The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege please.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, you may recall last Monday afternoon in the private members’ hour, you were in the chair and I asked you if I might table some papers which were correspondence from constituents in the riding of Durham East concerning the regional government in Durham; I asked if I could put those on the desk of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough). The Treasurer was not here from 5 o’clock until 6 o’clock that day.

Tuesday I was in my seat two minutes after the House opened and the papers which were tabled and placed on the Treasurer’s desk appeared back on my desk. Now it is obvious to me Mr. Speaker, that the papers were not looked at, read, or any attention paid to them. I wonder if you could give me some guidance as to how one gets the Treasurer to listen to the people of the province.

Mr. B. Newman: Come on, that’s a pretty cheap shot.

Mr. Speaker: I have no idea how the papers got back onto your desk, so there is really nothing I can do about that.

Statements by the ministry.

GREAT LAKES MEETING

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the Speaker’s gallery this afternoon of the members of the interstate legislative committee on Lake Erie and extend to them a warm welcome on behalf of the government as they gather in Toronto for a two-day meeting to consider solutions to the problems of the Great Lakes.

This non-partisan committee, members from the Lake Erie states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York, consists of a chairman and representatives from both the Senate and House environmental committees, and from the Speakers’ offices of these states. I have shared many constructive moments with the committee in their past legislative workshop, and recall the deliberations we had a few years ago in preparation for the Great Lakes agreement.

At the meeting in Toronto the committee will specifically consider the problem of toxic substances in the lakes and improvements in the control of detergents, as well as the future direction for the Great Lakes agreement which will be renegotiated over the next few months.

I commend the work of the committee to the attention of this House and ask all members to welcome our visitors today.

DRIVER LICENCE CLASSIFICATION

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, during the past year my ministry has been preparing a programme of classified driver licensing to enable Ontario to join with other Canadian provinces in a programme which is aimed at matching a driver’s skills and responsibilities with the kind of vehicle driven; for example cars, motorcycles, buses, or heavy commercial trucks and trailers. Today I wish to announce that regulations regarding the classification of drivers’ licences will become effective February 1, 1977.

With these new regulations, every driver, no matter what type of vehicle he or she drives, will have a driver’s licence relating to a specific class, and he or she will be permitted to operate only the vehicles indicated in that class.

The chauffeur’s licence classification will be discontinued. Being paid to drive will no longer be a factor in the new licensing system; instead, all drivers will be categorized, depending on the characteristics of the vehicle driven.

I am tabling a list of the 10 classifications in detail. However, as a summary of what is contained in the list I would like to say that: For example, drivers of cars or light trucks up to 18,000 pounds will be in class G; motorcyclists will be in class M; and there will be a class R licence to permit the learner to obtain motorcycle experience on the road under restricted conditions during daylight hours.

Let me point out here that the drivers of cars, light trucks and motorcycles need take no action to obtain their new licences. When their present licences expire, or must be replaced for some reason, these drivers will receive a new type of licence automatically.

In other categories, presently-licensed school bus drivers must convert to a class B or class E licence, which in the new system applies to large or small school buses. However, since these school bus drivers are now currently identified in the ministry’s computer system, they will be sent a special letter advising them how to obtain their new licence. It will be necessary for those who haven’t already done so to take a defensive driving course.

For drivers of heavier vehicles, such as commercial buses and trucks, or tractor-trailers, the new programme will call for reclassification. Drivers of such heavy commercial vehicles are subject to a great deal more physical, mental and emotional strain than are, for instance, car drivers. Thus each operator will have to meet higher health and vision standards. They also will have to file periodic medical reports to confirm that they are continuing to meet such standards.

In essence, this means that if a driver holds a class A, B, C, E or F licence, he or she must provide a satisfactory medical report every three years to age 65 and annually thereafter. Drivers will be notified in advance of the specific date at which their next medical examination is due.

You will note that class D drivers, although required to file a medical report initially with their application, are not included in the cyclical basis. I would also like to draw to your attention the fact that medical reports may be required at any time from any driver for driver control purposes.

At this time, my ministry is finalizing pamphlets explaining the new licensing system in detail. These will soon be available at all MTC vehicle licensing and driver examination offices. They will also be sent to companies operating fleets of trucks and buses.

While the programme becomes effective February 1, 1977, it is fully understood by my ministry that conversion to the new programme will not happen overnight. The new regulations provide for a one-year conversion for those who wish to upgrade their licences on the basis of their driving experience. But I urge all truck and bus drivers and companies to take action now to obtain replacement licences.

For the benefit of non-commercial drivers, let me stress that ordinary motorists, motorcyclists and drivers of light trucks that weigh no more than 18,000 pounds need take no action.

This means that while the new driver’s licence classification programme will include every Ontario person who operates any kind of a motor vehicle, only about 200,000 of the province’s four million drivers need take any action to be reclassified.

BANK ACT REVISIONS

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the revision of The Bank Act and Ontario’s views on the white paper, I have written to the federal Minister of Finance today and sent him our views, which I will table, and I thought it would be wise to put the letter on the record:

“The enclosed paper outlines Ontario’s major concerns regarding the recently published federal white paper on The Bank Act. Let me say first that the general theme favouring an increase in competition in the financial system is certainly welcome. Nevertheless, we have reservations about several of the specific proposals because of their implications for competition, in some cases, and jurisdictional problems in others. However, it was disturbing to note that some serious problems were not addressed by the white paper.

“Ontario believes that the present diversity in Canada’s financial network contributes to an atmosphere of competition that would be lacking if all institutions are encouraged to seek full bank status. Furthermore, we are concerned by the encroachment on provincial jurisdiction which such a move implies.

“Because of its effect on areas of divided jurisdiction, we are anxious that the provincial government be fully involved in the development of the electronic payments system. In this connection, we are concerned by the high degree of discretionary authority wielded by the federal government in the operation of the Canadian Payments Association. This is certain to augment the atmosphere of unease and uncertainty which already plagues our economic environment.

“The proposals to scrutinize the operations of foreign affiliates operating in Canada more closely are consistent with Ontario’s views. We are concerned, however, that formal recognition be accompanied by some explicit encouragement to obtain reciprocal arrangements in other jurisdictions.

“The white paper did not address the question of increasing competitiveness in the market for short-term government bills and notes by expanding the range of securities suitable for recognition as secondary reserves. We did, of course, raise the matter in an earlier submission, and it has received the support of the other provinces and the Economic Council of Canada. My staff has examined the issue in some detail and have some positive suggestions on how the problems might be overcome. I think that a meeting of officials to discuss this issue would be useful.

“The coming decade will be a challenging one for Canadians. In order to remain competitive in the international marketplace, we will have to be productive and innovative. If Canadian banking legislation is to contribute to meeting these challenges, it too will have to be innovative and flexible. The current economic environment does not call for a major change in Canada’s financial structure, with all of the uncertainty and apprehension that would entail. I am concerned, however, that the immense requirements of financing our industrial development in the decade ahead will put additional strains on capital allocations and I would hope that we will be able to respond quickly to new circumstances as they arise.”

MUNICIPAL NOMINATION PAPERS

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, while I’m on my feet, the other day I was asked for an opinion as to the filing of nomination papers on Remembrance Day. The answer is a little long and perhaps I might give it now.

Certain doubts have arisen as to the validity of nomination papers filed on Remembrance Day mainly because section 34(1), states that a person may be nominated as a candidate for an office by filing in the offices of the clerk during the normal office hours of the clerk within the period in which nominations may be filed, a nomination paper in prescribed form.

Certain solicitors are of the opinion that because municipal offices are not normally open on Remembrance Day, a nomination filed on that day would not be filed during the normal office hours of the clerk and therefore would not be valid. Further doubt has arisen because Remembrance Day is a holiday and there is some doubt that an act done on a holiday can have legal effect.

Normal office hours mean 8 to 4:30, or 9 to 5, and so on, without reference to any particular day, and therefore if the municipal offices were normally open between 8:30 and 5 o’clock and the municipal clerk received nomination papers between those hours on Remembrance Day the nominations would be validly filed. Furthermore, the common law rule preventing legal acts from being done on a holiday is probably applicable only to Sundays.

[2:15]

Some municipal lawyers are divided in their opinion on the question. We have been advising municipalities to consult their own solicitors. Several candidates who filed on Remembrance Day and subsequently consulted the ministry were advised, to remove all doubts, that they probably should withdraw their papers and refile. All candidates, if they were concerned about the problem, could have reflied and we believe most did refile their papers on the Friday or Monday following Remembrance Day.

The question really can only be decided in the courts, and any statement of opinion made by myself could only serve to add to the present difference of opinion and would not solve it.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

BILINGUAL DRIVERS’ LICENCES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Can I try to elicit from him a further expansion of his statement on the issuing of licences by asking whether it is, in fact, true that he has been replying to letters sent to him in the last month or two with the announcement that he intends to have all licences in Ontario, new or renewed, issued bilingually as of January 1, 1977?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe that was the tone of my reply. When I have received inquiries relating to the matter of bilingual drivers’ licences, I believe I have stated that the new classified driver’s licence system would be implemented in the near future and when the new classified licences were printed they would be bilingual in form.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, well, well. It took us five years to get it.

Mr. Lewis: The minister stated that in his letter to these people?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t the minister, particularly in the present atmosphere, announce this formally as a useful demonstration of what might be done generally?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I will then now, officially and formally --

Mr. Lewis: Congratulations. You are too much.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, well, well.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will officially and formally announce to the House now that with the issuance of the new classified drivers’ licences the form of the licence will be bilingual.

An hon. member: Separate now?

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: I would like first of all, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the minister about this and ask him whether in view of that change of policy -- God bless him -- he might consider when he suspends a person’s licence the notices might be bilingual so he might know that his bilingual licence is suspended?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you worried about your own?

Mr. Roy: No, not now.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I assure the hon. member that when I have the opportunity to suspend his licence, I will send him a notice in bilingual form if I have to write it myself.

Mr. Roy: That’s not going to help you.

Mr. R. S. Smith: In that case, you will never receive it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I can’t recite by memory the different forms that will be reprinted when new programme changes take place. We do have a number of this type of form relating to vehicle and personal licensing matters that will be switched over on a gradual basis, when new supplies are ordered or a programme is changed to the bilingual form.

Mr. Cassidy: Est-ce que le ministre pourrait nous assurer en cooperation avec le ministre de la Justice que dans le futur les avis de cautionnement pour violations au code du traffic qui sont envoyés aux chauffeurs dans la province sont envoyés en français et pas simplement en anglais?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, my personal translator, the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller), says he cannot follow that; so I’m afraid I’ll have to wait until Hansard is printed. I’ll get the Ministry of Government Services to translate it for me, and I will give a reply to the hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, out of courtesy to the Minister of Health, who may be a better minister than he is a translator --

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary?

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister say whether, in co-operation with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), he will see that notices of violation sent to motorists under The Highway Traffic Act are also available in French?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will leave that matter up to the Attorney General.

Mr. Lewis: I would just like to congratulate René Lévesque for having stimulated so much in such a short period of time, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: it is quite obvious you two have a lot in common.

Mr. MacDonald: Apparently so do you and Joe Clark.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: With his millionaire stockbrokers? You’ll be comfortable, my friend.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EMPLOYMENT ON INDIAN RESERVES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Chairman of the Cabinet, now that the national park for the English-Wabigoon river system has been abandoned, what precise undertaking has he set in motion either to compensate or to provide projects as alternative supports for the Indian bands at Whitedog and Grassy Narrows?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Monsieur l’Orateur, j’aimerais dire au chef du Parti NDP que le sujet est a l’étude.

Mr. Lewis: Mais oui, Monsieur le Ministre. Je suis le chef du Parti NDP -- but why doesn’t the minister answer my question? He can’t duck it that way. Therefore, I will ask the Premier, if I may redirect my question.

Mr. Breithaupt: You are safe there!

Mr. Lewis: Would he like it in English or Yiddish?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It will be convoluted in either form.

Mr. Lewis: Now that the national park programme has been abandoned for the English-Wabigoon river system, may I ask the Premier whether he will accept the offer made to the government by Mr. Billingsley, the president of the Reed Paper company, to pay substantial financial support or compensation to any government programme which the government would wish to institute for the native people of Whitedog and Grassy Narrows?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Firstly, Mr. Speaker, I’m intrigued at the idea of the Leader of the Opposition that he has accepted some ideas from the head of Reed Paper -- probably the only one that he’s accepted. I would suggest that as it relates to this particular issue, if he would direct the question to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Irvine), he will be brought up to date as to the present situation.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I will be glad to ask each of the ministers, one at a time.

May I ask the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development -- I’ll be more specific -- exactly how he intends to make use of the explicit offer from the president of the Reed Paper company to provide sums of money, either by way of financial compensation or financial support, for any undertaking or programme which the government initiates to help or assist the native people of Whitedog and Grassy Narrows?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) and myself will be meeting next week with Mr. Billingsley to determine exactly what he meant by his statements in the media. Besides that, I think I should inform the House that it is our understanding that the Minister of Natural Resources and Mr. Allmand will be meeting next week to decide what will be our next course of action as it relates to continuing our talks with the natives in the area affected by the English-Wabigoon system and how the province can co-operate with the federal government to have this matter resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all concerned.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister intend to meet Mr. Billingsley? Is he going to meet him in his offices? They are very nice offices; I commend them to the minister. If he is going to meet him, will the minister be taking with him specific projects in mind? Can the minister share with the House the specific proposals the government will be making on a cost-sharing basis with the Reed Paper company?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t intend to meet in Mr. Billingsley’s office. I expect it will be either in my office or in the office of the Minister of Natural Resources. I would think that would be the more proper place. As to what proposals we will be discussing, I’m not at this time at liberty to say.

RENT INCREASES

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Can the minister make a public guarantee which is somehow authenticated in law that any leases entered into at any time, let us say, between now and July 31, 1977, for a period less than a year will, in fact, have binding application for a full year at a rent increase of whatever is determined, eight per cent or less?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is asking for a legal opinion, of course, I can’t give it to him. I have stated here and have stated outside this House the government’s commitment to that effect. The intention of the government in bringing in the amendments last spring is quite clear; it was accepted by all parties that our intention was clear and we are making a firm commitment to that effect.

As to what will be done officially, of course, I can only repeat the words in the Star today, “no decision has been made.”

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since the legislation dies on July 31, 1977, how can the minister possibly make a commitment to prevent additional rent increases applied in August, September or October, when there is no legislative authority governing those rent increases?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would assume, without any powers of prognostication, that all parties in this House would support the commitment, and if it was felt necessary to bring in legislation that it would receive such support.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Assuming we all do then support the commitment, would the minister amend the legislation to make it clear that any arrangement between landlord and tenant entered into between now and the termination date, July 31, 1977, will be in effect for 12 consecutive months from the date of implementation? Would he make it clear now and leave that law by itself on the statute books for that period of time?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’m not in a position to commit the government to bringing in legislation today or tomorrow. I have made a commitment on behalf of the government, and I’m sure that all members of this Legislature would support that commitment in the event that legislation is necessary.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Given the rather tattered credibility of the government on matters relating to the protection of tenants, will the minister come back to this House within a week with a legal opinion from his own officials or from the Attorney General’s department as to whether or not there is effectively any protection for tenants on short leases after August 1, 1977?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, no, I don’t believe I would present a legal opinion to the Legislature. We have made a commitment, and on behalf of the tenants of this province I, as minister, have said that that is the effect of our legislation, and if it’s not the effect of our legislation we will make it quite clear in due course that we intend to protect them in that way.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary from the member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Does the minister not recognize the need for clarification at this time, when the activities of the owners of these buildings indicate there is no such commitment? What, in fact, does the minister say his commitment is, because I don’t understand it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the need for clarification may very well be there. However, a commitment has been made publicly and in this Legislature, and if the landlords have not read that then I assume they should start reading Hansard as required reading.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a best seller.

Mr. Breithaupt: The collected sayings of Syd Handleman.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The commitment has been made. We cannot foretell what may happen here six months from now, and this is what the hon. member is asking me to do. At this time, under the present Act there is no possibility of a rent increase taking place other than as provided for in the Act.

An hon. member: What a stupid statement.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: What may happen in August is a matter for the future and a matter for clarification in the future.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, that was a final supplementary. The Leader of the Opposition has one more question I believe.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: No. Order, please. I said that was a final supplementary.

CANCER AND ASBESTOS

Mr. Lewis: To the Minister of Labour: Has the minister determined whether there has been any study undertaken officially through the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour or the Workmen’s Compensation Board into the relationship between cancer of the larynx and asbestos in the period since April, 1975, when it was recommended by Dr. Ritchie?

