The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. Deans: How can it be a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: We haven’t started anything today, so nothing could be out of order unless you want to say that prayers were out of order. You will have to rise on something else.

Mr. Williams: It deals with the debate that took place in the House last Tuesday evening.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order. If you want to rise for the purpose of clarifying something that was misunderstood, you may do so, but don’t call it a point of order.

OBSERVANCE OF DECORUM

Mr. Williams: Perhaps I could rise on a point of personal privilege then, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breithaupt: You can always do that.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, during the debate last Tuesday evening during the private members’ hour you had occasion to rise in the House and remind the members of the House that indeed every member had a right to be heard. This resulted from the considerable amount of commotion going on in the House.

I am submitting to you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of equal importance, that during the private members’ hour, every member has a right to equal time in the debate. I would ask you to consider a ruling on the latter point, because I honestly believe that some members are in fact being denied their full time allotment.

If you would allow me a brief moment to make my point, I would point out, and I think many members are aware of the fact, that the members of the third party in particular have a well known trait for shouting insults and ridicule and generally causing commotion while members of both the official opposition and members of this side of the House are speaking.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, knock it off.

Mr. Ashe: You don’t like to hear the facts.

Mr. Williams: That was a perfect example, Mr. Speaker. Knowing the mentality of the opposition members we understand this compelling need on their part. It seems to be their substitute for honest debate of the issues.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: See what he means?

Mr. Lewis: I heard him, I heard him.

Mr. Williams: While the public perception of this buffoonery is a lowering of the dignity and decorum of this House, I can assure you that the members who are targets of this tactic have no difficulty in taking this nonsense in their stride.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you raise the decorum of the House and resign?

Mr. Williams: However, what is not appreciated is the loss of valuable speaking time --

Mr. Breithaupt: Hear, hear. Like now.

Mr. Deans: That is what is happening now.

Mr. Williams: -- that is denied to the members because of unnecessary interruptions. What I would ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, is the exercise of your discretion during debate on the private members’ bills --

Mr. Lewis: Use a cat o’ nine tails.

Mr. Williams: -- to extend the time to members where they have lost two or three minutes of their allotted speaking time because of unruly interruptions --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk) -- that is who it is.

Mr. Williams: -- so that the loss is not at the expense of the speakers, but rather at the expense of those who are delaying the proceedings of the House. I’d ask you to take that under advisement.

Mr. Speaker: All I can say to the hon. member is that the time allocation for the members of the various parties during the ballotted items is by agreement of all three parties and there is nothing official with regard to standing orders. I think it is quite obvious that all of the presiding officers in this chamber have made every effort to maintain order, and perhaps all members could take heed to what has been said thus far and make better use of the time afforded us.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: You can’t debate it.

Ms. Gigantes: Point of personal privilege --

RULES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: If I might, just before I recognize other members of the House, I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to a difficult situation that arose last week. Last Monday I advised the House that I had requested each caucus to give consideration to the question of access to parts of the chamber and its lobbies by members of the press and other strangers.

I have had a response from the usual channels which indicates to me that members of the House are content to allow accredited members of the press gallery to exit from the press gallery by use of the staircase behind the Speaker’s chair --

Mr. Lewis: Triumph returns.

Mr. Speaker: -- but only to move quickly and quietly -- and I emphasize that -- only to move quickly and quietly out of the chamber. Members of the House are in no way to be distracted in the House.

Mr. Lewis: Absolutely.

Mr. Speaker: There was no indication whatsoever that the rules governing the use of members’ lobbies should change. I will continue to enforce the procedure whereby members of the press are not permitted in the members’ lobbies. I hope this will be of assistance to members of the House whose interests must, of course, come first, and the accredited members of the press gallery who have a most important function in the conveyance of the proceedings of the House to the public. I hope that is satisfactory to all concerned.

Ms. Gigantes: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

ALLOCATION OF TIME FOR ESTIMATES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my point of personal privilege deals with the privilege of the members to be afforded an opportunity to review some of the estimates of various ministries and government agencies,

I don’t want to be unduly critical of the House leaders and other members of the House because they are trying to allocate time as they see fit. But I do want to bring to the Speaker’s attention that, for instance, on Tuesday evening, we were in the estimates in the standing committee on general government --

Mr. Speaker: So we don’t unduly waste the time of the House I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. member that the House has no jurisdiction to deal with anything that happens in committee with regard to the allocation of time unless it is specifically requested to do so by that committee through its chairman. The House has no jurisdiction until it is asked to intervene in that way.

