amendments, as the minister has said, with respect to various other allowances and changes in definition. It would appear these are mainly of a housekeeping nature and we will support the bill. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, you have me again. I didn’t expect it. I have a list of umpteen bills, but this wasn’t one of them. I would like to ask the minister to tell me why -- I am not going to go into committee quite obviously -- subsection (1) of section 1(i)(2) says, “establishes it to the satisfaction of the board that he had, for a number of years immediately prior to the death of a contributor ... been maintained,” while in subsection (1) it says “for a period of not less than seven years.”

How would the minister determine what a number of years was? A number could be two. Somebody else might think it’s six. Another soul might think it’s 8½. What’s a number of years?

How is the minister going to determine that; and is it going to be some sort of ruling made by the board that will then be used for all for sort of benchmark purposes for the application of this particular Act from that point on?

I just don’t really know how anybody would go about deciding whether or not he was eligible for benefit when it says just simply “a number of years.” I think that if that’s good and equitable in subsection 2(i)(1), then in subsection 1(i)(1) it ought to be the same.

It sounds a bit odd but it is of equal or perhaps of more importance.

The five per cent interest is not very much. The move from three to five is certainly better than leaving it at three. But one of the reasons that is given from time to time for not allowing superannuation to be negotiable is that to a great extent because of the way in which it is funded the amounts of money available are locked in.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Deans: It has nothing to do with that? I may not understand it, as I say, I wasn’t prepared for this bill, but maybe the minister could explain it to me what this is all about. Of more interest to me, will he tell me how we deal with this number of years?

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to take part in this debate? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the first question of the hon. member also has me confused as to the phrase “for a number of years immediately prior to the death of a contributor with whom he had been residing.”

Mr. Deans: That’s those lawyers. I would like to see two of them agree on what the number was.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): I don’t think one can get lawyers to agree on anything.

Mr. Deans: Let me ask a question: Doesn’t the minister think it might be better to leave that for the time being, and come back to it when there may be something to tell about how that could be interpreted? I just don’t understand it; and I don’t pretend to understand everything or nearly everything, but I certainly don’t understand that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well I do not have the answer to that particular question in any of the information I have here. I might say this bill has been on the order paper for some time. It has been thoroughly vetted by the legislative counsel, by the legal staff of my ministry, by the Public Service Superannuation Board, by the Civil Service Commission, by the staff of Management Board; I have accepted their guidance in the preparation of this legislation. The interest I can explain.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the bill could receive second reading and then stand over to committee of the whole House so that if there were any particular items, they could be reviewed, possibly at the beginning of the week.

Mr. Deans: Does the minister agree with that?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Yes, I think that’s the correct procedure to follow. The minister can investigate the questions and, if need be bring in amendments.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Clerk of the House: Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves second reading of Bill 119, an Act to amend the Theatres Act.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word or two on the amendment to the Theatres Act. It just seems that this legislation probably ties in in some way with the amendment that was passed here this afternoon -- the amendment to the Municipal Act as it seems to pertain to some extent to the activities on Yonge St.

At the time when that bill went through my colleague, the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) referred to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and his pronouncements on violence and permissiveness. I suppose that this legislation will, of course, assist in controlling what can be viewed for a price on film. But, Mr. Speaker, I’m in agreement with this legislation which will hopefully amend many sections of the Theatres Act and will place control on the 8mm film and videotape and any other means of showing moving pictures.

In fact, the minister surprised us during his estimates when he came right back and said we could expect legislation very shortly. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I haven’t spent too much time viewing these uncensored films in Toronto and in many other --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: How much time has the member spent?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Who watches them?

Mr. Edighoffer: I said that; not too much time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just enough.

An hon. member: Wait until they hear about this back home.

Mr. Edighoffer: As a matter of fact, I think that’s where all the Tory backbenchers are tonight. They know we won’t be able to see them.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Perth has the floor.