[2:30]

Hon. B. Stephenson: I know that the Ministry of Labour has not undertaken such research. I am not as yet sure whether any has been initiated by the Ministry of Health and I am talking to the Workmen’s Compensation Board at this time. As I said in the Legislature the other day, I felt the study was probably outside of government and that I was endeavouring to find the source of the information which I had received, which I am still endeavouring to do.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, had it never been brought to the minister’s attention formally through the group to which the report was submitted that any such specific study was anywhere launched?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The report which Dr. Ritchie tabled for the Workmen’s Compensation Board was directed specifically to an examination of problems of malignancy of the lung and gastrointestinal tract. One of the gratuitous or tangential remarks that he made in his study --

Mr. Lewis: Gratuitous or tangential!

Mr. Breithaupt: It is hardly gratuitous.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- was that there should be further research in this area. At the time that the board looked at this study they were concerned with cancer of the lung as a result of asbestos exposure and cancer of the gastrointestinal tract. That is the direction which they have followed to this date.

I’m sure there will be further examinations of that report, now that some of the situations which were in question have been clarified. At this point in time, there are other researchers in other areas of this country and of the North American continent who are pursuing this research. That is what I am attempting to establish.

Mr. Lewis: Did you refer to the city of Toronto when you replied?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, I did.

LACK OF COURT FACILITIES

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Premier. in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), regarding the lack of justice facilities in the Ottawa area: While we don’t begrudge Brampton riding its new courthouse, how can the Premier be the head of a government that tolerates the situation in Ottawa where the Chief Justice of the High Court has held courts, I think it was last week, in the basement of the Holiday Inn? Surely the Premier recognizes the problem there. What is he prepared to do to make the system of justice operate throughout Ontario equally for everyone?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would just like to seize this occasion to point out that the additions to the courthouse facilities in the region of Peel, which were constructed basically by the former county of Peel, will serve not only the great riding of the city of Brampton, but also Mississauga North, Mississauga South, Mississauga East and portions of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel.

Mr. S. Smith: And Ottawa West, if they are willing to travel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: While it is geographically in the middle of that community, it does serve more than the one.

Mr. Roy: Just answer the question.

Mr. S. Smith: They even have one in Kitchener.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In case the member is not familiar with the geography of the region of Peel, I thought I should explain this to him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As it relates to the availability of court facilities in the great community of Ottawa, perhaps the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) will be here later to answer specifically.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Are you looking for votes back home?

Hon. Mr. Davis: In the meantime, perhaps the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. MacBeth) might have some insight that would be helpful.

Mr. Breithaupt: Don’t count on it.

Mr. Roy: We don’t want to trouble him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m just saying they might be helpful to the member for Hamilton West. I’m trying to be as helpful as I can.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I used to practise law in places worse than that.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the Premier aware that in addition to having to use the basement of the Holiday Inn, there are now lawyers in Ottawa advising their clients not to bother even trying small claims court, despite the fact that court specifically exists for the ordinary citizen to get a summary redress of some grievance, because of the 18-month delay which now afflicts that particular court in the Ottawa area? Surely a system of justice must operate for everyone in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it’s quite obvious the member for Hamilton West knows the system of justice operates equally for everyone in the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is also true that new physical plant is not necessarily related to the quality of justice that is provided.

Mr. S. Smith: There is an 18-month delay.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could reminisce here today and remind the member for Hamilton West, who was not resident in the great province of Ontario when I used to practise law --

Mr. Breithaupt: That long ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that I have appeared for accused people in facilities that were perhaps not as adequate as the basement of a Holiday Inn.

Mr. Eakins: Was there wiring in the basement?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ve been in them and the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) has. Is the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) the one who’s advising his clients not to appear? I don’t know. Anyway, I will try to find out for the leader and get this information for him.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: In view of the fact the Attorney General keeps saying that he recognizes the facilities are deficient, and keeps talking to the cabinet and the Premier but can’t get any further money, how can the Premier tolerate the situation that has been explained by my leader in Ottawa; and secondly, a situation existing now in the Supreme Court whereby deserted wives have to go on welfare because it takes four weeks to get an appointment for an interim order, even in family court or in Supreme Court?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Are you against Holiday Inns?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Ottawa East is suggesting that in many areas, not just in the administration of justice but in other areas of physical plant, we can with justification invest further moneys on behalf of the taxpayer, I’m quite prepared to acknowledge it.

Mr. Eakins: Stick-handling.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am also prepared to state to the member for Ottawa East that we are establishing priorities. We are restraining capital expenditures in the economic interest of all the public of the province of Ontario. Those are the rather difficult choices we have to make which I totally understand the opposition people have not the capacity to do.

Mr. S. Smith: Except in Brampton.

Mr. Breithaupt: After five years.

Mr. Roy: What about Minaki Lodge?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’ll have another supplementary; the member for Carleton East. This is the final one.

Ms. Gigantes: I’d like to ask the Premier if, when he is doing his balance of accounts on the business of investing in the court system in Ottawa, he might take into consideration the hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage created at the Ottawa Carleton Regional Detention Centre by prisoners who have to wait from seven to 12 months for an appearance in court; and the request that is to come from the township of Gloucester --

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s a question.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I think the question has been asked.

Ms. Gigantes: -- for an additional $100,000 to supplement police services to that regional detention centre?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ll try -- as I understand it the hon. member is saying do I take into account, in balancing something or other, the damage done at the detention centre because certain people who are there do not get as speedy a trial as she would suggest?

Mr. Roy: Or the welfare payments to wives.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will bring that to the attention of the Attorney General.

Mr. Roy: Hold the court in Minaki Lodge.

Mrs. Campbell: As everybody suggests.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

NUCLEAR REFINERY SITE

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: Regarding the selection of a site for the proposed nuclear refinery of Eldorado Nuclear, has the Treasurer taken some role with regard to attempting, under the general development agreement, under the DREE arrangement, to arrange with the federal government for the location of this particular refinery in northern Ontario where the economy desperately needs this type of boost?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that question should be redirected to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member wish to redirect the question?

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll redirect to the Provincial Secretary.

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. minister hear the question?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think I heard enough of the question to answer --

Mr. Roy: To give a non-answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- as far as I’m concerned. Maybe it won’t answer all the concerns of the hon. member. In any event --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- several colleagues and I have met with the federal government or various ministers who are concerned about this project. We have met with the Crown corporation, Eldorado, at various times. We have discussed the feasibility of Eldorado locating either in eastern Ontario or in northern Ontario. I have recently received from the ministry responsible a study which was conducted on behalf of the federal government to determine what the financial impact would be to the Crown corporation if it was located either in northern Ontario or in eastern Ontario.

The decision as to whether or not the Crown corporation will go in eastern or northern Ontario is clearly a federal government decision. If the federal government want to tell the Crown corporation they should go to the north -- and they have every right to do so -- then let them get off their rear ends and say so.

Mr. Peterson: Sort of like the Pickering airport, eh?

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, is the minister prepared to assure this House that this government is prepared to request of the federal government that efforts be made to locate this particular plant in either Burwash, Spragge or some other suitable northern site; and, in fact, is his ministry prepared to co-operate with the DREE programme to request -- he knows very well the province must initiate -- to request a DREE grant to enable that particular federal project to be located in northern Ontario? Let’s have a clear answer to this.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think the hon. member doesn’t understand the complexities of the problem.

Mr. S. Smith: Come on, you know the situation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: First of all, I have had discussions with Mr. Lessard and Mr. Gillespie --

Mr. Mancini: Tell us what you are going to do.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and Mr. Lessard has not indicated at all that he was willing to proceed with this particular area being designated as a DREE area; I refer to either Spragge or Burwash, Spragge in particular.

Mr. R. S. Smith: What else does he say about the DREE programme?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think the hon. member would be wise to contact his friends, if he has any in Ottawa, to determine what the actual cost is --

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, I have done so and they tell me you are not pushing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- as it relates to Spragge being developed and what the cost is in relation to the Port Granby-Port Hope area. I don’t think the Ontario government can tell a federal Crown corporation where to go, even though we may want to.

Mr. Roy: You told the tenants where to go a few years ago.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Durham East (Mr. Moffatt) only.

Mr. Moffatt: In the minister’s response, it seems to me, the only criterion he alluded to was one of economic consideration. I would like to ask the minister if that is the sole criterion which this government is considering as legitimizing or not the Port Granby choice of site by Eldorado Nuclear?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Obviously not. There are at least two things one must consider. The economic development is certainly a prime consideration. There is also another consideration that has been considered in the Newcastle area and the Port Granby site which is being proposed for development: The site will be for a building plus a disposal area, and it is my understanding that the local council has said it will approve the site only on condition there is a disposal site and a new building constructed on the other part of the lands, which I believe the Crown corporation now have bought. Therefore, there are two areas: First you have to worry about the waste or the residue; and secondly the economy.

An hon. member: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, I think we should get on. The hon. member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: On the same topic, if I might -- and so my friend will have a chance for a supplementary -- on the same topic, and I direct this to the Premier: During the exchange of interjections, when I said the government was not pushing for a DREE grant to enable the refinery to be located not in Port Hope but in northern Ontario, the Premier said I was wrong. Would he therefore detail for this House precisely what the government has done to enter into a DREE agreement for this particular federal project and precisely what it is prepared to do now to push the federal government, despite the so-called economic feasibility, to have this refinery located in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think we have demonstrated, as a government, we are very anxious to have proper development in northern Ontario, a view not shared by some of our friends. Surely the leader of the Liberal Party is not saying to us that the government of the province of Ontario should be shelling out a lot of Ontario taxpayers’ money for an area where the federal government should have total responsibility. It is a federal Crown agency involved in a national programme.

I would say with respect that while obviously we would be delighted to have it located somewhere in the province of Ontario -- we are very interested in the north, we are also interested in the east, and I am sure the members opposite are as well.

Mr. Roy: It doesn’t show.

Hon. Mr. Davis: At the same time I must say to the leader of the Liberal Party that we are very interested, for this occasion at least, in Ottawa’s assuming its proper financial responsibilities. This question of applying for a DREE programme to accommodate a federal Crown corporation, surely is one on which he should be urging us to say to Ottawa, “You fellows need to locate this; for heaven’s sake, for once pay the bills for it.”

Interjections.

[2:45]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the Premier not prepared to accept that this would be a very proper use of provincial tax dollars, to use the DREE programme for precisely what it is meant for --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are getting caught again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: -- which is to locate industry, public or private -- there is nothing spectacular about private versus public industry -- where it belongs in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It would be quite appropriate if the decision of the federal government was to say to Eldorado: “Yes, the North Shore is the place for it.” We would accept that with enthusiasm. I am saying to the leader of the Liberal Party this is a federal Crown agency; for heaven’s sake let him stop bailing his friends out. Let them assume their proper responsibilities.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You are bankrupt over there.

Mr. S. Smith: Contribute to it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If they gave you a blank cheque you would give away the whole store.

Mr. S. Smith: Contribute to it. Decentralize.

Mr. Ruston: You are further in debt than Darcy was.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Are you not aware that you are on display here this afternoon, as you are every afternoon?

Mr. Breithaupt: We don’t mind.

Mr. S. Smith: Look at the Treasurer when you say that.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, could the Premier assure the House and the residents of the north that if such a project does locate in northern Ontario the proper environmental safeguards will take place and perhaps the waste could be shipped to the south?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Now you have lost the south.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker I begin to sense some reconsideration of previous positions as they relate to development in the north. I would assure the member for Thunder Bay that like every project which has environmental impact --

Mr. Lewis: A uranium refinery.

Mr. Reid: The heat is getting to them.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- we will demonstrate the same concerns in the north as we do in the south -- which is the foremost concern to be found anywhere on this continent, that’s right.

Interjections.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are in trouble.

Mr. Reid: That scares me more than anything else you have said.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Far greater than Manitoba, Saskatchewan or British Columbia.

VIKING HOMES

Mr. S. Smith: I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: In light of the strong criticisms by a labour referee regarding the Marshall Children’s Foundation operating Viking Homes, in which he said: “The Foundation showed complete disregard and contempt for the legislative intent and purpose of The Employment Standards Act,” how is it that the minister continues to operate and accept under his ministry a series of group homes which he deals with? They are improperly inspected and labour standards and other standards are disregarded. When is he actually going to move to clean up the whole group home situation in the province of Ontario under his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the leader of the third party, my ministry does not operate these group homes.

Mr. S. Smith: You deal with them.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Can the minister assure this House of two things? Can the minister assure this House that we’re finally going to get our hands on the interministerial study he has been looking at for the last eight months detailing all aspects of group home care in this province? Secondly, can he give us some assurance that he will not deal with and will not fund, directly or indirectly through his ministry, any group homes which are not thoroughly inspected and which do not totally meet the employment standards of this province?

An hon. member: That’s a fair question.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, I think the member is referring --

Mr. Good: Send it in a plain brown envelope.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- to the interministerial report dealing with residential care which is currently being discussed and considered by the policy field. If he wishes to question that further I would ask him to direct his question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development because that report is under her aegis.

Mr. R. S. Smith: You had it first.

Mr. S. Smith: Are you keeping it as a souvenir?

Mr. R. S. Smith: She says she doesn’t have it.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: With regard to the group homes of which the member speaks, they are utilized by various agencies. We don’t deal with those directly, although of course we fund the municipalities that may use those particular homes.

Mrs. Campbell: Sure, but you don’t care how they are run.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Can the minister assure us he is going to insist on inspection for all group homes that are funded directly or indirectly, including those that have only a few residents therein? And can he assure us that he will refuse to deal with any organizations that do not accept and obey the labour standards, the physical standards and all other standards of his ministry and of the Ministry of Labour in this province?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It goes without question that the --

Mr. Mancini: Why didn’t you say that before?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Well absolutely; certainly the group homes have to meet the standards, whether they be health standards, fire standards or labour standards.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions from the member for Hamilton West? The member for Carleton East then.

GUIDELINES FOR JUDGES

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Justice: I wonder if he is familiar with the phenomenon known as the male menopause?

[Laughter]

Mr. Speaker: It’s a question of urgent public importance I am sure.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am not sure whether I have yet passed through it or I am right in the middle of it, but I think it’s rather the latter.

[Laughter]

Mr. Breithaupt: Wait until you hear the supplementary!

An hon. member: It is your second childhood you are in.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll have the supplementary now then please.

Ms. Gigantes: I hardly know how to pose this part of the question, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder if the minister, in spite of the fact of his current condition, might consider developing with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) some guidelines that provincial court judges could use when they are dealing with testimony which may be unreliable because male witnesses are passing through the phenomenon of the male menopause?

Mr. Breithaupt: Did you check the judges too?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it sounds like a reasonable suggestion.

APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE COMMISSIONS

Mr. Conway: A question of the Solicitor General: Is it the policy of his department where vacancies in police commissions occur to solicit the advice of local municipal councils with respect to replacing those absentees?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: As far as appointments to police commissions across the province are concerned, they are made, as you know sir, by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Those are done, generally, on the advice or the recommendation of the Solicitor General, and I receive, as such, a great deal of input from various sources, sometimes from local councils, sometimes from local members and sometimes from concerned citizens.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Can the minister tell me why then, in the case of the town of Deep River, where there was an absentee and where the local municipal council was approached by the Ontario Police Commission, I believe, for a specific recommendation; and whereas they supplied the name of a very reputable person, that particular recommendation was totally ignored and the particular council was not at all taken into confidence on the matter, which they had been led to believe they would in fact be?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am not sure who led them to believe their recommendation would automatically be accepted. I doubt if anybody did that, sir; that is not the way it’s worked. As I have said, they are made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and there is no guarantee when we seek information as to recommendations that that information will be acted upon by the cabinet, sir.

Mr. Conway: Why would the minister bother at all to approach this particular council, as in this particular instance, and simply ignore them in the final results? They feel particularly left out in this process.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, we seek our information from many sources and don’t limit ourselves to one recommendation.

MIAMI-CAREY WORKERS

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Labour: Is the ministry willing to intervene with Miami-Carey, a multi-national corporation, to get it to give the right of first refusal on jobs in their new Barrie plant to its Rexdale workers who are losing their jobs as a result of transferring the plant to Barrie?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I gather this company, for economic reasons, is consolidating its plant in a new site and I am aware that it is following all of the requirements of The Employment Standards Act in the terminations which are being carried out. I am also aware they have approached the employment adjustment service of the Ministry of Labour with a view to establishing a joint manpower placement committee with our ministry and with the Manpower department of the federal government. It is my understanding that at least some of the employees in the present plant will transfer to Barrie. I do not know at this time how many, but that I shall attempt to ascertain and inform this House.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that the plant in fact did have enough property to expand in Rexdale but it sold this property? Is the minister prepared to amend the labour legislation to give successor rights to unions in cases like this where a plant is, in fact, transferred in its entirety from one location to another?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, The Labour Relations Act of this province is under constant review and this is one of the areas which we are examining.