Mr. Roy: I ask the Speaker to intervene because --

Mr. Speaker: I can’t intervene at the request of an individual member. I can only do so at the request of the committee through the chairman.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I may --

Mr. Speaker: You can’t debate the question. I have made my decision --

Mr. Roy: I am not debating. I want to ask the Speaker a question if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Why doesn’t the member ask the chairman of the committee concerned?

Mr. Roy: I’ve already discussed it with the chairman of the committee and I thought I should discuss it with you. You are the one who is supposed to protect my personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Through the committee system in this House.

BELLEVUE NURSING HOME

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of personal privilege, and I will try to keep it short.

On Tuesday last, in consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Health in the social development committee, I was discussing Bellevue Residence in the riding of Carleton East and I said: “One former staff member is concerned because Bellevue has no evacuation plan in case of fire.”

It has been forcefully brought to my attention by the Gloucester township fire department that Bellevue Residence does have an evacuation plan in case of fire. I wish to remove any implication that I was criticizing the Gloucester township fire department. My criticism is that an experienced, concerned member of the Bellevue staff did not know of such an evacuation plan.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by her own hand.

Mr. Speaker: By her own hand, P. M. McGibbon, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1978, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, November 24, 1977.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that my ministry is setting a fine example in its achievements as a participant in this government’s energy management program. Provincial correctional institutions achieved a 19 per cent reduction in energy usage during the first six months of 1977, in comparison with the same period in 1976.

Mr. Lewis: That was before you were minister.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The reduction is nearly double the target set for the previous year -- 10 per cent. It represents a cost avoidance and an energy saving of $325,000. The Ministry of Correctional Services was 13th among Ontario ministries to receive funding for the energy management program and in that light our progress has been particularly outstanding. Energy saving methods were established and closely followed by the ministry with the help of expert counsel of private industry.

The moneys saved by energy consumption reductions will remain within the budgets of the individual institutions and thereby avoid some staff and program cutbacks which might otherwise have occurred.

Mr. S. Smith: Getting a small car, Frank?

CHRONIC HOME CARE

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am tabling a report on the evaluation of the pilot chronic home care program. Copies have already been deposited with the Clerk of the House.

Home care began in Ontario under the Toronto Board of Health in 1958, under the Victorian Order of Nurses in Ottawa in 1964, in Guelph in 1965, and in Hamilton, London and Windsor in 1966. Its original purpose was to reduce the demand for active treatment beds.

[2:15]

Guidelines developed in 1970 and refined in 1973 restricted home care to short-term active care. This was where rehabilitation was a realistic goal and where progress, as a result of nursing care, physiotherapy, occupational or speech therapy, could be expected.

In 1975, it was proposed that the effectiveness of extending home care into the chronic care sector be examined. Chronic home care, it was believed, could prevent or slow the physical and mental deterioration of the patient and ease the demand on all types of institutional beds. At the same time, it would save money, since home care is less expensive than institutional care.

In 1975, home care programs were extended into the chronic care sector in Kingston, Thunder Bay and Hamilton, with the understanding that these programs would be evaluated before further expansion was undertaken.

My ministry felt that before province-wide implementation of programs, existing programs should be evaluated to determine their value to the people they serve, and their cost-effectiveness. A study was undertaken beginning on October 1, 1975, and was only recently completed.

The results of the study indicate that chronic home care is more economical than institutional care on a per-patient basis. It also seems apparent that the program is meeting its major objective -- easing or preventing further deterioration of the people it is helping.

However, the study was undertaken during a period of rapidly increasing use of the program, and for this reason the total cost implications, and particularly the impact on other parts of the health care system, could not be reliably estimated.

The costs of extending the program across the province would be very significant, of that I am certain. It is therefore crucial that the program develop in a planned and orderly fashion -- that we know precisely how much a province-wide expansion could potentially cost.

It is equally important that we know the ultimate effect the program will have on the rest of the health care system. The program cannot be viewed as simply another addition to the system. It must be seen in the context of its objective -- acting as a substitute for institutional care. The total impact cannot be fully anticipated against a rising case load.

The recommendations of the study are:

1. That the chronic home care program continue for another 18 months as it presently exists in Hamilton, Kingston and Thunder Bay;

2. That the more extensive evaluation now feasible due to stabilizing case load be carried out on the chronic home care programs for a 12-month period -- allowing four months to prepare for the study and two months to prepare the report; and

3. That the home care information system be revised to provide patient-specific data and indicators of health status.

All three of these recommendations will be implemented. Moreover, to augment the evaluation and to expand services in an orderly fashion, I hope to extend this program further in the New Year.