Mr. Edighoffer: Right. Well I am pleased to see this legislation. I believe it was yesterday there was a lengthy article in the Toronto Star and the first line of the article said that “Yonge St. is a money tree that is starting to bear rotten fruit.” I think that was most appropriate, to some extent; and no doubt this could spread throughout many other cities in Ontario.

I wondered, really, why the amendments wouldn’t include safety and controlling of the number of people attending such functions; but possibly the reason is that this is left up to the municipalities.

I also agree with the controlling of the advertising one sees as one walks down Yonge St. I suppose it’s necessary to have this; I think this will go a long way to assist many people.

We certainly support this bill. I really feel the government should have introduced and enacted this quite some time ago. I know the Board of Censors will have their problems at first, but I am quite sure they will get over that.

The only other question I would ask is, when this is passed, when can we expect the Act to be proclaimed? I hope it’s not just a promise.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the member want to know when not to walk down Yonge St?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the government has seen the major loopholes that these operators, on Yonge St. in particular, have been using to show the pornographic and obscene movies that seem to be the style down there. I have not been in any of those places, although I have --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Nobody goes to them but they are making a mint.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): They are all against sin.

Mr. Ferrier: I remember back in the old days, when I was at seminary, we went down to the Casino to see what the shows were like so we would be able to speak about them when we got into the pulpit.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That was research, was it?

Mr. Ferrier: That was research, basic research.

Mr. Samis: All in the cause.

Mr. Ferrier: I must say to the Provincial Secretary of Resources Development that I haven’t been doing that kind of research on these 8-mm films and videotapes, but I’ll take the minister’s word for it --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What word?

Mr. Ferrier: -- that they are rather undesirable.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What happened to the libertarians over there? All of a sudden, they want to be Tories.

Mr. Deans: I’d rather be dead.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Cochrane South has the floor.

Mr. Ferrier: I think it’s unfortunate that people have driven through that loophole as long as they have, and they have allowed this kind of movie to be shown in Toronto. I think that it has led to a serious deterioration on Yonge St.

I grew up in Toronto and was always pretty proud of the downtown section of Toronto when I was here. It’s very unfortunate that this society has become so permissive and so preoccupied with this kind of thing that we have had the degeneration take place there.

I’m pleased to see that the censor now is going to have an opportunity to review these things and to cut out the kind of movies that have been there. I think they have had a deleterious effect on a number of people, and I think it’s away past time that this came in. To the credit of this minister, he did look at the problem, he saw what had to be done and he is doing it. Of course we support him, but I would like to say --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Everybody agrees with the Premier now.

Mr. Samis: The minister is stretching it now.

Mr. Ferrier: Oh, we don’t agree with the Premier, but we do agree there is a certain set of moral standards that is pertinent to many people in the Judaeo-Christian group and other groups in this province --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will take some of the credit too, but really it is the Premier.

Mr. Ferrier: These people don’t want to see society completely degenerate. They want to --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): It has been degenerating with Davis for four years.

Mr. Ferrier: Well, I don’t think anybody has a sole grasp on righteousness.

Mr. Samis: That’s for sure -- especially the opposite side.

Mr. Ferrier: I think that justice and proper morals are not the preserve of any particular group or political party, but many people are committed to a decent and high moral standard, and they feel they want to see their society go in this direction. Certainly righteousness exalteth the nation.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ferrier: The minister should read the Psalms once in a while.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ferrier: If we get legislation in here which curbs the kind of licentiousness the government has permitted, so much the better. I’ll stand up any day and support legislation from any side of the House which is in favour of uplifting the moral level of this society.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did the hon. member read that speech in his caucus?

Mr. Ferrier: I made it here in the House.

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

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 19. To put these amendments into perspective I’d like to remind members of the commitment expressed by Her Honour in the Speech from the Throne, “This government will seek the co-operation of law enforcement agencies and the general public so that our cities and streets remain among the safest and most secure in North America.”

I would also remind members of the commitment of the Premier that this government is deeply concerned about the cult of violence which now permeates the entertainment standards, as well as the inroads being made into conventional and respected moral standards by those who would destroy them, for the sake of making a fast and constantly lucrative dollar, by means of pandering to and purveying the salacious, the degenerate and the obscene.