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Could the minister tell us whether Browndale Ontario provides family court with psychological assessments on children, some of whom are ending up in Viking House, an organization with financial and other ties with Browndale, and whether they derive an income from this work?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would need to look into that matter. I sought information on it a week or so ago and I can’t recall it clearly enough to give her an answer. It may be an indication of my age.

Mrs. Campbell: I won’t take that as having no validity, Mr. Speaker. When the minister is investigating this for an answer to me, would he also check, for his own purposes and for the purposes of reporting to the House, who is doing the assessments as suggested, and whether or not these are done by students who are approaching their Ph.D. in education and not trained psychologists?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I know there are some students involved and I know this is being done as part of a training programme, but I understand it is always under the supervision of a qualified person and no charge for the student’s work is involved.

Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor General has the answer to a question asked previously.

SOLICITOR-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have now had an opportunity to inquire into the matter raised by the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) on Monday last. The member expressed concern that the Ontario Provincial Police intercepted a private communication of one Donald Turner in April of this year, without having obtained the necessary court authorization.

I have determined that the Ontario Provincial Police did intercept a private communication of Donald Turner in April of 1976, and that they did so with proper authority. An authorization to intercept private communications of Donald Turner was issued by a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario on April 8, 1976. This authorization was valid from April 12, 1976, until May 11, 1976. I have personally examined the court authorization and I am satisfied that the interception in question was lawful.

I would also point out that Mr. Turner was served with notice of July 27, 1976, that he had been the object of an interception pursuant to an authorization issued under the provisions of the Criminal Code.

The member for Ottawa East expressed a second concern; namely, that a communication between a solicitor and his client may be intercepted. I agree with him, as a matter of general policy, that the interception of communications between a solicitor and his client is undesirable. There may, however --

Mr. Roy: Undesirable?

Mr. Singer: Undesirable?

Mr. Speaker: Order; order, please.

Mr. Singer: Order? That is ridiculous.

Mr. Sargent: He didn’t write that speech.

Mr. S. Smith: Pretty mild, eh?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: If there’s any question, I said undesirable, Mr. Speaker.

There may, however, be occasions when it is justified, and this will be determined by a judge under the interception provisions of The Criminal Code. The judge determines what interceptions will be permitted when he gives the authorization. Furthermore, when it is proposed to introduce an intercepted communication in evidence at a trial, the trial judge determines whether it is properly admissible. Thus, the subject of the interception is protected by judicial review of the matter at two stages.

The Criminal Code contains stringent rules regarding the disclosure and use of intercepted communications and also requires that the authorization itself be kept confidential. I am, therefore, limited in what I may disclose to this House.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: First of all, if the Solicitor General has an authorization why is he not producing the authorization? Secondly, isn’t it a fact that that authorization doesn’t say specifically that you can intercept a communication between Turner and his solicitor? Thirdly, how can he, as the senior law officer of the Crown, not take a position and not support the police in this case when they trample on a basic right of a solicitor and his client, that is for a client to communicate in private assuming the confidentiality between a solicitor and client conversation?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I believe the question is why would I not table the authorization or produce it. The answer is simply I am prohibited by the Criminal Code from doing so.

Mr. Roy: You are not, you know you’re not.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That statement is just as irresponsible as the ones the member made on Monday last.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are not going to debate law in the House.

Mr. Singer: You don’t have to debate the law. Just read the section.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. Roy: I’ve been accused of being irresponsible. I’d like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I’ve heard such words used in both directions across the floor on many occasions. Do you have a point of order?

Mr. Roy: Yes. Section 178 of the Criminal Code states: “All documents relating to an application made pursuant to section 178(12) and section 178(13) are confidential and with the exception of the authorization . . .”; and that’s what I’m talking about, the order of authorization. Produce it!

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I could carry on this debate as long as the hon. member wishes me to do so. I happen to have the Code in front of me as well, and I might tell you, Mr. Speaker, he didn’t read the whole section.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: I will read the full section. On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just a moment: In the first place, the time for the oral question period has expired. This is getting into a debate and I am in no position to rule on a legal matter.

An hon. member: This is not a debate.

Mr. S. Smith: It is a major issue.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: Remember Bill 99? It is the same thing.

Mr. Speaker: I can’t hear what you’re saying.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just a moment, please. I have just mentioned that this is developing into a debate, one member having a difference of opinion with another member. I am in no position rule one way or the other, nor should I be. If you have a point of order, that’s different.

Mr. Roy: I have a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr. Roy: My point of order, basically, Mr. Speaker, is that the Solicitor General, the law officer of the Crown, the Provincial Secretary for Justice -- he doesn’t deserve to have that title really --

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: -- says he’s prohibited from producing this order. I’m saying that the courts have ruled already that the order is a public document, and the section of the Code says this. I say he’s misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

An hon. member: Withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa East knows he may not make that charge; so I ask him, first of all, to withdraw it then I have a ruling to make.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: I am not withdrawing the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You must not make a statement like that and the hon. member knows it. I will await his statement now withdrawing his remark. Then I have a ruling to make.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, can I add a word to the point of order?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order. We will deal with this matter before the House right now.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I may say this to you, out of all respect for the Chair and the office you hold, this is one statement I’m not withdrawing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. It is with regret I must name the hon. member and ask him to withdraw for the rest of the day.

Mr. Roy: I appeal your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: There’s no appeal to that. No, there’s no appeal.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You already said --

Mr. S. Smith: We can appeal.

Interjections.

[Mr. Roy was escorted from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I just point out one other thing? According to our rules of procedure it’s quite clear that if any member is dissatisfied with the answer to a question, he has the right to raise the matter --

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you give him a hearing then?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. And to bring it to the attention of the Speaker before 4 p.m. in writing, which has been done already in the case of another --

Mr. Singer: Nonsense.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: Next Tuesday night?

Mr. Speaker: It can be debated on the following Tuesday in the normal way. When there’s a difference of opinion --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

This is the way this sort of matter should be handled and not put everybody in an embarrassing position such as this.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I’ll recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

POINTS OF ORDER

Mr. Lewis: I presume there will be many points of order. Mr. Speaker, on a point of order and expressing a matter of some personal frustration. In your view of these exchanges, when a member rises on a point of order as the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) did, to read something into the record which is then challenged, when he rises on the point of order again, would it not be appropriate to allow him on that occasion to read the entire section into the record so that those of us who participate in these matters in the House could understand what was at issue rather than cutting members off abruptly and leading to the kind of frustration which requires the naming of a member?

Mr. Breithaupt: I should like to speak to that point of order as well, Mr. Speaker, particularly because of the comments made by the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) which could have led certain members to believe that the failure to read the complete section necessarily negated the point of view of the member for Ottawa East.

Hon. Mr. Davis: His point of view, exactly.

Mr. Singer: Then why didn’t the Solicitor General read it?

Mr. Breithaupt: If a certain section of the Criminal Code or any other item is quoted --

Mr. Singer: He deliberately implied he wouldn’t follow through.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- either partially or because certain other items are added to that section --

Mr. Singer: Why didn’t you name him for imputing motives?

An hon. member: Why don’t you name him?

Mr. Breithaupt: -- the happier result for the benefit of the House, must be that the section is quoted and the matter can hopefully be resolved with common understanding of the initial point made by one member in a question or a minister in reply.

If that is attended to, we might be able to resolve these difficulties without allegations or insinuations being passed back and forth across the floor of this House due to incomplete information, which I might say may well be incomplete on both sides of the House on occasion.

The Chair would be much better served if that matter were allowed to be completed; then the House could proceed in a much more orderly fashion.

Mr. Speaker: I think both hon. members who spoke have a good point, but I would point out again it was developing into a debate which is not the order. However, I shall take that under advisement wherever possible. I’m sure we should --

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

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member not know the Speaker is still speaking?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Singer: If you want to name me, go ahead.

Mr. Speaker: All right, the hon. member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Singer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A part of the rules of this House says it is improper for a member to impute motives of another member. What happened here this afternoon was that the Solicitor General implied that my colleague from Ottawa East was misleading the House --

Some hon. members: No, no.

Mr. Singer: The implication was clear because he didn’t read the whole of the section of the Code. He said --

Interjections.

Mr. Singer: He said, Mr. Speaker, that he had the --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Singer: -- section of the Code in front of him. He was asked by several hon. members to read it. He refused to and you did not call him to order for imputing motives.

[Applause]

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

I’m sure the hon. Solicitor General did not accuse the hon. member of misleading the House.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order, he called him irresponsible.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No! Order please.

Very unfortunately that seems to be an accusation that goes back and forth across this floor far too often anyway.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Are you there to protect the members?

Mr. S. Smith: It is the most fundamental point.

Mr. Lewis: Would it be too much to ask, Mr. Speaker, to beg your indulgence and that of the House to ask the Solicitor General to read that section of the Criminal Code, just for one moment now?

Mr. Breithaupt: We would listen with rapt attention.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Somewhere along the line I might have an opportunity to reply to what’s been going on. I might say that I didn’t reply earlier --

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, you were on your feet, tell him to sit down.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. May I just have the floor? When there’s a difference of opinion as to what the section says and means and so on, I think the proper way to handle it is, as I suggested, that the hon. member would notify the Chair that he is not satisfied with the answer and next Tuesday night present it in a formal way and read whatever five minutes allows at that time --

Mr. Reid: The dice are loaded one way in this deal.

Mr. Speaker: -- because I’m not in a position to rule as to what the Act says or what its interpretation is at this time.

Mr. Sargent: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: First of all we have the point of order over here. Is there a point of order?

Mr. Sargent: The Chair has obviously goofed very badly here, and if you want to do justice, bring the member back in the House and have the thing ironed out right now.

Mr. Speaker: No, this is not the place. But thank you very much for the advice.

The hon. Solicitor General with a point of privilege.

POINTS OF PRIVILEGE

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The privilege, sir, that I wish to mention is simply this: That when I said that they didn’t read the whole section, I was quite prepared to read the entire section --

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you? He should be here.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The reason I didn’t read it, sir, is because there were interjections from the other side at that time --

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- you rose to your feet, sir, and I sat down.

Mr. Lewis: Please read it now for God’s sake. I beg of you, read it! I want to know what it says.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order please. On with the business of the House.

Petitions?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. Why are we so maniacally inflexible in this place? Will you not allow the Solicitor General to satisfy curiosity by reading the one crummy little section of the Code which has caused this whole -- please read it.

An hon. member: Not without Albert.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Lewis: What is it, holy writ?

Mr. Speaker: Not even mine.

Presenting reports.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Great example for the school kids.

Mr. Lewis: Are you prepared to lead us?

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The House leader of the government party interjected that we are setting a poor example for the school children.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: You are absolutely disgusting.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You know nothing about it.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Let me say this to that, because it says something about things here. Let me say something about this --

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: -- I feel that that particular interjection impugns my own reputation; and on a point of privilege let me say this: The confidentiality of a correspondence between a client and a lawyer is the fundamental upon which the system of justice in this province is based --

[Applause]

Mr. S. Smith: -- and if that is going to be refused and if the breach of that is to be termed merely undesirable, if that term is to be used and if my colleague from Ottawa East, who was attempting to bring the attention of the House to this --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: In the wrong way.

Mr. S. Smith: -- is to have his motivation impugned by the Solicitor General, then surely justice demands that he be returned to this room and that we be able to hear the entire matter settled once and for all.

[Applause]

Mr. Speaker: Order please. That matter has already been dealt with. I recognize the member for Sudbury.

Mr. Lewis: What about the school children?

[3:15]

REPORTS

Mr. Germa from the standing public accounts committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee recommends that it be empowered to consider expenditures for the year 1975-76 under The Ontario Home Buyers Grant Act, 1975.

Mr. Breaugh, in the absence of Mr. Lawlor, from the standing administration of justice committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Justice policy field be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977:

Justice Policy Field

Justice policy programme .................. $459,000

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. Deans: On a point of order -- I wonder if I might ask if the Premier (Mr. Davis) would listen for a moment as he is walking out the door: On Wednesday last the Premier indicated that he would make a statement some time this week with regard to the situation as it affects public health nurses in the province of Ontario. I don’t know why I believe so, but I understand the Premier may not be here tomorrow, and I wonder why we wouldn’t have had that statement by this time.

Mr. Speaker: I’m afraid I can’t be of any assistance to the hon. member, but it will be brought to his attention, I am sure.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. di Santo moved first reading of Bill 163, An Act to amend The Construction Safety Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to prevent accidents, and the amendments would require compulsory employer safety training, compulsory worker safety training and immediate inquests into all fatal accidents in the construction industry.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 139, An Act respecting Employees’ Health and Safety.

Mr. Samis: Now that the storm has temporarily abated, I suppose my remarks will seem very anti-climactic after the theatrics of what has just preceded this. But I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I have resisted the temptation and the pressure from the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Burr) to begin my remarks in the mother language of the two official languages of our country. I have been able to resist that pressure -- not tomorrow in the question period, though.

When we concluded the debate on Tuesday evening, I was referring to some of my concerns about section 9, which dealt specifically with people in non-unionized industries, plants, businesses and operations who had some sense of insecurity about their employment. Although the procedures are fairly clear in the proposed Act, I still have some concern about the time lag and the fact that many people may be scared or intimidated to pursue the matter, even though they are completely in the right.

In that regard, whatever the final form of this bill, I would hope the minister would ensure us that she will take all steps to make sure that all the employees and employers of Ontario are made extremely, and thoroughly aware of all the provision of this legislation. Even if it is good legislation, I have a fear that sometimes people won’t pursue it, if they don’t know what their rights are.

What comes to mind is a piece of legislation we had here last year, The Business Practices Act, which represented a considerable event in the whole field of protecting consumer rights. My guess is that if we were to go out of this chamber this afternoon we would find that 99 out of 100 citizens would have never heard of the Act, would have no idea what it is, and would not have any idea what rights they have guaranteed by that Act. Yet it was a very important piece of legislation. I would hope that the Minister of Labour would do something to make sure that this bill doesn’t end up in that category, because it’s too important to just pass a piece of legislation and then expect people to read about it.

I would hope she would send out information kits, people, caravans, films and whatever it may be into the communities in different regions of the province and have people go into the plants and the factories and have special meetings, so that the employees and the employers are made completely aware of their rights, the provisions and all the procedures. I think that’s crucial for the implementation and effectiveness of this bill.

Coming from a part of the province where many people do not totally understand everything in the English language, I would also urge upon the minister that in eastern Ontario, and in northern Ontario as well, that all notices, reports, meetings and anything of this sort be done in the two official languages of this country. For some people it’s not a privilege, and they shouldn’t have to ask for this, it’s their constitutional right. If we in Ontario, especially after the results of Monday, really believe in Confederation and the concept of partnership, I would hope, as we implement this Act at the local level, we would reflect our commitments to bilingualism and the true partnership that Canada represents.

One final point I would like to make again is the whole question of effectiveness which has been brought up by some of my colleagues earlier in the debate. When one takes something, for example, such as minimum wage legislation, many people know about the minimum wage, but how many really know about the provisions behind it and what enforcement there is of something which may be good in itself? If we don’t have sufficient enforcement, then obviously it’s not going to have much value at the local level and at the plant level among the individuals. I would hope that the minister would make adequate provisions for enforcement of all clauses of this legislation.

When this bill goes to committee, I would urge her not to knuckle under to any pressure, not to give in to anybody who argues on the basis of the dollar or the profit or of politics. Don’t water this bill down at all; stand firm. The bill may have some imperfections. The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has already pointed those out. I would hope that the minister would keep an open mind on the amendments being offered by the member for Nickel Belt. I feel that this bill is long, long overdue, but I do recognize it as a step forward.

Mr. Lane: I would like to make a few remarks on second reading of Bill 139, which brings in the recommendations set out by the Ham commission regarding employees’ health and safety. I’m very disappointed about what some of the members have been saying about this bill. I quote the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) who said on November 16, 1976: “I never thought I would be put in a position to accept the crumbs off the table of the minister, but in this instance we have to take these crumbs.”

Mr. Laughren: Some day we will get the table.

Mr. Lane: I say shame to this member. Sudbury people deserve a better member, one who would not be satisfied to accept crumbs. If he thinks that that’s all this bill contains he should have had guts enough to get up and vote against it.

Mr. Laughren: Are you encouraging that or suggesting that?

Mr. Lane: Earlier in his ramblings, he said that his leader and the NDP members from the Sudbury area, and the union officials, had caused the Ham commission to be set up in the first place. I would remind the member that the Ham commission was set up when we had a majority government. If they could cause these things to happen under those conditions, then why should they accept crumbs now that we have a minority government and the NDP are the official opposition?

Mr. Lupusella: Is this on the principle of the bill?

Mr. Samis: What took you so long?

Mr. Wildman: Why weren’t you out fighting for it?