In tabling this report I welcome the opinions of all concerned with this valuable alternative health care program.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSIT SYSTEM

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. When was the last time that the minister had a report on the intermediate capacity transit project of the UTDC near Kingston? Did that report indicate that vehicle size had increased to 40 feet, that the practicality of the steerable axle is in question due to severe metal stress, and finally and most important, that the linear induction motor upon which almost the entire rationale for this concept and system is based may have to be replaced by a more conventional rotary motor?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I do get periodic reports with regard to the progress of the ICTS program being carried on by UTDC. I don’t recall any report specifically giving me the information that the hon. Leader of the Opposition suggests.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, considering that the ministry is planning to spend about $55 million on this project, would the minister undertake to be brought up to date about what is happening there? And would he not agree that if the vehicle size increases, if the steerable axle is done away with, and if an ordinary motor is returned to this project, that basically he is spending $55 million to reinvent the bus or the subway car?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I don’t accept that at all. My ministry does have a monitoring group within the ministry that monitors the progress of the ICTS program and reports directly to my deputy minister. I do recall some discussions as to some possible change in vehicle size -- a possible change because of design problems in fitting the necessary equipment within the vehicle; possibly they were going to enlarge the vehicle some amount. I do not recall the 40 foot figure that was mentioned at all and I don’t recall receiving any report on the other items, but I’ll certainly inquire.

Mr. Cunningham: I’m wondering if the minister would indicate how much money has been spent on this fiasco to date, and what is the source at the present time? If he is borrowing money, who is he borrowing it from and at what interest rate?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I’ll have to get a report from UTDC on the total expenditures to date. But money is being supplied to UTDC through the estimates and budget of my ministry.

Mr. Kerrio: Is there any jurisdiction where these articulated vehicles are in use, and have they been proven practical?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I really don’t know what the hon. member is referring to. The intermediate capacity transit system has nothing to do with an articulated vehicle. If the hon. member knows what an articulated vehicle is, then I’m sure he must know that there are many jurisdictions in which they are in use. There are articulated buses and there are articulated streetcars; they’re in use in almost every country in Europe. I really don’t see, Mr. Speaker, how this has any relation to the original question.

Mr. Cunningham: You answer the question, we will make the rules.

Hon. Mr. Snow: But we do plan within my ministry -- and it’s nothing to do with UTDC -- on calling tenders some time within the next few months for the manufacture and supply of approximately 50 to 60 articulated bus units, which will be supplied to different transit systems throughout the province.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary: Am I correct in the assumption that the ministry is not borrowing money from the private sector at this time?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We are not.

Mr. Cunningham: I mean UTDC.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m not aware; I’ll check into that. UTDC is a federally chartered, corporate structure which may or may not, from day to day during the normal business practices, be borrowing money from a chartered bank.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, could I draw the minister’s attention to my original question? I wonder if he might favour me with a reply?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of the question that he asked.

Mr. Cunningham: I asked the minister if he was borrowing money from a private institution, how much and at what rate?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question exactly today. I just say that UTDC is a corporate structure, separate from the ministry, of which the ministry is the sole shareholder on behalf of the province of Ontario. That corporate structure has its own officers and its board of directors and operates as a normal business corporation. I wonder if the hon. member has had some experience in doing business in this world. I would think people in his party might have a little; the other party probably has none. But I would expect that the hon. member might understand that a business like this would have normal banking arrangements.

Mr. Reid: Any normal corporation would be bankrupt.

Mr. Martel: The Liberals would rip everyone off.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, by way of final supplementary: As the person in charge of this fiasco, is the minister not aware where he is getting his money, or where that corporation is getting its money, and at what rate? As the minister in charge, is he not aware of that?

Mr. Lewis: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Go ask the Mounties.

Mr. McClellan: I don’t think we should repeat questions, do you?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge and according to the last financial statement of the corporation, they had funds invested on short term investments and were not borrowing money from anyone. But things change from month to month as projects progress. As I stated before, money is being supplied through that ministry by the government through my estimates.

AID TO FLOOD VICTIMS

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Premier, if I might: Does the Premier have some plan on behalf of the people of Ontario to be of assistance with regard to the present devastation that has occurred in the Indian subcontinent, in India in particular -- the flooding after the cyclone and so on? Can this Legislature and this province be of some assistance to the people of India at the time of this very grave devastation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there aren’t any immediate plans. We have as a government, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, involved ourselves in the very unfortunate earthquake situation in Friuli some few months ago. I think that we also were involved, going by memory now, when there was a situation in Florence. We have not really expanded these policies to include every geographic area in the world. I don’t minimize the devastation; the difficulty that has been created in that country, but the government has not at this moment considered any plans of financial help.