While legislation cannot sot moral standards, the Premier has struck at the core of the issue by emphasizing that a government which refuses to provide moral leadership is a government which cannot enjoy the respect of the public.

We have witnessed in the United States the dreadful consequences to a society which has lost all faith in government because of the total lack of morality in its leader and the people around him. We are determined this will not happen in Ontario and we are just as determined that the standards of the social degenerates and their camp followers will not be forced upon the millions of decent Ontario men and women and the families they are trying to raise.

Discussing this issue, Mr. Speaker, I frequently use the term social degenerates. It applies particularly to Yonge St., a thoroughfare rather aptly described by the Toronto Star as sleazy and sordid. The sex films now so prominent there are the attraction for a great many thrill seekers and, in turn, the rather tawdry advertisements turn the street into something which has all the aspects and all the earmarks of a rather bizarre carnival.

There is another aspect to this street and its emerging status as the sex capital of Canada. What has been looked upon as something cute, something titillating for the tourists and the rubes, something which emphasizes the end of the so-called Toronto the good, has been the test site for an expanding American pornography market. There is no question that another six months of flourishing operations, particularly in the film field on Yonge St., would have meant the spread of this style of entertainment into virtually every community in Ontario. It is already in Ottawa. Because of recent court cases in the United States there is flow a surplus of sexually-oriented films, magazines and artifacts and a great many purveyors are very anxious to really move into the Ontario market.

Because there’s other legislation dealing with spinoffs from the film business, such as the body-rub parlours, I do not intend to deal with any aspect of the trade of social degeneracy other than film. Once and for all, Mr. Speaker, I intend to document the rise of the dirty film business in this province, the people who run it and their suppliers from the United States. I don’t think I’ll have to make the point of what the impact would have been if the Premier and this government had taken the easy way out and refused to take the moral stand that is the basis of these amendments.

The king of Yonge St. and of the dirty picture business is dwarfish Harry Virgil Mohney, alias Harry Klein of Lansing, Mich. It’s rather fascinating that someone could so dominate a street when, because of his criminal record, his known associations with organized crime in the United States, his current number of indictments, both on federal and on state charges, this man under no circumstances could ever enter Canada. He didn’t have to --

Mr. Breithaupt: Is he American?

Mr. Drea: Yes, from Lansing. Mich. As a matter of fact, his address is 8250 Lansing Rd., Durand, Mich. His police numbers in the State of Michigan are, by the state police, 480438, and by the Flint police department, 54799. Mr. Mohney, who has just celebrated his 32nd birthday, likes to say that he is an independent distributor. In reality, he is the prime agent for the Joe Colombo family of New York City which specializes in the production, distribution and total marketing of pornographic films in the United States and now in Ontario. In fact, Mohney, who likes to boast of being more than a self-made millionaire, reports to two organized crime families through one Robert D. Bernardo, chief policymaker and field officer for the Colombo family and protector of pornography operations in the United States. Mohney is linked to the Calvalconte family of New Jersey, which also specializes in pornography particularly in the eastern United Statas and in eastern Canada.

One way or another, virtually every piece of sexually-oriented film on Yonge St. originates with Harry Mohney. His source of film is Star Distributors of New York City, the major sex firm of the Bernardo-Colombo-Calvalconte operation. Products of Star Distributors have been seized in two raids in Ontario. The companies branch of this ministry has dealt at least a half-million-dollar blow to Mohney by stripping away the charters of three companies that were his fronts in this province. A fourth company linked to Mohney Enterprises has also lost its charter. In every case, the reason for the loss of charter was flagrant disregard of the requirements of the laws of the Province of Ontario relating to business corporations.

The three Mohney companies, Nos. 288524, 286880 and 286977, were found not to have resident Canadian directors. The fourth sex-film-oriented firm, 292299, the operators of the 21st Century Love cinemas among other enterprises, was ordered dissolved for failing to notify of changing the address of its head office, failing to notify of a change of directors and also failing to notify of an increase in the number of directors.