Mr. Lane: Don’t worry, I was. The November 15 issue of the Sudbury Star contained an article that relates to a speech the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) made to the NDP convention in Saskatchewan last weekend. The article’s headline reads: “Lewis Sees Elliot Lake as a Town of Dead and Dying.” What a terrible image to give to the people of another province about one of the most thriving towns in northern Ontario. Elliot Lake is anything but dead or dying; it is very much alive and well. Once more, I, as a member, and the Elliot Lake people are proud of our town and we object very strongly to this type of a statement.

Mr. Wildman: We are proud of Gus Frobel more than you, John.

Mr. Lane: Members of the opposition are speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this bill. On one hand they are saying they are going to support it; on the other hand they are saying it’s no good. I think they should make up their minds.

Mr. Wildman: We said it was a step forward.

Mr. Lane: Personally, I say the bill goes a long way to implement the recommendations of the Ham commission.

Mr. Mackenzie: Positively radical.

Mr. Lane: I think it is a great step forward and I want to congratulate the minister on the bill. I think it’s very unfair that she must listen to criticisms about herself and her colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) because in my estimation both ministers have done and are doing a commendable job.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to intrude myself into the debate on second reading. I felt this legislation was so vital to labour relations in this province that it should go to committee at the earliest opportunity so that any amendments might be incorporated and so that at long last we might have appropriate legislation in this province.

However, it would seem there are those who are not too anxious to see it proceed quickly to the amendment stage. I would only say I am saddened at this, in view of the fact that it would appear that when our member (Mr. Haggerty) introduced amendments to The Mining Act in November, 1970, dealing with the mandatory appointment of committees of safety, that move was defeated by the combined effort of both the New Democratic Party and the Conservatives on a vote of 72 opposed to 18 in favour. I would have thought that perhaps at this point in time the opposition might have joined with us in our concern to see this legislation go forward.

I want also to speak briefly of my concerns. I had the occasion to meet with this minister and others in a discussion of the problems of lead pollution in the city of Toronto. At that point in time I was deeply concerned at what seemed to be, with respect, a rather incomplete answer to the problem of the employees in these firms and their ability, not because they were not capable, but because they couldn’t get the information upon which to base a decision as to the hazardous conditions in their particular field of occupation.

It was also pointed out at that time that not even the local board of health could get this information, and I think perhaps that may have come as a surprise to the minister herself, although she didn’t express that. I just took it from the general tone of the conversation. Surely it is important that the workers in our industrial plants, be they of whatever kind, at a time when we are moving into an area of increasing use of chemicals of which we do not have adequate knowledge, should at least be accorded every possible opportunity to be able to investigate their circumstances as fully as possible?

I recognize it is not within the principle of this bill to urge upon the minister the obligation of government to carry out adequate research in this field. I feel that as a result of her own experience in the medical field and what I believe to be her concern she would join with us in seeking ways and means to protect the workers to a much greater extent than they are protected under the principle of this bill at this point in time.

[3:30]

We cannot accept in our society that there are people who are working in conditions which are really unknown to them as to the hazard because they have no real measurement devices. I speak with a view to trying to bring forward the concerns which we feel in this particular area and to invite the minister to join with all of us in this House in trying to work out better research facilities in this area. I see she’s is nodding her head and I am delighted she is considering this. We must have committees which are able to go as far as they can in protecting the workers but we have an obligation in government, it seems to me, to ensure that those committees have access to the fullest information so that they can in turn assist those working in the plant.

I trust we may shortly move to any amendments we have and get this very-long-overdue and much-needed bill enacted.

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, Bill 139, would appear to deal with worker input into matters of health and safety in the work place, matters which for too long have been dealt with exclusively by management to the detriment of workers and the public of this province.

On reading sections 2 and 3, which attempt to ensure worker input, I can see that through the ambiguous wording, there will continue to be management intimidation and coverup.

In section 2, for example, the insertion of the word reasonable puts the onus regarding health and safety practices equally on the employee, right where it is now. In many cases, the workers who are confronted by safety hazards and dangerous work practices are junior members of the work force; intimidation and threats are tried and proved methods of keeping these people in line.

I would like to make a point here that most decisions regarding dangerous work practices are made at the worker-foreman level. The corporate board rooms rarely get involved.

A junior employee of limited experience under the terms of this clause is forced to make a decision against all the experience and knowledge of foremen and managers. I suggest the situation is too one-sided. Here is an example from yesterday’s Star to make the point. I am going to quote:

“Miner in wrong place when he was killed.

“Sudbury: Daniel Sirois, a shift boss at Inco Ltd.’s Frood mine, told a coroner’s jury yesterday that he did not know why David Cullen, 35, was working where he was when he was killed last April. The inquest is the second to investigate the death of the Sudbury miner killed while operating a scoop tram, an underground front-end loader. Sirois said yesterday he told Cullen to work near the mouth of the tunnel where the accident happened but not inside it.”

Dead men tell no tales and we will never know about this. What I am saying about unsafe conditions which people work in is that they are usually told to work there. So I don’t think you can go to the shift boss who sent you in there or has told you to follow a certain practice and say to him, “I think it’s unsafe.” You’re immediately going to have a confrontation when you do that, and that’s what this Act is saying.

I suggest that where a worker has cause -- and cause only, without the inclusion of the word “reasonable” -- to feel that a work situation presents a hazard or a danger, he should decide that the practice should stop immediately and report the situation to a safety representative who represents employees. If we really want to get worker input into safety, all responsibility will be given to employees and their representatives to decide what is safe and what is unsafe. This representative, in turn, will meet with the employer representative. Only in this manner can the employee be expected to make a responsible decision within the confines of his experience. This is the crux of the matter.

Safety should not be a matter of constant confrontation, a matter of who is right and who is wrong, a situation of “You do it or you get out,” but a matter of real concern for all those involved. Sections 2 and 3, as now written, leave the whole matter of confrontation untouched. Only a fresh and honest approach to assure an employee’s freedom and responsibilities towards safety matters is acceptable. The hedging in these clauses assures the continuing abuse by management representatives of the rights of workers to protect themselves.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I really didn’t intend to speak on Bill 139, but when I heard the NDP members to my right doing a lot of talking and leaving the impression that they are the only ones who are concerned about the welfare of the worker, I felt it was only responsible that we should have a few words on the bill.

Mr. Laughren: You are backfilling and protecting your flank.

Mr. G. I. Miller: You think so? I’d just like to point out that as an employee, when I used to employ myself, I wished many times that we’d had health and safety standards we could have applied to the work we had to do. We often had to get up into a hay mow when we were blowing in dry hay, and we had to make sure everything was running okay -- I don’t know, those fellows to my right would probably have disappeared.

Mr. Ruston: That’s right. They would have been long gone.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Or if they had to ride the combine in that dusty clover field and live in that dust while they combined all day, I think they would have had second thoughts too.

Mr. Laughren: Do you think we’re physically inferior?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) does not have the floor. Will the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) ignore the interjections and speak to the principle of the Bill 139?

Mr. G. I. Miller: I certainly am getting around to that point, Mr. Speaker. I thank you again for the privilege of speaking on the bill. I was just trying to point out what we, as employees who employed ourselves, had to contend with for many years.

Getting back to the bill, I feel it is a good bill. My colleagues have spoken on it and I think it is a step in the right direction. The only thing I’m concerned about is section 4(6), setting up the committee, which says they should meet four times a year or not more often than once a month. Meeting four times a year perhaps is proper, but meeting on a once-a-mouth basis maybe is not often enough in some instances or circumstances. Perhaps there should be some reconsideration given to that portion.

The other area of my concern is section 7, regarding notices in languages that the employees can understand. I think we’re all aware of the fact that we have many languages to contend with now and I think we want to make sure that the employees aren’t taken advantage of. I know the French language is an issue at the present time, and that should be a consideration, but I don’t feel it is necessary if there is not a predominance or a French issue in the area that is involved. I do feel, however, that the employees should be notified properly so that they can be made aware and have their rights taken care of.

The last point I would like to speak on is the fact that I am happy to see that it is at least 50 per cent made up of employees. Maybe another concern is how many members will be on the committee. I don’t know if that is spelled out clearly or not. I think we also have to be responsible to the employer. I would hope that the employees would not take advantage just for a stop-work order, and I think there should be some responsibility on behalf of the employees to their employer that they’re not utilizing it to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the employer. That point has to be reckoned with.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on this bill, Bill 139, and to begin with I want to say that this bill is one step in the right direction, and this has been said over and over again by every member of the New Democratic Party who has spoken. It is a step in the right direction but, of course, like any bill that the government produces, it doesn’t go far enough to save the lives of workers in the mines or on the job sites.

One of the things that I’m reminded of is that the record of this government in terms of the legislation to protect workers on the job site is, to say the least, dismal; to say the least, a failure. When we take a look at the man-days lost through accidents on the job because of poor conditions, or lack of safety conditions on the job, we find out that the number of man-days lost is approximately 30 per cent higher -- as a matter of fact, 33 per cent higher to be exact -- than the man-days lost due to strikes and lockouts. It’s incredible, really incredible, and the press, whenever there’s a strike, puts it on the front pages as if the end of the world has come, but when men, every day, are dying on the job, nothing is being said. Nothing is being said.

One of the things that really flabbergasted me when I came into this Legislature the first time that I heard it, was the fact that 9,000 chemical compounds enter the work place every year and we know something about only one-third of those compounds in terms of the reactions, in terms of the fumes and what those fumes do to the lungs of workers. It’s incredible in an adult world that supposedly should be geared to logic, somewhat to logic, we find employers are toying with the lives of workers by putting in those chemicals which we know nothing about. I really find that disturbing; a very disturbing fact.

I can understand an 11- or 12-year-old boy or girl playing around with their chemistry sets at home and not understanding the chemical compounds and the dangers that might ensue from these chemical compounds as a result of the chemical combination, but to find out that it’s happening in the factories, to find that it is happening on job sites, is something that really astounds me. I just don’t understand it. I don’t understand how that is allowed to go on.

I say I don’t understand it in terms of my emotive senses, but I do understand it in terms of the profit component that that kind of mentality produces. In other words, if we use these cheap chemicals we can clean the parts of the machinery a lot faster at less cost, and who cares about the life of a worker.

Mr. Kerrio: We all do. Who are you kidding?

[3:45]

Mr. Grande: The whole mentality of the Workmen’s Compensation Board speaks exactly to that principle -- the worker gets hurt on the job; once he’s hurt we will compensate him -- instead of going to the philosophy, to the beginning and saying, “What are the reasons for a worker getting hurt? Let’s get rid of the cause and we will lessen the number of accidents which happen on the job.”

Of course, everything is in the reverse order. This Workmen’s Compensation Board might have been a fantastic idea in 1915 but certainly this year -- let me say to the minister that I speak as the result of experience I’ve had with it in the last year and not before -- as a result of that experience I must say that changes must be coming as fast as possible within that complex. Otherwise we are going to have thousands and thousands more people injured on the job.

We’ll say, “Sure, we will compensate them once they’re hurt.” By that time it is too late. The frustration of these workers is almost reaching a peak and the minister is going to be forced to change the Workmen’s Compensation Board. She is going to do it.

I want to go back to that philosophy which in essence is the principle of this bill. That is that whenever there are accidents at the work place or on the job site and whenever there is any threat to the lives of workers, all we do is change the worker so that the worker can fit the environment and thereby do the productive job he’s supposed to be doing. That’s exactly what happens. We put masks on workers and say, “Work with a mask because that will protect you from the environment, from the conditions of work.”

If I’m allowed to digress for just a couple of sentences. I hear repeatedly, over and over again that we do exactly the same thing with the educational system. We say “We will change the child to the system.” It’s the same mentality. That’s the point that I’m trying to make -- it’s the same type of mentality.

The government tries to change the individual to fit the environment rather than changing the environment so that the individual can work and live in a secure place, knowing full well that after eight hours of work he can go back to his family with some security, instead of after five years, two years or 20 years, contracting all sorts of diseases which will destroy that worker.

As I have said and I will repeat, this legislation is the first step but let the minister not forget that even this first step is 10 years too late. It took the Ham commission report to wake up the government to the need. It didn’t realize the need before otherwise it would have brought in this legislation five years ago. But it didn’t do it. The Tories need that motivation so they can go to businesses and employers in the mines and say, “We’ve got to act. The pressure upon us it too great. We’ve got to do something tangible, something concrete, something visible.”

Don’t let anybody think the government did this because it understands the conditions on the job or understands the kind of frustrations the workers are going through. It understands the conditions of the worker on Workmen’s Compensation so it is trying to change the conditions of work so that will not take place.

The Tories did it because the Ham commission said, “For too long these hazards on the job have existed, especially in the mines. You’ve got to do something about it. You’ve got to change the situation.” This provides the excuse for the Tories to say to the employer, “Now we must act.”

Let me end this, because I hadn’t planned on speaking for more than two or three minutes. That particular amendment which I am sure we are going to be presenting, of making these committees mandatory, is most -- as a matter of fact, it is mandatory that it gets done. The only way the worker can really have any security whatsoever that the working condition is going to be changing is if the committee is mandatory and not at the discretion of the employer.

Mr. Bain: Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party feel a certain amount of reluctance to speak, each of us --

Mr. Kerrio: Reluctance?

Mr. Bain: -- because members may feel we are overstating the case. I rise, as my colleagues have risen, not to speak for myself --

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s reluctance.

Mr. Bain: -- but to speak for the miner that I knew as a child, whom I watched in his rocking chair wheeze out the last days of his life, or for the man working in the bush who was forced to work under conditions that could do nothing but lead eventually to a crippling accident. I rise to speak for all the young miners who are in the mines today in their thirties who are already becoming deaf. I rise to speak for the workers in Ontario and all the workers in my riding who have the right to expect and have had the right to expect for a long time that they be accorded what I feel is a basic democratic right, or should have been a basic democratic right, to have safe working conditions. That has been a right that this government has not accorded them, lo these many years.

Bill 139 looks to be a good bill. It looks as if it will accomplish some of the basic things that are essential, such as co-ordinating the enforcement of basic standards by putting that enforcement under the jurisdiction of one ministry, which is something we have been requesting in this party for quite some time. It looks as if it will do a job because it gives the worker the right to refuse to work in unsafe conditions.

I say “it looks” because we see many examples in this province and in this House, where the Minister of Labour actually makes statements in this House that are anti-labour. One cannot help but conclude that when the minister in her heart sees a circumstance, she does not immediately bound to the floor in the defence of working people in this province.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You are deaf.

Mr. Bain: Too often I have seen her rise in this House to defend the mandarins and the bureaucrats in the vertical -- or is it horizontal? -- files of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, when an injustice is brought to her attention or when the Compensation Board refuses, as it did a few years ago, to compensate for silicosis -- eventually it did -- or when it now refuses to compensate for cancer of the throat brought on by asbestosis, or when it refuses -- and I don’t have the case in front of me -- to compensate for bronchogenic carcinoma. Forgive me, I’m not a medical doctor and I don’t have the phrase right in front of me.

The reason I hesitated over the phrase is it doesn’t make any sense to me. I have a case presently before the Compensation Board where the doctor himself has written to the board saying it doesn’t matter whether it’s silicosis or bronchogenic carcinoma or whatever it is, the condition of this man was brought about because he worked in the mine, and anybody in the medical profession would agree. I don’t see why we’ve had all the problems over the years of trying to pigeonhole people who have been put in a position where they contract diseases because of their work place, trying to pigeonhole them into some category so they will collect compensation. In reality, all that has been done is that the Compensation Board has succeeded in denying them compensation that they had every right to expect.

The Compensation Board, to my way of thinking, has been a shining example of what has been wrong with this government’s attitude when it comes to working people. I had a situation again where a doctor prescribed a particular drug for leg cramps that were brought about by a compensable injury, and there the wrangling going back and forth between him and the Compensation Board doctors --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What principle of this bill is the hon. member relating to?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Section 3?

Mr. Bain: I’m relating it to the whole position of working people in this province, and the Compensation Board, in fact, is mentioned in this bill, in one of the sections. But simply to conclude on the Compensation Board, the doctor in question was finally forced into a position where he had to accept a particular drug prescribed by the Compensation Board as opposed to the drug that he felt was best, simply so the worker could collect the charge for such a drug. That kind of thing is totally ridiculous.

The position that I come to with this bill, as I said earlier, is that it appears it will do some good. But I’m afraid the only way this bill will do any good is if there are a lot of New Democrats in this House to see that it’s enforced. Why would I say that? Because I look at an example that’s happened in my own riding, I look at an example of this government’s supposed concern and the way it has gone about enforcing health standards.

Mr. Kerrio: Better do it now, because you are not going to have as many next time.

Mr. Bain: I am sure the minister is familiar with the situation at United Asbestos. Suffice to say that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), who was in charge of the mines engineering branch -- which will now be moved to this ministry under section 12 of this particular bill -- stated on February 25:

“United Asbestos, far from having the worst conditions yet, they were the best conditions yet in United Asbestos at Matachewan.”