I think it is true also, and I’m going by memory again, there have been other situations where we’ve had a certain surplus of some agricultural commodities which, I think the province has provided through the Red Cross. There may be a situation here that could be explored, but I can’t commit the government until I get some further understanding from those who might have some responsibility.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Should any request come from the Red Cross or any other international body, would this government be prepared to help those people who are in particular need, regardless of the present circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I just referred to the Red Cross. I’m going completely from memory, but I think the Red Cross has made representation to us in other situations and if it has been possible for us we have met some of those requests. I would expect that if the Red Cross made some requests of us, if we were in a position to be of assistance quite obviously we would try. But I don’t know that any such request has been received.

OIL TAX

Mr. Lewis: A question to the Premier initially: Can the Premier comment on the possible impact for Ontario of the Supreme Court decision disallowing the imposition of certain taxes and royalties by the province of Saskatchewan on the oil industry, particularly since the province of Ontario intervened at those hearings in support of Saskatchewan and the assertion of the provincial constitutional right?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t tell the leader of the New Democratic Party in any legal sense. I can recall some very brief discussions with the Premier of Saskatchewan as to what might emerge, depending on the results of that decision. I will ask the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to convey to the House what would probably be a much better opinion than any that I might personally express.

Mr. Reid: He’s zero for three. You might as well take a chance.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I’m no gambler when it comes to matters of this kind, but I will consult with the Attorney General and get an opinion for the leader of the NDP.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask, by way of supplementary, does the Premier know from the conversations he has had whether it places any existing resource tax policy in jeopardy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to be very cautious. I don’t believe so, but I would like really the indulgence of the hon. member -- and I know he recognizes how complicated it is -- that it doesn’t create a problem for us in the sense of any of our tax policies. I don’t believe it does, but we will make sure and we will inform the House.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health: May I ask the minister how many prosecutions of nursing homes under the Nursing Home Act have been instituted by his ministry since 1972?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’d have to get those figures. I gave some figures to the estimates committee yesterday indicating that there were 10 licence revocations since 1972; I don’t recall: the figure for prosecutions off hand but I’ll get them for the hon. member.

Mr Lewis: If I might ask a further question if the minister is getting the information. Can he indicate to the Legislature at that time how many prosecutions over violations of the Act there should have been, or might have been, based on the reports of his various inspectors as they inspected a number of nursing homes in Ontario? Is it true that, in fact, he has not proceeded very vigorously to implement the recommendations of a number of inspectors of nursing homes?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I don’t believe that’s true, Mr. Speaker. If one was to pull out the various reports for 1972, there are different inspectors there now. There is a different director of the branch. There is a different minister. We might reach a different conclusion than did those who were in the positions of responsibility at that time. But, certainly, I’m not aware of any such decision, certainly not during my time, nor in the time before me.

Mr. Warner: Is it not true that there are inspection reports on file indicating that a violation of the Act had occurred by unlicensed nurses giving medication; that the same report also contained a recommendation for prosecution; and that those recommendations were never acted upon to date and those reports are still in the minister’s custody?

Second, when will the minister release those reports and the others which we so desperately need in order to get to the bottom of this problem?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would care to be specific in connection with the home or homes on which he thinks such a report or reports exist, I’ll check that out. I’m certainly not aware of any such reports.

RADAR WARNING DEVICES

Mr. Roy: I ask this question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications in relation to amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. Why is he waiting to bring in amendments to the Highway Traffic Act pertaining to the outlawing of devices which are used to circumvent the police traps or radar equipment -- the so-called Fuzzbusters? How long is he going to tolerate this in this province whereby instruments are sold which are clearly intended to contravene the law?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Not very long, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary: In view of the fact that the minister has tolerated this for three or four years and that his colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth), said some time ago that he’s considering legislation, what is he waiting for? Is there any relationship between the people who happen to sell these instruments, who are good Tories, and his apparent lack of haste in outlawing these instruments?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there’s any connection there whatsoever.

Mr. Foulds: There’s no such thing as a good Tory.

Hon. Mr. Snow: My colleague the Solicitor General made a statement some time ago that he would be bringing in legislation that would outlaw these gadgets. I fully support that position and I expect that he will be doing so in the near future.