The ministry is indebted to Mr. Douglas Payne, a Canadian Broadcasting Corp. radio news journalist, for his investigative reporting into one aspect of the Mohney operations in Toronto. His reporting lays bare the attempt by Mohney and lieutenants to catapult from the salacious junk now offered on Yonge St. into straight pornography. Using money derived from the sex industry of the United States -- and Mohney’s operations in the United States alone span eight states in the Midwest as well as Ontario -- they were prepared to move into a void created by several successful police operations in the Toronto area in the early 1970s.

Last year he set up those three companies, No. 288524 translates into American Discount Books No. 286880 translates into Shoppe D’Amour that in turn was the front for Cinema Blue on Yonge Street; 286977 is the Bayview Playhouse, a theatre that seats 800 patrons. The ostensible Canadian directors had little visible connection to Mohney or to the Colombo-Bernardo-Calvalconte empire. They must have had extremely little connection, because they all resigned shortly after the corporation papers were filed.

Armed with this façade of business respectability, the Mohney operation vent into effect, Shoppe D’Amour, which specialized in the clothing and sexual artifacts used by degenerates, opened but quickly changed into Cinema Blue. A bookstore opened at Bloor and Brunswick. The essential part of the bookstore was a peepshow operation in the rear. The Bloor and Brunswick operation was commanded by one Dick Wilder, a Mohney operations man from Ohio, who found no difficulty in getting into Canada and found no difficulty in obtaining a valid work permit.

With the bookstore and peepshow operation in full swing, another American came to Toronto. He was one Charles Abrams, supposedly a furniture salesman from Ohio. Accompanying him were his president, George Kihnley and his lady friend, a convicted prostitute, using the name Theresa Lyn Stewart. Her real name was Terry Durham. The three, besides the peculiar business alliance, came from the National Health Studio of Cincinnati, Ohio. The operations of this establishment have led to prostitution convictions against Abrams, charges against the Durham woman and warrants against some others which will be mentioned later.

Under the pressure of the police -- and I may say one of the reasons for the pressure of the police on the peepshow operation at Bloor and Brunswick was the fact that the community there was outraged by what was going on -- that store closed and Abrams moved downtown to the Cinema Blue. At the same time that he moved, in came two more from the Cincinnati brothel operations, one Sherman Stephens, Jr., and his brother Paul. Once again they had no difficulty in crossing the border and once again they obtained valid work permits.

Cinema Blue was to show “Deep Throat” in 16mm. “Deep Throat” is a film of absolute degradation featuring the sexual antics of a mentally defective female. It is banned in Ontario. It was with this film, because of its enormous popularity in the United States, that organized crime -- the Mohney syndicate -- decided to try to break down the existing Ontario entertainment standards.

By getting away with the showing of a 16mm version of “Deep Throat” on Yonge St. the group would expand and would show a 16mm print of “Deep Throat” at the Bayview Playhouse. Then, taking advantage of court cases involving the obscenity of these films, they would open with the standard film version at the Playhouse, the 35mm version. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, this was not a peepshow operation. They purchased an 800-seat theatre.

The end result would have been the wholesale erosion of existing Ontario entertainment standards and the unleashing of a flood of film pornography from the United States into this province. The immense financial stakes in this operation are underlined by the fact that the Cinema Blue theatre was raided time and time again. With film prints of “Deep Throat” and projectors seized on virtually every occasion, the show always started again. There were 106 charges laid in less than a year. Incidentally, sometimes that show resumed one hour after the police raid and seizure.

Finally, Cinema Blue went dark leaving just a note: “Morality, you’ve won. We’re broke.” This kind of note is a particular mark of Mr. Mohney. At the moment, he is having the gravest of difficulties with the police authorities in Lansing, Mich., and on one of his theatres there is now on a marquee a film called “Police Harassment,” rated PG.