That reassures us. This was the man -- now this minister will be replacing him -- who is responsible for enforcing work safety in the mines of this province. He speaks out, we are reassured. He had in his possession at that time reports that had been made as early as the fall of 1975, which indicated that the conditions at United Asbestos were deplorable, in fact the worst that the writer of the occupational health protection branch report had seen anywhere. He had those reports, yet he did nothing about them.

He paraded bravely in this House and elsewhere as the defender of corporate interests. Finally, on the workers themselves, I must tell the minister that workers in northern Ontario do not have the same opportunities as people in the south. Jobs are few and far between and often they are forced into a position where they have to accept poor working conditions because they know there are not other jobs for them to go to.

This was a situation with the men who were working at Matachewan. I grew up near Matachewan and I saw that community when two gold mines closed; people were thrown out of work, 8,500 people were left without any economic base. The people in Matachewan not only left to find employment elsewhere, they literally took their homes with them on the floats of trucks as they left.

So everyone realized when United Asbestos went to Matachewan that this was important. Those same men who needed those jobs so desperately went out on strike in the beginning of April, and what did they demand? They simply demanded that they would be able to go back into the work place --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must remind the hon. member that every member in this House could bring out examples of where this bill might apply to a specific incident in his or her riding. It’s not the practice in this House to give specific examples but to speak to the principle of this bill.

Mr. Bain: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your recommendations and your admonitions, but I would remind the Speaker that there is no point in us passing any bill in this House unless it’s going to apply to the people in all of our ridings and protect the workers in all of our tidings.

[4:00]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If you want to get into specifics, there will be an opportunity during the committee stage of the bill.

Mr. Bain: I was about to mention that finally these men went out because they wanted only to go back into the work place and help clean it up. The company, of course, wouldn’t do that. Finally, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) had to get involved, and at that time he finally came around to saying that the attitude of the executives of United Asbestos was unbelievable. Why didn’t he take that position earlier? Why didn’t he admit that the executives of that company had a poor attitude? Why didn’t he, from the very beginning, ensure that the mine was safely set up --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Obviously the member didn’t heed my original admonition. It wasn’t a recommendation. I was insisting that you stick to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Bain: Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill deals with such things -- I could recite them if you would like me to, Mr. Speaker, but I won’t do that for you; I know that you --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am well aware of the principles involved in this bill.

Mr. Bain: I am glad that you are and I am glad that you appreciate the importance of this bill; but this bill, like almost any other bill, has to be enforced. One of the sections of the bill, section 9, mentions that there will be no reprisals. This is an area where the ministry is going to have to be very diligent, because I am sure the minister will appreciate that having something written on a piece of paper does not mean the companies will abide by it.

I hope the minister will see that there are sufficient people in her ministry to enforce the provisions of this Act and safety in general. I am sure that people in the mines engineering branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources will tell the minister that one of the reasons they were so handicapped in enforcing their concern about mine safety was that they never had enough people to get around to all the mines; they could only deal with flash fire areas when they became well known to the people of the province through the media. The minister is going to have to make a real effort to see that these sections of this Act are stringently and rigorously enforced.

The Act itself is a step in the right direction. It doesn’t go far enough, of course, in implementing the recommendations of the Ham commission. Something that I believe is most important is that we have to establish a way of tracking the people who have worked in mines. There has to be a continuous record kept of them. Examples have already been cited -- the sinter plant at Inco in Sudbury and other plants around this province -- where neither management nor anyone else really knows who has worked there; so it’s impossible to contact these people and advise them they should be seeking medical assistance to make sure they haven’t contacted any diseases that can be traced to their original place of employment. That was a recommendation of the Ham commission, and I hope it’s one the minister will implement very shortly.

I am sure the minister will have the support of this party in her efforts -- and I hope there are efforts on her part -- to rigorously enforce this and really become, in her own cabinet, the spokesman for working people. When an issue is presented in this House, she shouldn’t react on the side of the companies but on the side of the working people; and if on occasion she should err on the side of working people, I am sure no one in this province would ever hold that against her.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this very important legislation. I will be very brief, but there are comments that are important for me to make.

There are those in this House who would suggest that there is only one party interested in the worker and his well-being. I would like to say that’s not quite true. When I stand in this House, I am very concerned about the worker and the work place, but I think there are many more responsibilities that some of the other people don’t identify with.

We in the Liberal Party feel very strongly about representing all people in this province, whether they be workers or employers. This is the role of the government. I think that’s what true government is all about, that they will keep the broader spectrum open and that when there is something that should be supported they will support it diligently and not attempt to make it appear that there’s only one party in this House that is interested in the worker.

They know that is not true and I would bring this to the members’ attention. I think this is a very valid point -- having been a worker, having been an employer, and maybe having come from that small business spectrum that isn’t even talked about here -- the responsibility to those people who have to make things pay. Yes, they say, things go strictly down to the economy of the situation. I don’t think that’s quite true. I think such broad statements are what makes the credibility of what they’re suggesting very untrue.

I think we must realize that all of us have a heavy responsibility, when we try to train the worker to be a safer worker we are doing it for his own good, and when we attempt to have safety meetings and have those employers attend those safety meetings and make it incumbent on them that the work place is as safe as they can make it, that’s part of our responsibility.

Some can say this legislation should have come 10 years ago. They could say it should have come 200 years ago, when they took 12-year-old children in the mines. We are all aware of that, but I say this bill is a good bill and we are going to support it. The Liberal Party has one great difference from the socialists and that is that we have a broad responsibility, and when I stand on this floor, I say that I represent that broad responsibility and I think they should do the same.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few comments to make with regard to the bill. I am always interested in listening to the Liberal Party members speak of their responsibility. Methinks they doth protest too much. They seem compelled to point out their purity in the matter. I don’t think we need to do that, since what we have done is self-evident to most people in the province of Ontario.

I think it’s sad that we have to pass bills like this. I think it’s a sad commentary on the state of the civilization that we live in that we have to ensure by law that safety and health will take precedence over the accumulation of wealth. That’s what’s happening.

I have been concerned, I think for almost all of my adult life and certainly for some of my pre-adult life, with the health and safety of workers. I have been concerned about it because I watched an old man die, and when my colleague from Timiskaming (Mr. Bain) spoke of seeing this happen, I want to say to the minister that I can recall the discussions that I had with my grandfather, who was a miner, who worked in intolerable conditions, who died prematurely because of the conditions that he had to work in, and I won’t recite them here today because obviously they don’t apply exactly in this day and age as they did in that day.

Oh, they did apply in this country too. In fact, the conditions that he spoke of are not really that terribly unlike the conditions that many people in the province of Ontario face on a day-to-day basis, given that we have now moved some 80 years from the time that he first started in the mines. But in other areas of the economy we have moved much more rapidly. We have developed all kinds of sophisticated machinery for production purposes. We have developed all kinds of sophisticated apparatus for the movement of people and things. We have even developed new procedures for legislative debates -- though it wasn’t evident this afternoon -- but for some reason or other we have, and we have done that fairly rapidly. We can send a man to the moon now --

Mr. Kerrio: We have to have a protective suit, Ian.

Mr. Deans: -- and we consider it a priority. Yet the truth of the matter is that when we send that man to the moon we take every single precautionary step to ensure that his or her -- in this case up to now it’s been his -- well-being and person are protected throughout to the maximum degree. That’s done under public scrutiny; people watch it every minute of the day and they see it happening. Yet we don’t seem to be able to understand in a reasonably civilized way that there are a great number of conditions which currently exist in industry and in the mines, particularly, which are inhuman, which are hazardous, which have been dangerous and have affected the lives and the economic wellbeing of many people across this province, and which needed to be changed many years ago.

I put it in that way because, like everyone else, I am always glad when a bill comes forward which attempts to correct some injustice or some hazardous situation. But let me tell members that we have legislation in the province of Ontario at the moment. We have The Mines Safety Act -- page after page of direction with regard to the safety of miners; much of it ignored. We have The Construction Safety Act, again page after page of supposed protection for people in the construction industry; much of it ignored.

I had the occasion to be part of the committee dealing with the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I heard from the industrial safety branch about its inspections -- this was two and a half to three years ago -- about its inspection procedures and the kind of conditions which prevail through much of industry in the province of Ontario, much of it, if not all of it, in direct violation of the law.

Simply passing this law isn’t going to change in any way the conditions people find themselves in. It isn’t. What will change those conditions is how the government enforces this law. If it enforces this law in the same way as it has enforced the other safety laws, it won’t work. If it is going to have inspectors phoning ahead and telling the company they’ll be dropping by to make an inspection tomorrow or next week, as has been happening right across this province for years, then let me tell the House that all of the good intentions and all of the importance of this legislation will be lost.

The minister can’t tell me from her place in this Legislature that it is a coincidence that workers are told on a particular day to go and clean up and get things put away in their proper place, to clear the floors and reduce the dust levels. Then, just by accident, the inspector drops by the following day or the day after that. If the minister tells me that’s a coincidence, I tell her that’s nonsense. That has been happening across this province.

I’ll tell her more than that. There are violations day after day in construction which will and have cost people their lives and caused others considerable aggravation and pain. The inspection procedures are virtually non-existent.

Mr. Kerrio: I’ve never had notice.

Mr. Deans: It’s extremely difficult. I’ll take the minister and let her speak to people working in the industry --

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is not true.

Mr. Kerrio: I have never had notice.

Mr. Deans: She can say -- I don’t care; I’m not sensitive to that.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member will continue speaking to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Deans: I’ll take her and let her see people who work in the industry and they’ll tell her about it. I don’t understand what kind of enclosed, protected environment she lives in that she never comes into contact with the people I come into contact with. I don’t understand that.

I know them. I deal with them working in construction on a day to day basis. They have complained repeatedly, time after time, about the conditions, particularly about the elevators put in on the construction sites which are supposed to raise and lower materials and persons.

Mr. Grande: Do you believe the workers?

[4:15]

Mr. Deans: It’s a matter of who you believe, I suppose, and what you consider to be a violation and what you consider to be a hazard.

My worry about it is this, in any event. The law itself, like a lot of laws, can be full of good intentions. This law’s filled with good intentions and I agree -- and I support it. But what I really want to see is how you make it work.

If the minister is going to leave it up to the decisions of individuals, companies or employees, whether there will be safety committees formed, then she’s going to find that by a very careful coercive measure that has gone on for years -- it’s called fear of the loss of one’s job -- that many of the hazards and many of the problems that have been in existence and in evidence for as long as I’ve been involved in the work force will continue. Because, you see, a worker is never fired for complaining about an unsafe situation. It’s three or four months later that his services are no longer required and, of course, it’s extremely difficult then to prove the reasons why. That’s what I’m concerned about in terms of the application of the Act.

I think the minister has to be sure that there are mandatory safety committees. I think she has to be sure that those committees have the maximum amount of strength, that they are given every conceivable source of information with regard to safety and the hazards that are involved in health in order that they can do the job well. There has to be an ongoing flow of information to them about new materials, about new liquids, about new coolants, about what they should look for in terms of symptoms of illness and health problems in order that they can make an accurate assessment. I hope the minister is going to do that. I hope she is going to do that because that’s what’ll make it work adequately.

Let me go on just a moment just to say to the minister that if it works well and if we identify the hazardous areas then we can’t arrive at a saw-off; there can be no compromise. The safety and the health of the people of the province of Ontario, working in whatever area, must be the primary consideration.

We can’t accept the argument that “we would like to fix that up but we can’t afford it,” because if it’s going to be an economic argument that we can’t fix it up and so therefore it has to be allowed to continue for a period of time, then what you’re really doing is saying that those people’s lives can be played around with and we can’t afford to have that happen. I’m not suggesting the minister said it, I’m suggesting we have to be careful not to do that.

On top of that, we have to make some very fundamental changes to the Workmen’s Compensation Board and to the methods now being used to assess -- I say to the minister, it’s very much related to this bill, very much related to it. We have to make very fundamental changes to the way in which the Compensation Board performs its function.

We can’t afford to have people waiting for such extended periods of time for their payments and the reason is this. If a worker is off either through accident or illness and has to wait for eight or 10, or 12, or 16 weeks in order that an assessment be made, an investigation take place, a judgement be forthcoming and then finally a cheque arrive, the next time that worker is faced with the same situation he will choose not to report it because he can’t afford it; economically he can’t survive.

That’s why the minister has to make some changes. She is going to have to authorize on-the-spot immediate inspection by the local officers where they exist and, where they don’t exist, she’s going to have to make sure that there are a sufficient number of inspectors available to go out on one day’s notice to job sites where there are questions being asked about their safety as a result of an accident. An immediate assessment must be made with regard to whether or not that particular situation the worker finds himself or herself in is related directly to employment or to the health hazard and therefore is justifiably a compensable accident or incident.

There are so many subtle ways of making sure that the workers are placed in such jeopardy that they themselves, are not able to stand up for the very thing which will protect their own health and their own lives. That’s where the minister really has to put her emphasis.

Her emphasis must be on inspection and ensuring that there are committees established right across the province and that the Compensation Board is reoriented -- that its thinking is reoriented so that it reverts to the position it once took, that where there was a doubt, the doubt was found in favour of the injured worker.

That hasn’t been in application in this province for the last three years. That’s very unfortunate. People in this province working for wages and salaries in the main don’t earn sufficiently high wages or salaries in order to be able to withstand two or three months without pay. It is quite common now in dealing with the Workmen’s Compensation Board that that happens -- two to three months; eight to 12 weeks.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Give me some numbers so I can investigate.

Mr. Deans: I’ve done that. Go to the board. I’ve been up there with them.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Don’t give them to the board; give them to me.

Mr. Laughren: I’d be glad to.

Mr. Deans: We’ll give them to you.

Mr. Laughren: You reject them anyhow. What is the sense of giving them to you?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps we can --

Mr. Deans: But I want the minister to know -- this is right on the bill.

Mr. Acting Speaker: -- cease debating the Workmen’s Compensation Board’s deficiencies or inefficiencies and get on with the second reading.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I’m glad you raised it in that way because I know you and I share the concerns which will flow from workers not being able to have this Act administered in the way in which we intended because they are under severe financial hardship. You have raised it with me yourself so I know we share it.

I want to say that these are the subtle ways in which the Act will be circumvented. If the minister can’t enforce the existing Acts, which she can’t; if she allows the land of economic pressures which are currently being allowed in the province to avoid compensable accidents; if she continues to allow employers to give workers light work rather than report accidents so that the hazardous situations don’t come to her attention, she is never going to be able to clean up the work place in a way which will provide adequate protection for people.

I think this Act should be considered in conjunction with the other Acts to see exactly where they all fit together. I think, more than that, she has to recognize one thing. If she comes to a decision, however she comes to it, that a work place is so hazardous that people cannot work there, there has to be an absolutely clear and unequivocal guarantee that the employees don’t suffer economically as a result of that decision. In the province of Ontario retraining and rehabilitation programmes must be set up and in place and working to guarantee that they will be able to maintain themselves and their families with some dignity.

That’s why I keep asking the question about the minister’s Manpower policies; it is very much a responsibility of the Minister of Labour. If she doesn’t have all these things in place then this Act, with all its good intentions, isn’t going to fill the bill and isn’t going to protect the people in the way we in this Legislature hoped it would.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I confess it is with some gratitude that I rise finally to participate in this debate. I had anticipated that there would be strong support and therefore some limitation upon the length of debate but I gather there is some concern that authorship of this bill shall be shared within the House. I would like the members to know that I have absolutely no hesitation in suggesting that there are perhaps 125 authors of this bill. Pride of authorship is certainly not my primary concern.

In contrast to some of my hon. colleagues who have participated in this debate, I shall attempt to keep my remarks tightly related to the principles of the bill. I may digress a little but I promise you that I shall not become quite so tangential as some of those who have participated.

I don’t possess as many years’ experience in this Legislature as some of my colleagues and I am not therefore capable of dredging up from memory long past debates demonstrating either lack of resolve or change of position, or flip-flops, or whatever one would like to call them. Nor did my work experience in a number of jobs in this province -- jobs long before I became a physician -- and in my job as a physician as well, instil in me either the urge to be cynical about human beings in Ontario or to stratify Canadian society.

I do not relegate some citizens to lesser status. Unlike some others perhaps in this Legislature, the members of the government of Ontario believe that in this province there are no classes of citizens, that all people are equally important, whether they work on the production lines --

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bain: Did you ever hear of John Homer?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- whether they work on the farm, in the mine, on the construction site, in the general office or in the executive suite, they are all equally important citizens of this province.

Mr. Conway: Even if they are Tories.

Hon. B. Stephenson: And in spite of the irrelevance and vitriol contained in much of the hyperbole ventilated in this chamber, the government of this province has within the limits of current knowledge and generally accepted standards maintained throughout the years a concern for occupational safety and health at a level unsurpassed by any other jurisdiction -- any other. If any member here present or not present, as I notice many are not --

Mr. Deans: Behind you as well.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- is able to produce a statistical record from any country or any province relevant to workers’ health or safety which is consistently superior to that of Ontario, I think he or she should do it and do it immediately.