WHITBY PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Health. Yesterday at a picket line at Whitby Psychiatric Hospital protesting the cutbacks some allegations were made to me in the absence of the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) that under the new Correctional Services program, there were in fact prisoners from Whitby Jail now performing certain duties in, they specified, the laundry room there that had previously been performed by hospital employees. Can he confirm or deny those allegations?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No.

Mr. Breaugh: Would he investigate that then? While I’m on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I take the opportunity to present, again in the absence of the member for Durham West, this petition from those employees to the minister?

RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Could the minister tell me if there is any truth to the rumours that are going around my riding regarding Rideau regional hospital school, and the fact that we may be contracting out the laundry, food and cleaning services of that institution -- Rideau Regional Centre, Smiths Falls?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that at this point in time there has been no such decision. In fact there is no serious consideration being given to such proposals at this time.

USE OF INFLUENCE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, in the past week or so, the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Legislature have asked certain questions relating to Mr. Arthur Armstrong and the possibility of a criminal prosecution. I have requested senior law officers of my ministry to conduct a complete review of this matter and the events relating to it which occurred in April and early May of 1975. I have today received a full report on the legal questions raised in this regard. Rather than take up the time of the House to read the report, I would like to table it and provide copies for the members opposite.

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

Mr. Reed: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Now that the minister has released his decision authorizing expropriation to proceed on the Bradley-Georgetown corridor, will he tell the House how he justifies three 500 kilovolt lines and two 230 kilovolt lines to run south from Bruce to Milton when the power that is demanded from that station is flowing into northern Ontario?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

Mr. Reed: Could I have a supplementary to a non-answer, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: You can try.

Mr. Foulds: All you get from this minister is non-answers.

Mr. Reed: Is it because the minister does not know the answer, or is it because he really does know the answer but is not prepared to reveal it to the House?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I said I would take that question as notice and that’s precisely what I shall do.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: He knows it’s loaded.

Mr. Lewis: If the Minister of Energy had been doing that in the last six weeks, he wouldn’t have got into so much trouble.

ELLIOT LAKE URANIUM TAILINGS

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister assure the House that the uranium tailings called pyrites, which when oxidized release sulphuric acid, are not causing an environmental problem in Elliot Lake?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows there are hearings going on at Elliot Lake at the present time and both old and existing tailing areas are part of a control order that has been issued by my ministry. I would assume the retention of those tailings are done in a way that is safe and won’t affect the surrounding waters -- for example, Serpent River or Whiskey Lake.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Have the ministry officials been monitoring that situation on a regular basis?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Monitoring would occur as a result of a control order. I will have to get the information in respect to the hon. member’s question, but there has been continuous monitoring.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Is the minister aware of the complaints of the Serpent River band that they have not received adequate assistance: in providing good water as a result of the pollution in Serpent River?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As the hon. member knows, that reservation is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I understand that the federal government has undertaken to dig wells in one or two places where there has been a problem of radiation -- at radon 226 levels, I believe. I might also say that there’s a difference in criteria between the province and the federal government that is causing problems. But I understand that the wells, as far as we are concerned -- and our level is lower -- are safe.

Mr. Wildman: A further supplementary: What attempts are being made to resolve that difference between the federal and provincial levels? Is the minister having meetings with the federal officials to resolve that and when does he expect a reply, or a resolution?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The criteria for arriving at the levels are different. We use the levels that are used for occupational health -- for example, for people who are exposed on a 24-hour basis to radiation. The federal government does not do that. It’s a matter of resolving the figures, depending on the criteria we use.

ACTIONS OF POLICE AT BURLINGTON

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Attorney General. Has the Attorney General, either at the behest of the Solicitor General or on his own initiative, requested that an investigation be carried out into the statements made by one Roy Murden, a former police officer with the Halton police force? This man has indicated in a public statement that he had taken part personally in a number of incidents involving brutality over the years that he was on the force, and had done some considerable physical harm to a number of citizens of Burlington. If the minister has not done so, will he?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I haven’t. I am not aware of the statements that are attributed to the former police officer. I think this is a question that at this point in time should be directed to the Solicitor General.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Given that it was directed to the Solicitor General with the request that he broaden the investigation which had been requested by citizens of Burlington into the police force to include those previous incidents, and that to this point there has been no response to that, will the Attorney General on behalf of the public, as the chief law officer of the Crown, direct that an inquiry be undertaken into these particular statements and into the validity of them? This would determine whether or not what has gone on has been brutalization of citizens by the police in Burlington, which has to be stopped, and whether or not it is a matter of practice.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Certainly I will undertake to inquire into the matter myself and to discuss it with the Solicitor General, who I see is absent. He is, I believe, at the opening today of the new Metropolitan Toronto Police College. That is as far as I am prepared to go at this time.