Abrams, Kihnley and the Durham woman fled Canada but Cinema Blue reopened with Sherman Stephens in charge. Supposedly, this time the owner is Imperial Films in a company called IBOX, with its Canadian agent one Nick Franks. Imperial Films and Nick Franks never bothered to file corporate documents with the companies branch of this ministry. However, it is a matter of police records in the United States that Imperial Films bears the mainstay of Harry Mohney. Repeated raids sent Stephens back to the United States where there is a warrant outstanding under an Ohio statute charging him with organized crime.

Subsequently, a raid on the Bayview Playhouse resulted in the discovery of a secret room in the basement where $40,000 worth of pornographic films, books and magazines were seized. There was unmistakable evidence of these originating from the Mohney warehouses in Durant, Mich. This warehouse, since raided, is closed but Mohney’s operations are now centred in Lansing, Mich.

Despite the substantial reverses dealt Mohney by the theatres branch and the companies branch of this ministry, he is not easily thwarted. Last year, in one of those bizarre coups so common in the United States but still shocking here, one Joseph Martin, proprietor of, among other things, the 21st Century Love Cinemas on Yonge St., returned from a trip to Europe to find a Mohney agent had become the owner of his company. New articles of incorporation had been filed with a lawyer now listed as the sole corporation officer. Martin maintains it was all over a debt owed from one of his unsuccessful soccer promotions.

Martin managed to get back his company but the sudden intrusion by Mohney and his subsequent withdrawal, accompanied by debt payments, led to a failure to file a return under the Corporations Information Act. In turn, this led to the order I mentioned before, dissolving this corporation.

Martin’s operations now span most of Yonge St. He has the 21st Century Love Cinemas at 245 and 349 Yonge St.; these are 8mm film theatres. He leases Starvin’ Marvin’s Burlesque Palace, 331 Yonge St. He has leased the Jumbo hamburger across the street. He manages the Neptune Health Spa, a parlour above Minsky’s Burlesque at 313 Yonge St. He leases Sexlandia, 149 Yonge St. He now leases the Pleasure Palace, 10 Elm St. and a place called Loveland. There is a common thread with all these theatres since the advertisements read, “Uncensored. Two hours of sex movies,” and the admission charge is $2.

It is also noteworthy that a former Martin employee, one Arnold Linetsy, now leases Minsky’s Burlesque, 313 Yonge St., which is a specially profitable and significant enterprise since it is the only one that features 16mm film on Yonge St.

Martins operations really went into orbit following the recapture of his now dissolved corporation from Mohney. He is busily expanding on Yonge St. and his known associates and employees are being seen in more and more once-independent places. In fact, he is outdistancing his one-time mentor, one Pat Giordano, who is the owner of Starvin’ Marvin’s Burlesque, Minsky’s Burlesque, the Neptune Health Spa and the Gamecock, a movie palace at 718 Yonge St. Giordano also owns Funland, a pinball emporium on Yonge St. just north of Dundas.

If Martin, who now faces a great member of criminal charges arising out of his operations, had a remarkable ascent on a street where businesses changed hands in almost record time, there is the remarkable resurrection of the North American News Co. on Britain St.

The North American News is the prime supplier to the sex film, book and magazine business. Its operations extend through the Cinematic Vending Co. of Toronto and Ottawa. In turn, it supplies the coin film booths at Delilah’s Den, 354 Yonge St., which features 40 such 8mm film machines; two peep shows at Peeporama, 10 Elm St.; Olympia Books, 575 Yonge St.; the Times Square, 369 Yonge St., and Reid’s Books, 369 Yonge St. There are also Bookazine Enterprises and Gormac Books, The films and hooks come out of the Mohney operations.

However, the border has had some implications for Cinematic Vending. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have seized dozens of movie projectors from them since these projectors apparently entered Canada without duty being paid and without the GSA safety seal. Most of those projectors are still confiscated by the RCMP.

A few years ago North American News was known as the Mimbus or Nimbus Corp.; one of the peculiarities about North American News is that to this day no one really knows how to spell the name of its original corporate parent. Nobody knows whether the real name of the company in the Bahamas was Mimbus or Nimbus.