Mr. Deans: Why shouldn’t we care?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Because it is not possible to do so.

Mr. Deans: Why shouldn’t we care about that?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is capricious, your argument, it is callous and it is unworthy of those who have never been required to assume full responsibility and accountability for their words and deeds to indulge in deliberate emotional manipulation of issues which must be resolved with the best possible combination of factual information, humanity, wisdom based upon knowledge and experience.

Any individual agency or institution charged with public responsibility and accountability must base its decisions and its actions upon valid, supportable evidence --

Mr. Grande: How much money do you want to spend?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and information garnered through critical evaluation of all available scientifically valid research of the problem involved.

Such has been, and I believe must continue to be, the policy of this government if it is to act responsibly in the area of health and safety. As we all know one swallow doth not a summer make. And one statement by one researcher or one study by one scientist doth certainly not a factual truism make in regard to safety and health.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Stephenson: While I have no wish to denigrate the efforts of any single concerned scientist, the research carried out must be soundly based. It must be meticulously and ethically executed --

Mr. Bain: “Soundly” means we agree with you.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and the conclusions drawn must be logically developed. Then the study must be subjected to the critical examination of all those equally expert in that field for denial or support --

Interjection.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and subsequent examination, duplication and validation. The members of this House should know that the studies mentioned by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis), the one from Dr. Morgan, has not as yet received that support and validation as a result of the assessment of Dr. Morgan’s peers and Dr. Selikoff has not as yet subjected his major study to the process of critical evaluation by his peer group --

Mr. Bain: If Columbus had waited for you he would never had landed in America.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- which contains many scientists equally gifted and expert in the field. However, Mr. Speaker, I would say to you and to the members of this House that both of these physicians are serving both science and society well by alerting all of us to existing and potential hazards. They are, along with others, stimulating at least some of the research activity vitally needed in this very difficult and increasingly important area.

For that, I believe all of us owe to them and to all of the other highly qualified experts throughout the world a major debt of gratitude.

But the bill that we are dealing with today does not deal with the past. It deals with the present and the future. Bill 139, as I have said repeatedly, is an important first step in our --

Mr. Grande: You work in a vacuum, don’t you?

[4:30]

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- active initiatives to improve the quality of working life in the province of Ontario. It is also supplementary to the existing Industrial and Construction Safety Act, in which the responsibility of the employer to provide a safe work place is already defined, and the enforcement procedures and plans and programmes are established.

This bill is an interim measure designed to increase the involvement of the worker in matters of work place health and safety; to encourage the assumption of personal responsibility of individual workers; to provide for improved channels of communication between employers and employees in health and safety matters; to increase and broaden access to relevant, factual information; and to protect the worker who exercises his or her health and safety responsibility prudently and judiciously.

It is also to consolidate within the Ministry of Labour responsibility for the appropriate parts of The Mining Act and The Silicosis Act. By passage of this legislation the Ministry of Labour will be responsible for all policies and programmes of the provincial government aimed at ensuring the health and safety of persons within their work environment. At the same time, I should tell members that at the direction of the government an extensive review is being made of The Mining Act at this time. The Construction Safety Act and The Industrial Safety Act have been undergoing a review with the express purpose of introducing a comprehensive statute for all employees in the province of Ontario.

At the beginning of the next session the government will introduce a comprehensive occupational health and safety statute which will formally establish, in the Ministry of Labour, an occupational health and safety authority responsible for the health and safety of all employees in the province of Ontario.

The legislation will contain all of the powers and the responsibilities necessary to effect such an important mandate. As a first step, as members all know and, Mr. Speaker, you are very much aware, the government has already appointed the assistant deputy minister under whom the authority will be constituted, Dr. Rodney May.

I want this House to understand that the government is firmly committed to meeting the twin needs for greater openness and greater employee participation in matters of health and safety and the development of a well-considered internal responsibility system in which labour and management can cooperate fully to control occupational hazards. Combined with these objectives the government wants to provide the most effective external evaluation system possible.

Members can appreciate that the implementation of these principles entails complicated and really rather massive changes to existing legislation which is now in the form of at least four separate statutes. I’m sure, Mr. Speaker, you will agree that this is much too important a task to be hastily undertaken if Ontario is to have the most up to date institutional framework possible.

Quite clearly, some time for thoughtful deliberation should be permitted to the development of this legislation. Any comprehensive statute must, I think, embrace not only the broad principles emphasized by Dr. Ham and his commission and those persons and organizations who appeared before it but, as well, the technical considerations and practical language required to respond to the new technology and the work practices which have been developed in recent years and will continue to evolve and change.

As many members of this House are aware, the Ministry of Labour undertook, as I suggested earlier, a review of The Industrial Safety Act and The Construction Safety Act, beginning last February. As a matter of fact, as a result of that activity the proposals which are contained in Bill 139 were developed in the late spring and early summer for presentation to this session of the House. Because Dr. Ham’s report coincided with the time at which we wished to make these amendments to The Industrial and Construction Safety Acts, we felt that when the Ministry of Labour became responsible for mine safety and for the health and safety of miners it would be appropriate to introduce similar additions to part IX of The Mining Act so that all our health and safety laws would be kept in step while we await the introduction of the omnibus statute.

These proposed amendments to our health and safety legislation, as members are aware, will allow for the formation of labour-management. We feel that it would be an error to destroy the relationship which has been developed in those committees, by introducing legislation which would make it mandatory to set up a committee of specific size and structure to meet the legislation which we develop.

The reasons for which these committees should be set up will be available to us through complaints by workers, through our inspection programme which is an excellent programme indeed, and through the statistics which we will be receiving from our improved data system. We have deliberately introduced the concept that when we have any cause to suspect that there is a need for a health and safety committee, no matter what the size of the industrial establishment or the institution, that committee will be set up according to the format prescribed by the ministry and so it can be monitored in a regular manner to ensure that it is serving its purpose.

The amendments also allow the right of an employee to refuse to perform work where he has reasonable grounds for doing so. I would remind the members of this House that that right has been enshrined within The Industrial Safety Act and The Construction Safety Act since 1971. There has been protection for the worker in the organized situation but none for the worker in the unorganized situation. The additional amendments to provide the worker with that protection have been included in this Act.

There is also within the Act a requirement for the mandatory publication of inspection reports and official directions in all places where investigations and inspections have been carried out. In this way the information which all of the workers require will be available to them immediately following the inspection procedure and they will be able to monitor the actions of the employer.

The right of an employee, without loss of wages, to accompany an inspector during a physical inspection of the work place and to full consultation during the inspection process is enshrined in these amendments. Finally, there is a provision for annual summaries of all of the work injury statistics for that specific work place to be published within the work place for all of the employees to see.

I want to emphasize that these proposals are based on the assumption that effective solutions to the health and safety issues of our work places cannot centre totally on providing more inspectors and more penalties. That assumption, I would remind the members of this House, is shared by the Ham commission. The vast number of work situations and the complex sets of human and technical factors which cause accidents mean that government inspection activity can only be a part of the solution -- an important part but only a part. Much of the responsibility must rest with management and with labour for, as Dr. Ham observed, one of the major prospects for reducing the adverse human consequences of accidents lies in increasing the commitment and the capacity of all persons in the organization to detect and to correct anomalies of operation which contribute to accidents and industrial disease.

Before you, Mr. Speaker, is Bill 139, the interim legislation. To suggest that this legislation is or that it should be at this time all-encompassing or totally comprehensive is ludicrous. To suggest that any specific party within this House possesses primary interest in occupational health and safety or that one party has more insight than any other, is more acutely concerned than any other or is more knowledgeable about the problems inherent in this field, Mr. Speaker, I tell you, is meretricious mythology. To suggest that this government is less than totally committed to the development and maintenance of the best programme of occupational health and safety is spurious fabrication.

Mr. Conway: I thought you fired Michael Gee.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The time has come to rise above such infantile and adolescent behaviour and to work together to provide the legislative base upon which improvements can be made. I will emphasize again that this is interim legislation introduced to meet some of the important problems which present themselves in the work place, while we continue with the intensive review of all of the Acts which deal with safety and health in work places in this province. While many of the presentations heard in the last several days bore little or no relationship to the principle of Bill 139, I do sincerely thank those members who have outlined or specifically detailed work-place problems and relevant matters, such as data collection and research, which will be most seriously considered during our development of the omnibus occupational health and safety Act.

It is with a sense of heartfelt concern for the health and welfare of Ontario workers that I support passage of this piece of legislation as a significant step in the establishment of the optimum legislative support for the maintenance of the safest and healthiest work places possible for all of the people who work in the province of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for standing committee on resources development.

FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 140, An Act to reform the Law respecting Property Rights and Support Obligations between Married Persons and in other Family Relationships.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I understand the minister has a statement to make.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, I have a brief statement to make. When this bill was introduced for first reading, I made a statement explaining in detail the principles contained in it. So I will reserve most of my comments for the close of this debate.

However, I would like to address myself to two of the major concerns demonstrated by the public reaction that we have received, at least to date. Much of the attention of the media and, consequently, the public has been focused on our proposals regarding persons living together in what is generally known as a common-law relationship. Unfortunately, many of the comments that have been made are based on the mistaken impression of what our proposal is. I want to repeat now that this government does not propose that common-law spouses should share in the property of their partner nor do we propose that common-law spouses would have any control over the matrimonial home or any other property belonging to their partner.

What we do propose is that persons living in a relationship of some permanence should after a period of two years, or when they have a child, bear some responsibility toward each other for support. This obligation of support would arise only where the person claiming was unable to support himself or herself and the other person had the means to provide support. Much of the criticism we have heard comes from people living in a common-law relationship who feel that this proposal is an infringement of their personal freedom because they entered into an arrangement “with no strings attached.” These are the very people who will be unaffected by this legislation because they do not form a financial dependency on each other. That is the very essence of their “no strings attached” relationship. If there is no financial dependency, there will be no need for support by the other party and there will not be a successful claim for support.

By contrast, however, there are many people living together in such relationships who are being exploited by their partner. They have been induced to enter into the relationship and to stay home and raise the children arising from the union, or children of another union, and have thus been put in a position of total dependency on the person as a result of being out of the labour market for a lengthy period of time. Many of these people are later abandoned and, under the present law, they have nowhere to turn but to the welfare authorities for support.

This is not a small problem. For example, in September of this year, the government of Ontario has paid out family benefits to over 13,000 unmarried mothers and their 26,000 dependent children, totalling over $3.5 million for that month alone.

[4:45]

It is all very well for people to speak of their freedom to enter into a relationship with “no strings attached,” and if that is truly what they mean, two self-sufficient individuals who have no economic dependence on each other, then we have no wish to interfere with their arrangements. Unfortunately, however, it often turns out that these relationships result in the evasion of responsibilities toward a partner, and even children who are dependent. It is this kind of irresponsibility that we are aiming at.

I should point out that this is not the first time the common-law spouse has been recognized as having rights similar to a legally married person under Ontario legislation. Benefits are now available under The Workmen’s Compensation Act, The Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, and The Public Service Superannuation Act to common-law spouses and they benefit from the exemptions available to spouses under The Gift Tax Act and The Succession Duty Act. We have also proposed in Bill 85 that common-law spouses should be able to claim support out of the estate of their deceased partner under much the same terms as are set out in this bill.

Another area of concern to members of the public, as reflected by their letters, is the application of the rules for sharing family assets in situations where the marriage has been of short duration, where one of the spouses did not share any of the burdens of providing for or raising a family, or where one of the spouses brings substantial property into a second marriage. The provisions of the bill have been designed with these kinds of situations in mind.

The basic rule of equal sharing will not apply where all the circumstances of the case render it inequitable that the family assets be shared equally. The court has the necessary power to do justice in each individual case as required by the situation of the parties, but as a general rule the principle of equality is supported by the bill.

I am gratified by the number of letters I’ve received expressing support for the principles embodied in this bill. I have said that it is a badly needed reform in areas of the law that have fallen behind in the needs and aspirations of today’s society. This legislation offers married couples the prospect of justice on the horizon in the event of a marriage breakdown in the form of a fair share of property, support where there is need and the means to enforce a support order that is eventually made. Although there may be a need for some adjustments in the bill, I believe it responds to the challenge of modern family life, and the response that we have received from members of the public indicates that they’re in general agreement with the philosophy of this legislation.

Mr. Renwick: I am delighted that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) made the effort to counteract the impression which was abroad about the effect of the cohabitation implications of the bill, relating to persons living in a common-law relationship. There indeed has been -- and I think it flowed from the minister’s first statement -- an immense misunderstanding about the implications of what the Attorney General himself said when he introduced the bill. I think it flowed too from some extemporaneous remarks which he made on occasion when confronted with these questions when he allowed some of his own particular high standards to intrude, as though those might very well be the high standards of everyone in the community of Ontario.

I have a sensation that the focus on that particular aspect of the bill has in fact detracted from some of the consideration which should have been given to many of its principles.

I’m glad, of course, that the bill has come before us. I had some sensation -- and then I found, of course, that I was scientifically inaccurate -- that during the long period of Tory rule in the province of Ontario there has been an immense increase in the extent and degree of domestic discord. I don’t know whether there was any connection between the length of Tory rule and the increase of domestic discord in the province. Perhaps in a few years we’ll see whether or not under our government it would be any different. I have no scientific evidence which would support that proposition so --

Mr. Singer: What? That there is going to be a government of your party? That’s right; we will agree with that.

Mr. Renwick: -- I can’t put it forward as a corollary of Parkinson’s law or any such other or even of Newton’s second law of thermodynamics.

I did want, however, to speak about the bill in this sense -- we in this party, after much consideration, have decided to give the bill support on second reading with certain very real qualifications which I hope I and my colleagues can bring to the attention of the Attorney General during the course of this debate. We want attention focused upon the areas of concern we have so that when the bill is discussed in committee we will be able to have the kind of exchange which will allow us to determine whether the areas about which we have concern are ones which can be remedied in committee or whether the explanations given by the ministry about our concerns will be sufficient to allay them or whether we might feel compelled on third reading of the bill, if the matters are not satisfactorily resolved, to vote against the bill.

I want to talk only briefly about the bill but I don’t think, even in a bill such as this, one can deal with it without some recognition of the interface between the federal jurisdiction and the provincial jurisdiction, In committee, we will want to have some debate or discussion about that interface because, as the House well knows, under section 91 of The British North America Act, the areas of marriage and divorce are dealt with as matters of federal jurisdiction; under section 92, questions of property and civil rights and the question of solemnization of marriage are dealt with as matters of provincial jurisdiction.

There are very real problems related to the effect of orders in divorce matters made under federal jurisdiction and the effect of orders which may be made from time to time for support purposes under Bill 140. I know there are saving clauses in the bill but I think it is an area to which we’re going to have to give some very real consideration not only in the area of support obligations but in the area of property rights as to whether or not orders made under the divorce laws of Canada, which have an impact or effect upon property rights and an impact or effect on support obligations, would have an overriding jurisdiction which would preclude anyone from taking advantage of the provisions of this particular Bill 140.

I think, with some reservations, that the bill is a rather happy combination of concepts. I think we were in grave danger, with the immense amount of study which was done in this field of family law both by the Ontario Law Reform Commission and by the federal Law Reform Commission, of being tied into a certain conceptual framework, a particular conceptual framework, which was not really related to the reality of domestic life in the province of Ontario.

With a couple of reservations, I would say that the mixture of the concepts of matrimonial home, the right to possession of it, the definition of family assets including the matrimonial home for property purposes, and the introduction of a very significant area of judicial discretion probably meets the present needs of the society of Ontario as to how we give effect to the very needed improvements in property support and other relationships which have to be sorted out, particularly at the time of separation, whether by divorce, agreement or otherwise, in a marriage arrangement.

I think it is fair to say -- speaking, again, conceptually about it -- that the provisions of the bill which are found in section 49 are a very accurate statement of what we were about in the work leading to the reform of family law. I quote that section because it is very far down in the Act and perhaps is the one single most important statement that is concerned in the bill. It says: “For all purposes of the law of Ontario, a married man has a legal personality that is independent, separate and distinct from that of his wife and a married woman has a legal personality that is independent, separate and distinct from that of her husband.” The balance of section 49 and the remaining provisions for practical purposes of the rest of part V of the bill are to reinforce and to give effect to that very clear statement which is an attempt to undo the harm which was done by the rigours of the common law in the conceptual relationships between man and wife.

In a very real sense what this bill does in one of its fundamental characteristics is to provide for a consolidation and a restatement of those relationships, particularly as they impinge upon the time when a dissolution or a separation is about to take place. The bill removes from the law a large number of ancient and, I suppose, at one time honoured but now no longer appropriate provisions, both of statute law and common law, and does establish the equal position of married persons in all respects, not only as amongst themselves but in their status in the society as a whole. I therefore think that section 49 and the draftsmen of those particular sections have very clearly stated the fundamental principle upon which the bill is framed.