Mr. Deans: I hope they teach them better things there.

HOSPITAL SCANNERS

Mr. Baetz: I have a question of the Minister of Health. In view of the fact that the district health council of Ottawa-Carleton has now endorsed the installation of a full-body capacity scanner for the Ottawa Civic Hospital, may the people of Ottawa and the entire Ottawa Valley now expect an early ministerial approval to install this highly valuable equipment?

Mr. Foulds: No, no. It’s taken Thunder Bay a year and a half.

Mr. Breaugh: Two bucks says he won’t say no.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What odds are you giving?

Mr. Foulds: Ten to one -- on a dime.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I understand that the district health council did meet early this week to consider priorities for the region of Ottawa-Carleton and that is one which they have either placed at the head of the list or certainly among the top priorities.

I haven’t received from the council a formal indication of what those priorities are. I can assure the member, and through him the people of the Ottawa-Carleton region, that I will give it serious consideration in evaluating approvals for new programs for the coming year.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Could the minister, while he is examining the whole procedure for purchasing the body scanners, also look into the request from the Toronto General Hospital for the same piece of equipment?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The hon. member knows the TGH already has a scanner -- but not of the same kind, I agree. They already have a head scanner.

Mr. Makarchuk: But that’s different.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I know it’s different, I know. But the hon. member and the members of the House should realize that we already have in place or approved in Ontario more scanners than the whole of the rest of the Dominion. While it may seem to some that we are perhaps proceeding slowly and cautiously, I think it is the prudent manner in which to approach the allocation of machinery which is only four or five years old at the most, is into about the fourth generation of technology, and the cost of which is anywhere from $600,000 to $750,000 for each machine, with operating costs of about $250,000 a year. I think it behoves us to move cautiously and prudently in allocating such machinery.

Mr. Foulds: Final supplementary: While we’re on this matter of scanners, has the minister sorted out the difficulties between Port Arthur General Hospital and the McKellar General Hospital and the Thunder Bay district health council with regard to the location of the scanner in Thunder Bay? If so, when will the minister be making the announcement of the commitment to locate one there, or has he already made that decision?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the hon. member knows, while I have approved the allocation of a scanner for that area -- very much with the support and encouragement of the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) -- I am relying on the district health council --

Mr. Foulds: And the member for Port Arthur, and the former member for Fort William.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, I think I have heard from that member -- if we’re using ratios -- about 10 to one in support of the need for such a facility in that community. I am relying on the district health councils to advise me as to whether it should be attached to the Port Arthur General with the cancer clinic or to the McKellar General Hospital with the neurology unit. I would hope to have that information as soon as possible. Quite frankly, it’s taking much longer than I had hoped for.

OGOKI LODGE

Mr. Eakins: To the Minister of Culture and Recreation, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister indicate when Ogoki Wilderness Lodge will commence operations? Has it been determined whether it will ultimately become financially self-sustaining and meet its original objective of employing native people, or will it become another Minaki?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I can answer the questions in reverse, it certainly has been the subject of a management study. Certainly the emphasis is to be on native people being employed and I’m very optimistic as to the future prospects of what I think is a pretty worthwhile project.

Mr. Reid: What about Minaki?

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: Have costs skyrocketed from a 1974 estimate of somewhere around $300,000 to something now over approximately $1 million in September, 1977, although it is still not completed and will require substantial modifications? Will the minister table accounting records of funds spent to date by the Indian community secretariat?

Hon. Mr. Welch: There has been some acceleration of costs. My estimates will be before the standing committee on social development starting next Tuesday afternoon and at that time I certainly would be expected, I think, to provide the particulars to which the member has made reference.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: Has the minister received an indication of the expected operating deficit of Ogoki Wilderness Lodge and has it been determined whether his ministry or the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will underwrite such anticipated losses?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I can’t speak to the question of that report. I haven’t got that information with me but I’d be very glad to have it available for my estimates.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: Given the fact that the limited company is apparently reluctant to commence operations without a government guarantee of underwriting, can the minister advise us in his estimates -- if not now -- who he foresees as the potential operators of this operation? Can he tell us also how the recruitment and training programs of native peoples in the Whitewater Lake area have developed and how many native people are expected to be employed?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I will have that available for my estimates.