In any event North American News was defunct, it couldn’t produce any Canadian directors under the Paperback and Periodical Distributors Act of this province. However, one Ross Wise produced evidence that he had purchased the company from Rose Caplow of the State of New Jersey. Wise, who was convicted in Toronto in July, 1973, for possessing obscene material for distribution purposes, bought North American News for $450,000. It is interesting that his monthly payments to the Mimbus or Nimbus organization in the Bahamas are specified in gold bullion.

In an earlier reincarnation, North American News was the mainstay of Gordon McAusline, who fled Canada in 1973 to avoid conspiracy charges. McAusline now comforts himself in semi-retirement aboard a yacht in the Bahamas. However, another charged in the same conspiracy, one Victor Santangelo of Derby, Conn., who fled Canada to avoid prosecution, still has legal status here. His Capital Distributing Co. of Oakville, was ruled not covered by the periodicals Act, which requires majority Canadian ownership. It still files returns under that Act, listing Victor as its corporate head. Its operations are nation-wide, and once it assigned territory to North American. Not anymore, particularly after a massive raid by the Oakville police department two years ago.

An examination would show that all of this flows back into Cleveland, Ohio, and then to Lansing, Mich., and the Mohney empire. Suppliers to the sex market here include a “Who’s Who” of American smut: American Amusements, Durand, Mich.; Auto-City Publishing Co., Durand, Mich.; Romulus News and Royal News, Cleveland, Ohio; Fourth Avenue Adult News, Ann Arbor, Mich.; Capital News, Lansing, Mich.; Derby International, state of Michigan.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): I heard all this on the CBC about two weeks ago, if I recall correctly.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): He doesn’t remember.

Mr. Drea: Don’t push; just don’t.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: Smuggled pornography has been seized at the Toronto Island Airport, in Montreal and by border authorities at Buffalo. It all flows back through interlocking directorates, territorial distribution networks and agents of the Colombo-Bernardo-Calvalconte family.

Mr. Speaker, I think this outline of the background of those prominent in the supply and distribution of sex-oriented film provides impetus for this bill. Until now there has been a feeling that an 8mm film was not film within the original intent of the Theatres Act. Obviously, the sex film is advertised and a patron would have to be most naive not to understand the type of entertainment he was paying for. Videotape, as shown by Cinema 2000, was not invented when the Theatres Act was first passed. To ignore videotape would just be an open invitation to the American sex kings, organized crime and their protectors to switch from peep shows in coin-operated machines to videotape machines.

Mr. Speaker, I have dwelt at length on the people involved in this kind of operation. And I do not do so to bring them notoriety, but to underline the determination of this government to do something to protect and enhance the quality of life that has been the hallmark of life in Ontario since pioneer days. I realize that in certain sets we are labelled as squares and old-fashioned. Mr. Speaker, I for one am proud to be square and old-fashioned -- for the vast majority of this province, the decent people, are just as square or even more so.

Last month I said I would make this speech on the second reading of Bill 119. I do it to put on the record the kind of thing that is coming to Ontario under the guise of the new morality and the concept that no regulations are required. In a few years a city that was justifiably proud of its reputation was turned into a flourishing test market for all that is the worst in the United States. The camouflage was being cute. Surely, there could be nothing wrong in spending money once in a while in watching on film or on tape the cavorting of one, two or more degenerates.

Two years ago in the estimates of this ministry, I posed some of these questions. I was met by a considerable amount of ridicule, particularly when I questioned some of the film advertising. Two years ago all of this was merely a reflection of the new waves in society. Well, in those two years, Mr. Speaker, Ontario, with Toronto as the market test centre, became the focal point for the funds, the agents and the produce of American organized crime.

What is particularly disturbing, Mr. Speaker, is that in this period of time there are enough patrons and enough dollars for 16 such major theatres to flourish. There are at least five or six times that number of film shows and curtained booths at the backs of so-called book stores or amusement palaces.