We move from that fundamental principle of the independence of each person in that relationship and we provide, certainly for the first time so far as I am aware, that that relationship in its aspects relating to family matters can be dealt with by a marriage contract. I would guess that we will see the use of marriage contracts in the province of Ontario much more in the future than we ever had in the past, not only for the technical reason that marriage contracts dealing with the dissolution of marriage were generally considered to be contrary to public policy and therefore that correction had to be made in the form of the law, but also to indicate that when you move from a status relationship to one of contract, you are in a very real sense moving into an area of greater freedom.

That is reflected in the provisions which permit marriage contracts to be put between persons who are married or who intend to marry.

A number of the provisions in the marriage contract section or part of the bill, part IV, deal with the extent to which that free contractual right is cut down. I want to raise this one point with the minister, that while it very clearly says that any provisions in a marriage contract limiting the right in respect to the possession of the matrimonial home are void, and where certain support obligations cannot be waived or necessarily set aside, and where there are the usual protective provisions with respect to custody of children and the protection of one spouse as against the other in cases of undue influence or duress, nevertheless, it does appear to me -- and I would hope that the minister, either in his reply or in committee, will direct his attention as to whether or not it was intended -- that a marriage contract could, on the one hand, supersede entirely the provisions with respect to the division of family assets. Or looked at in the reverse way, is it open to a court on an application under part I of the bill with respect to family assets to override the provisions of the marriage contract?

I think that particular matter needs an immense amount of clarification because there is a provision in the early part of the bill that on an application to decide whether or not there should be something other than an equal division of family assets, one of the matters which a court in its discretion may take into account is something called any agreement between the parties. That is used in very general terms and doesn’t necessarily relate, either wholly or exclusively, to marriage contract as it is defined in part IV of the bill.

[5:00]

Well, again with --

Mr. Singer: What about section 46? Particularly sub. 5.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, there is no question about the fraud or undue influence or duress. I wasn’t concerned about that. I was talking about the kind of situations where two persons deliberately say, or intend to say at one point in their marriage relationship, we will be separate so far as our family assets are concerned and yet, at a later time, in the economic adjustment which must take place upon the dissolution or separation of those parties, that economic adjustment can be varied by a court in order to provide the most viable method of carrying out that economic adjustment.

Really it did seem to us as we went through the bill that is mainly what we are talking about, leaving aside some marginal references to custody in the bill -- that in the marriage relationship what the bill is really designed to accomplish is the most equitable economic adjustment as between the two parties at the time of the separation or of the divorce.

So that contradiction, or what appears to us to be a contradiction, or a lack of clarity in the bill needs, in our view, some explanation and perhaps in committee on further consideration an amendment may very well be necessary.

It’s a funny thing about reading bills in the province of Ontario. They are much more understandable if you start at the back and read towards the front. I don’t quite know why that is so, but I seem to find that that is the simpler way of dealing with this particular bill, in any event.

If I may move to the question of the matrimonial home, I think, as I said, that the concept of the matrimonial home and the right to possession of it and the wide discretion conferred on the court to make orders with respect to possession and occupancy of the matrimonial home under part III appears to be a very wise and salutary arrangement. I need not recap the long attempts by the courts to make the adjustment to bring into our law the concept of the matrimonial home. Now we find that, of course, it can best and most compendiously be expressed in statutory law.

The matrimonial home provision does appear to us to be a very worthwhile concept and does a great deal to settle the immediate and crucial problem which always occurs at the time of a separation or a dissolution of a marriage. In one other section of the bill there is a specific provision about the Crown being bound; I think it’s in part II of the bill relating to support obligations. It does appear to us that where the matrimonial home also includes property held under lease and where a significant amount of the housing in the province of Ontario is under the aegis or ownership of the government -- and I ask the minister if he would look at it from that point of view -- it may be necessary to provide either that the Act as a whole binds the Crown or that an addition should be made to part III to make certain that any orders with respect to the matrimonial home that may be issued would apply to leasehold premises in Ontario Housing, for example.

I am certain that my colleagues may want to go on at some greater length here and in the committee on the question of the matrimonial home, but I would like to move on to the question of the mutual support obligations. I want to compliment the draftsman on the very succinct and accurate statement set out in the principles of the support obligations in part II of the bill and particularly the provisions in sections 12, 13 and 14, which deal with the mutual obligations of support of spouses, the responsibility for support of children by parents, and for parents by children.

I suppose in our caucus, as in every other caucus, there’s always some question of the extent and degree to which we should enshrine in law the kind of mutual support obligation between children and parents, mutual not so much as to time but to the relationship. I personally think that the support obligations are well stated and cover in a very accurate way the substance of those support arrangements.

I believe the minister would be well advised to eliminate from the bill, as one of the circumstances which a court may take into consideration in determining the extent and nature of the support obligation, a phrase in item (g) of section 15(3). That is the one which states that one of the circumstances the court may consider is “any course of conduct by the applicant tending to repudiate the relationship.”

If one looks at this as an economic adjustment at a time of dissolution, it does seem to us to be inadvisable. You have carefully thrown out of the bill most questions of conduct and behaviour, only to bring it back in in this back door method in a long list of the circumstances which may be considered.

We think so for a couple of reasons. One is that if there is any likelihood of a reconciliation at some time, one of the certain ways that you can destroy that is in the court hearing to have mutual recriminations about the extent and degree of the conduct that may have destroyed the relationship. I’m not speaking about marriage infidelity, so much as about the great background of discontent that often exists in families. In a court hearing if you have questions of conduct by one of the persons, particularly the applicant, tending to repudiate the relationship, you open the door to the respondent in the application to raise questions with respect to conduct. This could cause a further, serious deterioration in what is probably already a significantly deteriorated arrangement.

On the other hand, so far as the future is concerned, when you get involved in these vexed questions of custody and access and right of access, one of the matters which always makes the exercise of the right of access even more difficult is if each of the parties at some hearing have been engaged in mutual recrimination about how they have behaved during the course of that particular relationship.

I would suggest that if we are really talking about an economic readjustment of two persons who have been associated -- indeed this also applies to the child-parent, parent- child relationship -- then I think you would be well advised to delete the reference with respect to the course of conduct by the applicant tending to repudiate the relationship.

One of the major considerations of concern in our caucus was the introduction of the principle in this bill that a public agency on its own initiative could make an application to the court for the purpose of determining the support obligations as between two private citizens. I draw the minister’s attention to section 15(2) --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Which section is that again?

Mr. Renwick: Section 15(2). It seems to us to go far beyond what should be in a bill which is entitled An Act to reform the Law respecting Property Rights and Support Obligations between Married Persons and in other Family Relationships.

Let me make a distinction. When public funds are being used under The Family Benefits Act or general welfare assistance or other such assistance provisions, I think it is essential that if an order is obtained by an applicant and the respondent to that order only intermittently fulfils his obligations thus leading to a series of show-cause motions, I think it is very wise that the provision he made that that order be assignable by the original applicant to the public agency -- for example, to the Ministry of Community and Social Services -- so that the beneficiary of the order, not being able to get the regular payments to which he or she may be entitled, can say, “I would rather take my regular payments from the ministry and let the ministry do the collecting.”

I am not concerned about that. I think if we balance off the public interest in the public purse and the needs of the applicant to have a regular flow of income from the public agency, I think the public agency may very well by assignment take up that obligation to enforce the order and so relieve the applicant from being the one who must appear in the court for the purpose of the show-cause application.

I am concerned, however, that this bill says that the public agency on its own initiative can substitute -- it doesn’t say it in these words, but the effect is to substitute itself for the applicant in the application and go to the court. Whatever the relative merits may be of the role of public agencies who provide public moneys for welfare or support purposes, whatever the arguments may be about the merits or otherwise of that system of dealing with economic travail in society, I think it has no place in this particular bill. I would urge the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) that he delete, or be prepared to consider deleting, the reference in section 15(2), which says:

“An application for an order for support may be made by the dependant or by any public agency having responsibility for the provision of support out of public money or by any person, institution or agency that has undertaken to provide support for the dependant.”

Mr. Singer: You would far rather have the old parents sue the young child than have the two of them go through the trauma of the court action. Is that it?

Mr. Renwick: I think that perhaps my concern runs a little more deeply than that black-and-white example given by my colleague, the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer). I think there’s a much more fundamental matter under concern in the introduction of that provision in this particular bill, and I would assume that we would be able to explore some of those consequences when the bill is in committee.

If I may turn to one other aspect of the support obligations which bothers me very much, it is that the court is defined in the first part of the Act -- that is, for the purposes of the Act as a whole -- to include not only the Unified Family Court but the Supreme Court of Ontario and the county court. That definition is contained in section 1(b) of the bill.

Leaving aside for the moment the Unified Family Court, which will be somewhere down the road in the province, I thought that because the enforcement provisions available through the county court and the Supreme Court were far superior to the enforcement provisions available through the provincial court, family division, in the efficacy of the methods of enforcement, that any order obtained for support would have been filed in the particular court at which it was obtained and would be enforceable through that court. I am concerned to find that the order may be filed in the provincial court, family division, and I am not certain whether that means that that order cannot be enforced though the county court or though the Supreme Court. It may well be that if you get an order in the county court or the Supreme Court, you can avail yourself of the enforcement machinery of those courts, and that all this is is the addition of the availability of the provincial court, family division, and the particular expertise which they may have to have an order of the Supreme Court or an order of the county court enforceable through the provincial court, family division.

[5:15]

I have had people express very serious concern to me about whether or not, after all of this study and all of this work this is going to assist the person who has the benefit of an order filed in the provincial court, family division, getting the enforcement of that order. That, of course, is mainly a question of the administration of justice, the capacity of the courts to enforce and the efficiency of the courts in the enforcement of those orders.

I want to say to the Attorney General that a number of people have said the principal problem of the enforcement of provincial court, family division, orders for support has been that they can’t get them enforced. They can’t get the process served by the police. They’re subject to interminable delays in the provincial court, family division, and, in many cases, to many adjournments. All of us, I guess, have examples of situations which have made almost a travesty of the enforcement provisions available through the provincial court, family division.

I wanted to draw that to the Attorney General’s attention because in committee I think we should have an opportunity to discuss whether or not the machinery is available for effective enforcement of those orders in such a way that we can avoid the multiplicity of srow-cause appearances which have been a characteristic of support proceedings in the provincial court, family division, as most of us who sit in this assembly are aware.

The last area which is of concern to me and to which I want to draw the attention of the House relates not so much to the question of what is or is not included in family assets -- I think we will be talking about that in committee to make certain that it is an accurate description and that is as broadly framed as it should be to carry out the intent of the government. I think it is a useful concept, as I said earlier in these remarks.

My remarks now are not addressed toward that part of the assets and property division provisions of the bill but rather to the other assets which may have been acquired during the course of the marriage relationship by one of the spouses.

I refer particularly to section 7 of the bill which deals with applications of that nature, where there are applications to the court to raise questions about other property. I think I will concede that the situation which caused so much concern among the persons concerned with women’s rights -- the Murdoch case -- is in substance covered to a very large extent in section 7 now. However, I do want to make two points and I think others of my colleagues with a greater sense of reality than I have can perhaps express it more clearly.

I am concerned that there is not some equivalent in section 7(2) to the provision which is in section 4(3) in the preceding Bill 75 which was discussed in this assembly. In other words, where other property -- that is, property other than the family assets -- is under consideration by a court under section 7, the court should have the ability to take into account the kind of statement of the relationship which is set out in section 4(3) in connection with family assets.

The purpose of this section is to recognize that inherent in the marital relationship there is mutual contribution by the spouses, whether financial or otherwise, to the family welfare entitling each spouse to an equal division of the family assets. I am leaving aside the question of what the division should be. All I am saying is that there should be some similar adapted language in section 7 of the bill to indicate that the non-income earning functions divided between one spouse and the other are mutual responsibilities and the extent to which one spouse carries on those non-income earning functions has contributed to the capacity of the other spouse to acquire a net income available after tax, maybe year after year, so that at a point in time where a dissolution comes up, we are not simply faced with a situation where the spouse in the traditional, conventional marriage in the province of Ontario, where the woman on the dissolution of the marriage finds herself in a position where, in the absence of a marriage contract, she can get one-half or an adjusted one-half of the family assets and she can get protection with respect to occupancy of the matrimonial home, should that still be necessary, but she cannot in any way get a participation in the net capital assets of that marriage, other than family assets, from the point of view of a property interest.

It does seem to me that if we are talking about the equal rights of men and women in that relationship, on the dissolution of the marriage there should at least be some discretion with respect to other property for a court to provide a participation in those assets beyond what is permitted in section 7 of the bill. I do not think that the wording of section 7(2) is broad enough or apt enough to cover the kind of situation which exists in the traditional, conventional marriage in Ontario.

Perhaps an example would help, but I think every one of us can think of specific examples where the breadwinner or the male income-earning spouse might very well end up with $50,000 or $60,000 worth, say, of government bonds or of some such tangible assets as that, accumulated during the marriage from the net income after tax available to him because of his income-earning ability. That has been invested and then the marriage breaks up. I say that there is nothing in this bill which would give the spouse, who has done the socially approved but non-income earning functions of the marriage, any participation in that pool of, say, $50,000 worth of bonds.

I recognize quite clearly, of course, to the extent that a division of assets were to be made under this bill to the spouse, that in all likelihood that would cut down the support obligation, or the extent and degree of the support obligation imposed on the other spouse under the other part of the bill. But when you talk about it in terms of the individual dignity of the people concerned, the best economic adjustment may be to leave it open to the court to provide some participation by way of property interest in that net pool of assets which may be available in the marriage, apart from family assets.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: What about section 4(2)(g)?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, I think that may be so, but when you have a section such as section 4, dealing specifically with the question of whether the division of family assets in equal shares would be inequitable, having regard to various circumstances, I think the minister would agree with me that the court’s attention would be directed towards something called family assets. It would take a counsel of the skill only of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to be able to persuade the court that under section 4(2)(g) the wife was entitled, say, to $25,000 of the $50,000 worth of government bonds to which I referred in the example I gave.

I just wanted to point out that it is a matter of great concern to us as to whether the family asset arrangements and then the arrangements set out in section 7 of the bill do in fact: (a) overrule the Murdoch case; (b) whether or not there shouldn’t be the inclusion in section 7 of language similar to the saving clause of section 4(3) and whether we shouldn’t perhaps even give consideration to enlarging the definition of family assets, not only in the delineation of the physical items which go to make up the definition of family assets but to indicate that a basic net amount of assets accumulated during the marriage should be treated as subject to equal division unless otherwise ordered by the court.

There are many ways of doing it. One way, of course, would be to provide an arbitrary figure and simply say that up to that number of dollars one spouse is entitled to half of that net amount. We do that, of course, in another bill which will be before us on the law of intestate succession.

We are arbitrary in the sense that we say if a person dies intestate, leaving a wife or a wife and children, the wife is entitled to the first $75,000. That, on death, certainly usually encompasses significantly more than would fall within the definition of family assets unless, of course, a house property is included in it; but the general run of family assets.

My colleague, the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor), is unable to be with us today so I was unable to have the opportunity to hear what he would have said had he led off in this debate. I’m sure when he reads this he will correct me if I’ve said anything which runs counter to the views which he holds about this difficult and vexed topic.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The only difference is that some of it would have been in Latin.

Mr. Renwick: I do want to say that we’ve had a number of meetings in the caucus of interested members. We have talked with some of the members of the academic community who participated in the law reform work of both the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the federal Law Reform Commission in this area. We have tried to understand what the bill is saying and we recognize that there is a myriad of relationships between men and women and between children and parents. We think on balance that the bill is a pretty good mix of realistic concepts around which an equitable and fair family law can be developed by the courts.

There undoubtedly will be flaws in it and there are many other points which will be raised in committee, both for clarification purposes and perhaps for proposed amendments. With those four, five or six points which I’ve raised we did feel that, as a caucus, we could give support subject to those qualifications and whatever explanations may be made to the bill on second reading.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to join in this debate. On behalf of my Liberal colleagues and myself, I say we will support this bill.

The bill has been talked about in this jurisdiction for a long period of time. There have been all sorts of studies and recommendations and opinions brought backwards and forwards from one and all. This is what has emerged and, by and large, it is our opinion that what is here before us is a reasonable amalgam of a number of ideas.

Certainly, when I think back to the recommendations put forward by the Law Reform Commission a few years ago and the complicated and almost completely impossible formula which they worked out, a mathematical calculation, whereby the assets of spouses could be divided in the event of death of one spouse or breakdown of a marriage, one recognized that that surely couldn’t be the way in which this kind of relationship was going to be governed.