BRIBERY CASE

Mr. di Santo: I have a question for the Attorney General. In the answer given to me by the Attorney General last Tuesday to my previous question, the Attorney General stated that in the case of Melvin Kurtz, it was “necessary in these cases to refrain from prosecuting one or the other of the giver or receiver in order to have the evidence of one for a successful prosecution.”

In the view of the fact that Melvin Kurtz, the briber, admitted to Judge Waisberg that he had received money from Marion Construction, and in view of the fact that the principal of Marion Construction had stated, as is shown in the report on page 113, that bribery was --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Question!

Mr. di Santo: I am coming to the question.

Mr. Foulds: It’s coming, it’s coming. Don’t worry, John.

Mr. di Santo: -- acceptable only if it worked, could the Attorney General tell us why was it that the big shots got off the hook and the small fish got charged in this case?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: With respect, I think I gave quite a complete answer on Tuesday to the member’s question in relation to the charges that were laid. I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave at that time.

Mr. di Santo: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: How could you possibly have a supplementary when he said he has nothing further to add?

Mr. di Santo: Then to the previous question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Attorney General table the names of the people involved in these cases?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I repeat what I said a moment ago. I have nothing further to add to my answer given on Tuesday.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Hon. J. A. Taylor: On Tuesday the Leader of the Opposition questioned the existence of schedules and cost estimates for Bruce heavy water plants which were cited in a letter from Ontario Hydro to Lummus Company of Canada on April 22 last.

Mr. Lewis: It wasn’t asked by the Leader of the Opposition. It was asked by Harold Greer.

Mr. Roy: That sounds as if the member is getting jealous of our research.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You know what he did to Wintermeyer.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The Leader of the Opposition asked if these documents did exist, whether I would table them in this House. While it may deter the Leader of the Opposition in his development of a further scenario for television performance, I want to confirm that the schedules and cost estimates do exist.

I am tabling herewith, Mr. Speaker, the following documents: Plant B commissioning schedule, dated April, 1977; master project schedule in regard to plant D, dated April 7, 1977; project cost summary for the period ending May 1, 1977, for plant B; and project cost summary for the period ending May 1, 1977, for plant D. These were the documents referred to and which the Leader of the Opposition doubted did exist.

Mr. Foulds: The minister’s explanation is longer than the documents.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I am pleased to table two further documents which he did not request, but which are germane to his question. These further documents are a project cost summary for period ending October 30, 1977, for plant B and a project cost summary for period ending October 30, 1977, for plant D.

If the Leader of the Opposition will compare the cost summaries he will find that the overrun on plants B and D have been kept on target -- indeed, the overrun totals have been slightly reduced in the April through October period. This is verification that the Lummus Company has been meeting the cost targets on which Ontario Hydro conditioned the continuance of Lummus work after April 13 of this year.

Further, I would draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to the grand total figures. As of October 30, 1977, it is predicted that Lummus work on plant B will run approximately $82.3 million more than the original cost estimate set in 1975, when allowance is made for some $9.4 million in approved extras. Further, and in the same manner, the documentation shows that Lummus overrun on plant D will approximate $62.3 million over the 1975 cost estimate, when approximately $4 million in approved extras are allowed for.

Mr. Deans: Is that over or under the target?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: In short, the Lummus project cost summaries show that the overrun on Bruce heavy water plants B and D will total approximately $143.6 million on original estimates totalling $703,808,000.

Mr. Deans: That is like the Treasurer’s budget. His budgetary overrun is right on target.

Mr. Riddell: What’s a million dollars.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: This represents an escalation of 20.4 per cent, exclusive of $13 million in approved extras which, in fact, would add another two per cent.

Mr. Roy: You seem to be proud of that.

Mr. Foulds: What are these extras?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: And further, I would like to assure the Leader of the Opposition that I would be pleased to explain the significance, purpose and role of the Bruce heavy water plants in Ontario’s energy future.

Mr. Roy: When?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The chairman of Hydro would be pleased to explain the details of the construction contracts to him, if the leader wishes to pursue the matter in the select committee at its forthcoming session.

Indeed, I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition would pursue in meaningful discussion before the select committee the many matters which he has discussed with such abandon and inaccuracy with the mass media during the past six weeks.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary to this response: Would the minister kindly put before himself the project cost summary, May 1, 1977, for B, and the project cost summary, October 3, 1977, for B? In so doing, would he kindly look at the overrun for material subcontract, labour and construction and recognize that they have gone up from approximately $117 million to $123 million, and that the reason the total at the very bottom of the page has stayed the same is that the portion marked “contingency” has apparently developed a positive balance of approximately $6 million? What kind of contingency fund is it that runs up a sudden finding of $6 million between May and October to make up for actual cost overruns in the field? Wasn’t it padded in the first place?