When you consider that Harry Mohney and the Colombo family shot better than a half a million dollars just to get “Deep Throat” shown in this province, then you have a measure of why a government, particularly a Premier, must show moral leadership. The alternative of doing nothing, because a segment of the population appears to approve, would have been to open the doors to those who destroyed the quality of life in the United States.

Obviously, such a detailed report is more than the product of one person. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a most courageous minister, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman), who was determined to use all the regulatory powers of this ministry to protect the people of this province.

I would also acknowledge the contributions of the deputy minister in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr. J. K. Young; our senior solicitors, Mr. Edward Ciemiega and Mr. Jerry Cooper; our companies branch director, Mr. Ben Howard, the theatre branch director, Don Sims, and assistant director, George Belcher; our communication’s branch, Mr. Errol Weaver, the director, and Miss Janet Ecker, who coordinated much of the study; the ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Since there are criminal charges pending in a great many areas, I am compelled not to acknowledge the substantial contribution of a great many individuals in the law enforcement field.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask, on the basis of these remarks that I have made, that the legislation be speedily passed by this House. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Stormont.

Mr. Samis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Listening to the member recite the exposé of all the criminal connections with the various theatres and smut operations on Yonge St. makes me ask the very obvious question -- why did it take so long to crack down on these operators? They have been around for a while here in the city of Toronto. I assume that the ownership is not something that’s been revealed all of a sudden, and that the police authorities have known for a while who was behind the various operations. I would like to say that I hope the whole concept of the bill is to close loopholes that existed.

We are not talking necessarily about morality. We are talking about making sure that everybody in this province is treated equally, in terms of film. If there were loopholes which people exploited for prurient or smutty or obscene films, the key point here is they will be treated in the same way as other film distributors in the province -- other people showing film. If they can’t meet those standards, in terms of censorship or other standards, they should either he closed down or severely restricted, but I hope we don’t go on some wild witch hunt.

I think most people who come to Toronto regard it as a very clean, healthy city. They don’t want to return to the ridiculously rigid days of the 1950s or 1960s. I think very few people would defend the way Yonge St. has evolved in the last few years, and I am glad to see the minister is taking some action.

I reiterate, though, why did it take so long? We have known what these people have been doing. We know how they have been trying to exploit sex and violence and other things very blatantly, in a manner which is quite offensive to a variety of people. We know they have changed the whole character of the strip along Yonge St. to one that really one thinks has absolutely no inherent value any more beyond the dollar sign; that everything in that area is reduced to a monetary value.

I would like to say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that not all the sex, not all the violence, not all the exploitation films take place on Yonge St. Obviously, with the changing concepts of morality, with the change now in the whole him industry, trying to exploit or to create the public demand for greater licence, I suppose you would say, and liberty in the whole question of sex, violence, language and a variety of other matters, let’s not totally single out Yonge St. There are other areas in this province that exploit it, and I am sure the minister knows that there are smaller but similar operations in his own city. Again, we are not aiming at specific businesses; we are just trying to keep everything under the same rules and regulations.

I congratulate the minister for finally doing something about it. I am surprised that it has taken so long. Public opinion has obviously wanted action taken prior to this, but better late than never. Again, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the bill and congratulate the minister for taking action. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to enter this debate? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am extremely gratified by the degree of unanimity with which this bill seems to have been received in the Legislature. If I may say in commenting on the remarks of the member for Stormont, I do not live in the city, I live in the suburban area in the Ottawa-Carleton region. In my area there are two drive-in theatres, both of which show nothing but films which have been through the board of censors, so I am not really aware of this type of operation having invaded my constituency, although I do think parts of Ottawa --

Mr. Samis: I didn’t even talk about that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- do have offshoots of the Yonge St. syndrome.

You know, by coincidence I happened over the dinner hour to listen to an exchange on the subject of censorship between one Pierre Berton and one Charles Templeton. I have a great deal of regard for both of those gentlemen, and one of them, Mr. Berton, claimed, of course, there should be no censorship whatever -- everybody should be free to go his own way. I think Mr. Templeton exhibited some degree of caution by saying that while you may believe in complete freedom, unbridled ability to say what you please and do what you please, there is a point at which society must be protected. And, of course, he used the classic example of not being able to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre when there is, in fact, no fire.