What has been attempted here is to set out certain basic principles and to leave the tough questions or the actual questions up to the decisions of the courts. By and large, that’s not a bad compromise at all. There are going to be faults.

The legal profession is going to have to adapt itself but the legal profession, through the years, has always been very adaptable. The legal profession will get used to preparing antenuptial agreements, even though there are no precedents in this jurisdiction related to this statute because we have a new statute.

Mr. Stokes: I was going to say that is refreshing but now I am not going to say it.

[5:30]

Mr. Singer: The legal profession, I am sure, will figure out how to get about its business. I’ve given some personal consideration to this problem in recent weeks. It’s not an easy contract to draft, but I’m in the process of trying to do one.

I suppose one of my strongest concerns at this moment is that this seems to be a sort of middle-class kind of legislation. It seems to be something that will allow people who are sufficiently sophisticated or sufficiently affluent to provide unusually for themselves, whereas other people who may not be as aware of legal alternatives or perhaps not affluent enough or too frightened to seek them out are going to have to rely solely on the provisions of the statute and the good-heartedness of a judge or the sympathy of a judge in due course when the matter gets before him.

I don’t know whether it’s been considered carefully or not, but certainly it’s something that I’m going to raise when we get into committee, namely, the usefulness of either the Attorney General’s department or some public body providing a series of possible antenuptial agreements, with suggested clauses that might be available to remove some of the possible mystery from the availability of this kind of a plan, so that people can have some understanding of what an antenuptial agreement might say, to include the appropriate provisions as they apply to them, because no two cases are exactly the same, and how it can best be done. I think that’s one very major consideration that should be looked into.

There are many, many concerns in the minds of the people of Ontario about this kind of legislation. I suppose we all join in in giving a vote of thanks to Mrs. Murdoch who provided the spark that brings this legislation before us in a form which, hopefully, is substantially going to resemble the final statute that Her Honour approves of in due course. Perhaps we should change the name and call it the Murdoch bill or the Mrs. Murdoch bill or something like that because I think jurisprudence in this country owes a substantial vote of thanks to her and the inability of the judges when they were trying to deal with her very serious problem of finding any authority in law.

The initiative of the lawmakers is being exhibited here. It’s not a bad initiative, but let me read to you, sir, a portion of a letter received by us expressing some concern about provisions of this legislation. This lady says:

“First, the proposed legislation has several weaknesses from my point as a view as a feminist, but not a lawyer. The principle of recognizing the contribution to the economic well-being of the family by the spouses at home is vital for women in property law as well as in pensions and child-care legislation. The proposals outlined by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) in his speech will give only a nod in that direction. The goal of the proposals is to give the narrowest possible definition to assets which may marginally improve the position of women in families where the family assets such as houses, cars and other domestic properties are large.”

This is a very good point and perhaps the answer is going to be that they can take care of it in an antenuptial agreement. I come back again to the problem, and this is what she goes on to say:

“It will do little for women where property is not large. It will not allow women to share in businesses which their husbands may establish. For example, doctors have a high divorce rate in the very early years of their practice. The wives of these doctors often contribute substantially to the education of their husbands through their jobs, answering the telephone at home for their husbands and in a myriad of other time-consuming ways. But considerable property may not have been built up. I don’t think this legislation will recognize that contribution in principle or, in fact, inherited property; money invested in the husband’s practice, for example, will not be touched. On this problem I offer no alternative except community of property during marriage, which has the advantage of educating both spouses in financial management and at least provide skills.”

The argument about community property is quite a different one, and I am not sure that I subscribe to it at all; it doesn’t take into consideration prior acquired or separately acquired property which has nothing to do with the marriage. That’s a very serious consideration as to how that should be dealt with, and I don’t think the glib phrase “community of property” is the answer.

“The proposal to include those living common law strikes at a different problem” -- I know the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) spoke about this, but I don’t know whether he has convinced his brother yet or not. We’ve seen the comments about the McMurtry brothers’ split on lifestyle and marriage law, and while we have to listen to this one, we only know about what the other one says from what we read in the papers --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: They are all trying to be of assistance.

Mr. Samis: In their own way.

Mr. Singer: Well, the Attorney General’s brother seems to be concerned about the minister’s interference with his right to do what he thinks he should be able to do.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It was suggested at some length.

Mr. Singer: I’m sure he is trying to be of assistance, but he doesn’t think that the Attorney General’s method of assistance necessarily is the best one insofar as it affects him. That’s about as fair as I can get if what I read in the papers has been correct. It is a concern, however, that many people have expressed and it’s something that is going to have to be talked about.

It is also my understanding that this bill, together with the other two, is going to go to standing committee on justice and there will be an opportunity there for any members of the public who are concerned to come and tell the committee. I noticed an advertisement put in the paper by the hon. member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor), the chairman of that committee, referred only to two of the bills, this one and Bill 85, I think. May I ask the minister if I am correct in assuming that all three bills will go to that committee?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes.

Mr. Singer: He only put two in the ad, but I am glad to hear the minister say all three.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I wasn’t consulted about the ad. I thought it was interesting to read the ad before the second bill had passed second reading. That is the only observation I make. But that is the intention, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Singer: That’s good, because there are a lot of members of the public who are concerned. It was unusual the ad should have gone in before the House had made a determination of what was going to happen, but I think it will be quite useful that all three statutes are going to go to standing committee.

Let me continue with what this lady says:

“The proposal to include those living common-law strikes at a different problem -- the freedom to associate without the property implications of marriage. If the Attorney General has in mind a number of women who are poor, have lived common-law and have been left without economic support because they were not married, then I suggest this is a matter for support and not property. Such families have no property anyway. For the middle class it puts the whole purpose of common-law arrangements in jeopardy -- and they do offer an alternative for many independent women. Surely it is possible for a couple to write a contract concerning property if they want to protect themselves in a common-law arrangement -- ”

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The common-law relationship that doesn’t affect property. That is just another misconception.

Mr. Singer: I agree that these misconceptions do exist, and they exist in the mind of this very intelligent lady who was bothered to sit down and write us a letter and express her views reasonably well but perhaps not too correctly on occasion. This is the kind of misconception that we have got to try to overcome, and I don’t know specifically how we overcome it except to give as much publicity as we can to all of the provisions of the Act and the full significance.

“The Attorney General’s thinking on this is not developed in his speech.” That’s the point the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) was making a little earlier, perhaps about the Attorney General’s initial remarks. The minister’s remarks today were much more informative, or much more to this particular point, than they were at the beginning, and it’s not at all impossible that many people misconstrued what, in fact, he was saying.

Then she goes on to say: “Politically, I think it’s disastrous and distasteful but” -- and that is her view.

Those are some of the views that are expressed. I don’t necessarily agree with that last statement, because otherwise I wouldn’t have said that we are going to support the bill. The bill does make a substantial step forward. But I am concerned with a couple of the oddities in this bill.

We talk about the right to possession of the family home. The member for Riverdale talked about leaseholds and so on. I wonder about the provisions for maintenance of these. Suppose the only asset is the family home. It then has to be sold, because if the spouse remaining after the marriage is broken up is given right to possession, it becomes somewhat vacuous without the money to be able to support the building that you are allowed to possess. This is also true of leasehold. If the landlord doesn’t get his rent you are going to get kicked out. So if you don’t have enough money to pay for the running of the home, what use is that and what are the manoeuvres that are going to be able to take care of that?

I was interested in the comments of the member for Riverdale on section 15(2), when he expressed the concern of himself and his colleagues about giving the right to agencies to sue for support. I disagree with him very strongly on that point. I don’t think the present situation is solved by saying it shouldn’t be in the statute. Whatever the laws of Ontario are, it is useful to have them expressed in some statute. I don’t think anything is proven by saying “it shouldn’t be in this statute, it should be in another one.” It seems logical that it be here.

The present statutory provisions allow a parent to sue his or her children for support. In appropriate circumstances the court will make an order in accordance with the provisions of such a statute. But it doesn’t happen very often, nor is it reasonable that it should happen. Parents who find themselves in that unfortunate position are most reluctant to initiate legal proceedings against their children for support. But if they don’t and there is no money available, then the people of Ontario enter into some kind of support arrangements. That I think is as it should be too.

We have a variety of homes and institutions where older people unable to look after themselves, or support themselves, can be looked after. What is illogical or insensible or wrong about allowing that institution to initiate proceedings and bring to account the erring child who can afford to contribute to that support or perhaps fully support that parent? I think that’s a very good thing. What other place can it best be ascertained? The personality of that kind of institution really doesn’t come into any great emotional conflict. There they are supporting the parent and that’s costing somebody money -- the people of Ontario are paying for that -- and that institution would be aware of the children and have some idea whether or not they had assets. I think it’s a very good provision.

Perhaps I can tell a little story -- something I discovered in my riding within the last few weeks. There has recently been erected there a place called Villa Columbo. Villa Columbo is a magnificent home built by members of the Italian community in Metropolitan Toronto to provide a place for older Italian people who are unable to have an appropriate place to live. It’s a beautiful building, well staffed by pleasant people, bright, airy. One of the things that I thought was strange, and no one was complaining to me about it, is that it’s not full. There are a great number of vacant beds.

[5:45]

I began to inquire about that and one of the gentlemen who is on the board of management of that organization said: “It is a feeling, a very strong feeling, throughout the Italian community that the first responsibility for looking after the old people devolves on the family. It is a sign of shame when a family has to admit or let it be known that it is unable to look after the parents and has to allow them to go to a home.” Notwithstanding the very large size of the Italian community here in Metropolitan Toronto, and notwithstanding the very pleasant and comfortable nature of this home, this place is half empty because that responsibility is being accepted by the families of people who might in fact be able to take up accommodation there and be looked after.

I think that’s a very good expression of where some of that kind of responsibility should lie. It doesn’t apply equally to other groups in our society; unfortunately, it doesn’t at all. I have some knowledge; in fact, I am on the board of another home where older people are looked after. I know there is concern expressed among board members from time to time about the ability of children to look after their parents, or to pay for a share or a substantial part of their parents’ welfare, who refuse to do that.

How do you get at them? Do you encourage the parent to bring a lawsuit against the child? It is a very difficult problem. I think what is put forward here in the statute makes good sense and is an expression of a sensible feeling by the community and of a sensible feeling by the Legislature. Rather than criticize, I commend the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and those responsible for drafting this section for putting it in there. I think it belongs in this section.

There are a great number of problems with this kind of legislation. As I say, we are feeling our way. Each section is going to be worried about at great length, not only here but in the courts, unfortunately, in days to come. The extent to which they will be questioned, unfortunately, on occasion is going to depend on the financial ability of those who are going to want to question them and take them through the courts. But I think we have come fairly close to providing a solution to a problem that has beset us for many years.

We will be suggesting from time to time, changes in some of the wording here. We will be at the committee and listening very carefully to the views that people put forward. I don’t know whether the Attorney General is going to invite his brother. Perhaps his brother will come and tell us some of the opinions he has and whether brother attorney has been able to satisfy all his doubts or not.

Ms. Sandeman: Mr. Speaker, I would have to say to begin with that I generally welcome this bill. It’s very important to women to see that finally, what we have known all along -- that marriage is a partnership of two equal people -- is now to be enshrined in legislation, and that marriage is recognized as an economic and a social partnership.

This of course doesn’t begin to solve the continuing problems that women face in becoming equally able to contribute economically to their marriages. That’s another problem which I imagine will go on for some time and which we will continue to work toward solving. But at least there is now a recognition that women are able in some cases -- sadly, not yet in all -- to contribute to the economic side of their marriage.

There is the other important principle, now recognized for the first time in a piece of legislation, that unpaid work within the home is as vital to the family unit and to society as paid work outside the home -- the recognition that a spouse who contributes work of that kind, the traditional unpaid work of the household, is making a real and important contribution which allows the family to accumulate assets, to function smoothly, happily and healthily. The assets which are accumulated are the equal property of both spouses. Whether or not they have bought them with their own money, whether or not they have both gone out and worked for them, or whatever it may be, there is now an equal right to the family assets.

I must say that I welcome this family assets approach. I was extremely uneasy at the matrimonial property regime which was recommended by the Ontario Law Reform Commission. What was it called? The equalizing claim? It would, at best, have been an extremely cumbersome device and it would have required constant record keeping and constant assessment of the value of family property. At worst, I think it would have been chaotic and of course it would have provided a field day for accountants and for lawyers. The whole thing was horrendous. The principle behind it was admirable but the equalizing claim mechanism was something that made me quite nervous. I was pleased to see that the Attorney General’s present legislation has abandoned that in favour of the family assets approach.

However, I think there are some very real problems with the family assets approach as presently embodied in the bill. The problems start in section 8 of the bill where the principle is delineated and terms are defined. Family assets are defined as property owned by one spouse or both spouses and ordinarily used or enjoyed by both spouses, or one or more of their children. The problem I see with that is that I can envisage that leading straight back to the situation in which, if you have a wage-earning spouse and a non-wage-earning spouse, the wage earner could busily amass assets, such as registered retirement savings plans, stocks and bonds, esoteric artwork, antique guns, hand-embroidered pictures, Ming dishes or whatever it might be. These might be objects in which the other spouse has absolutely no interest, would never use and which therefore would not under this legislation be considered to be family assets and in whose value therefore the other spouse has no automatic share, even if, to get back to the principle which I hope and believe is embodied in the bill, the labours of the non-wage-earning spouse have made it possible for the wage-earning spouse to go out and buy and amass those things.

It seems to be a contradiction in how the principle is put into action. If we believe that the contribution of the non-wage-earning spouse is important, then it’s surely important to include all the objects or pieces of paper or whatever which have value and which are brought into the home. In fact, the thing that scares me about this at the moment is that individuals, particularly wealthy individuals would quite easily be able to circumvent what is surely the intention of this bill and which is very clearly stated in section 4(3). The purpose of this section, the bill says, “is to recognize that inherent in the marital relationship there is mutual contribution by the spouses, whether financial or otherwise, to the family welfare, entitling each spouse to an equal division of the family assets upon termination of the marriage.”

I am afraid we will be back where we started from, to the old out-moded, “I bought it with my money, I use it, therefore it’s mine” concept. There’s a kind of circularity creeping in there because the principle of the bill recognizes the mutual contributions by the spouses, whether financial or otherwise, to the family welfare. Then the bill says, if the non-financial contribution has led the wage earner to amass things which the bill does not clearly identify as family assets, then her contribution has gone for nought. I say “her” advisedly because at the moment it still normally is women who are the non-wage-earners. I know you pointed out to my colleague a section which would give the judge discretion to take that kind of thing into account.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: You should have mentioned (e) as well.

Ms. Sandeman: I should have mentioned (e) as well as (g); wait a moment -- (e) of which section?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Section 4(2)(e).

Ms. Sandeman: Section 4(2)(e) -- “any other circumstances relating to the acquisition”; yes, maybe. Again, as my learned colleague says, it’s going to depend on the fancy footwork of the lawyers to make a judge understand that the principle of the bill on family assets should be extended. What I’m saying, I guess, is the definition of family assets is too narrow and, in some sense, is in danger of seriously weakening the principle of the bill.

My colleague from Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) explained our concern with -- section 7(2) I believe it is. The concern, generally, is that the bill does not clearly speak to a full and fair division of assets which are not counted as family assets. I remember the great shock of realization that happened right across the country when the Murdoch case made women particularly understand what the present laws meant to them; particularly when that Supreme Court judge stood up and said that Mrs. Murdoch’s contribution to the family farm was only what a good farm wife should do and that, therefore, she should have no particular claim on a share of the farm.

We all realized more clearly than we’d realized before what could happen to hardworking women who, in good faith, had contributed and we were pleased to see Bill 75 passed in July of this year. I think we all expected what I suppose we think of as the anti-Murdoch clause of Bill 75 to have been maintained in this bill. I notice that it’s not.

The essential clause of Bill 75, I guess, is section 1(2)(c), which says that the husband or wife shall not be disentitled to any right or compensation or other interest flowing from such contributions by reason only of the relationship of husband and wife or that the acts constituting the contribution are those of a reasonable spouse of that sex in the circumstances.

When Bill 75 was passed it specifically prevented a Murdoch happening in Ontario. I hope that by amending the bill we’re going to be able to bring that essential clause back in -- because it is an extremely essential clause -- unless the minister can show me that it’s already there and I’ve missed in its transmogrification -- that’s a good word. Murdoch will still happen.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Look at 7(2).

Ms. Sandeman: Section 7(2) of the present bill does not include the provision of section 1, subsection 2, subsubsection (c) of Bill 75. I think it really has to or we could have another Supreme Court judge telling women, “Well, my dear, that’s what we expect of women. You needn’t expect any reward for that.” She accepts her pat on the head and goes home.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member have further remarks to make? Perhaps this might be an opportune time to break them.

Ms. Sandeman: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.