I think we have to accept certain limits on these freedoms. It is remarkable that every member who has spoken on this says he has never really experienced the kind of thing that is covered by this bill.

Somehow or other the operators -- as the member for Scarborough Centre so graphically pointed out -- are making great amounts of money, and there are people who are, in fact, patronizing these establishments. The graphic detail that the member for Scarborough Centre went into, I think, shows very, very clearly how organized crime can move in to satisfy those needs created by human weaknesses -- and not simply pornography -- but things like prostitution, drugs, gambling, even liquor in some jurisdictions. I think that no political party has a corner on moral standards and we accept the unanimity, and I am very grateful for it, but the party which forms the government does have the responsibility to provide leadership, at least to display to the public that it has some concern for public morality. We have accepted that.

The hon. member for Stormont asks: Why has it taken so long? I have been in Toronto since October of 1971, and I can say that it has degenerated rapidly since my arrival in this city at that time. The hon. member has not been here that long, and I assume that during the time that he’s been here it has been in full operation.

Mr. Deans: Has that got anything to do with the fact that the minister arrived?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It may very well and --

Mr. Deans: I never attributed it to that until now, until the minister brought it to my attention.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I think during the estimates the hon. member for Wentworth asked me when this bill would be brought in, and I answered him very briefly, explicitly, to the point saying, “Very soon.”

I hope I have met that test.

Mr. Deans: Yes, the minister has.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am hoping that the bill will proceed through the clause-by-clause examination quite quickly so that, as requested by the member for Perth, it can be proclaimed very quickly.

There is a section which nobody has commented on -- and I wanted to point it out because it is one from which I take some personal satisfaction, having incorporated it into the bill -- and that’s the provision for the possibility of there being Canadian quotas for films in public theatres. This will, of course, apply to those which are showing 8mm and videotape as well, and I think that’s all to the good because the 8mm and videotape form are vehicles where films can be made very economically.

It may encourage some of our Canadian film-makers who do not have large amounts of capital to get into that form of film, and thereby be able to exhibit.

Now my colleague, the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch), of course, will have responsibility for developing any quota system if there is to be one -- and I simply want to say that this amendment provides the vehicle through which that can be accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to having the bill passed and going into effect as quickly as possible. I would like to thank all members for their support of the bill so far.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Mr. Handleman moves second reading of Bill 119.

Motion agreed to; second reading of bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 119, An Act to amend the Theatres Act.

Mr. Ferrier: Is the provincial secretary going to take the Pregnant Mare Act through?

Mr. Deans: Why don’t we adjourn?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would move the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Deans: Before we adjourn, I just remembered something --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member just asked for it; he just asked for it. Those fellows can never be satisfied.

Mr. Deans: The provincial secretary knows I am always satisfied. The House leader indicated to me in a conversation not long ago that he was going to determine whether or not we would proceed with something called the Petroleum Products Price Freeze Act. I guess we are not going to do that tomorrow after all. Is that fair?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member and I continue this dialogue for just a few more minutes, the House leader will be in.

Mr. Samis: He’s stoned.

Mr. Deans: What would the provincial secretary like to talk about?

An hon. member: The Shriners’ parade.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t he tell us about --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’d like to talk about how all of a sudden the members opposite have all become squares.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am advised he is likely to move that tomorrow.

Mr. Deans: I really have to know; it’s not a matter of whether he will or whether he won’t.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can never give a guarantee.

Mr. Deans: No, I know that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no such thing as a guarantee in life. I think the hon. member should take it for granted that is probably what will happen, because we want to get that approved as quickly as possible.

Mr. Deans: Pardon me, if I may. The House leader knows we had a discussion about the possibility of not proceeding, and I would be most --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is the possibility. There is the possibility we will proceed.

I will now move the adjournment of the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deans: I am going to tell the provincial secretary that he can’t do it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Want to bet?

Mr. Deans: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:20 o’clock p.m.