Mr. Nixon: Just a little tin box he keeps there with petty cash in it

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I’ll take that observation as a statement on the part of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Epp: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister how he can reconcile an overrun being on target?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have tabled this additional information and I --

Mr. Nixon: Stand by it, come what may.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: As I have mentioned, I would invite all members to pursue this as thoroughly as they know how. I think that if the member would think a moment, he will understand that estimates were made some years ago in connection with the total cost of completion.

Mr. Roy: Why don’t you plead the fifth amendment?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: It’s very difficult to predict over a number of years precisely what your labour costs will be because, for example --

Mr. Foulds: It is only two years.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- they do depend on negotiations and settlements --

Mr. Mancini: Plead insanity.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- and there are factors such as that which, of course, cannot be predicted with a firmness that might be expected here. But I think the member will realize that it is a matter of the ongoing monitoring process that tries to update whether the predictions are onstream or not, and whether they fall short or, in fact, overrun those that were anticipated earlier.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the minister if he would care to table the schedules that he speaks of for the year 1975? Those are the relevant ones, surely.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated consistently over the past six weeks or so, I am delighted to table whatever information you wish.

Mr. Wildman: You are consistently delighted and we are consistently bewildered.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I invite and continue to invite all members to let me know what they want in connection with these contracts and I would be delighted to see that they have it.

Ms. Gigantes: We would like that.

Mr. Roy: You sound more like a delivery boy than a minister.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: You sound like an ignoramus, and not only that, but you are accomplishing that image.

Mr. Roy: Will you bring me some papers tomorrow?

[3:00]

RICHMOND HILL GO TRANSIT SERVICE

Mr. Williams: With regard to the proposed Richmond Hill-Union Station GO Transit rail line, I have a three-part question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications:

First, could he indicate if in fact the scheduled opening for the spring of 1978 is indeed on schedule?

Second, could he indicate if any decision has been made by him with regard to the proposed rate increases to meet and offset increased operating costs as reported in the November 15 newsletter of the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority?

Third, in that same document there is reference to the fact there is some difficulty being experienced with regard to renegotiating the GO Transit rail operating agreement with the CNR. I would like to know --

Mr. Speaker: Order, in the essence of saving time your third whereas wasn’t a question.

Mr. Williams: -- what progress is being made with regard to negotiating that agreement?

Mr. Lewis: You have a lot of audacity accusing us of interjection. Accuse us of indulgence.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I’ll try and recall all those questions. First of all, the infrastructure contracts for the track improvement and the station construction for the Richmond Hill line are in progress, on schedule and will be completed this winter. We do expect to implement the rail commuter service on the Richmond Hill line in the spring of 1978. It probably would be ready before that if rolling stock was available, but the new double-decker cars have to arrive to replace the single-decker cars. That will take place early in the new year.

With regard to the GO Transit fares, the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority have made a recommendation for increased fares, but that has not been put before cabinet or approved yet.

In answer to the third question, the CNR contract is not finalized at this time.

OGOKI LODGE

Mr. Riddell: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- I’m tempted to ask the minister what my chances are of being selected for the Agriculture Hall of Fame, but I won’t do that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Not good.

Mr. Foulds: Ask him what his chances are.

Mr. Riddell: I would like to ask the minister a question pertaining to Ogoki Wilderness Lodge. Has the minister received the audit of all funds expended on the Ogoki Wilderness Lodge for development and construction as prepared by the audit services branch of his ministry?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, that question should be redirected to the minister in charge of the Indian community secretariat which is now looking after that work.

Mr. Eakins: Oh no, it’s through ARDA.

Mr. S. Smith: Through ARDA.

Hon. W. Newman: Oh, that’s right. Are you talking about the audit?

Mr. Riddell: Yes.

Hon. W. Newman: The audit is being done by them, not by me.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is it true that substantial ARDA funds were provided for the project and will the minister table a detailed audit?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as far as the total cost of the project is concerned, 92 per cent of the costs were paid by the government of Canada.

Mr. Eakins: What about your participation?

Mr. Roy: What’s yours?

Hon. W. Newman: About eight per cent.

AUTOMOBILE PURCHASES

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. On October 20, the minister tabled a reply to a question relating to the purchase of automobiles for ministers and deputy ministers -- which, incidentally, showed one purchase was $9,749.

Mr. Roy: Who would that be?

Ms. Bryden: Is the minister considering revising the request-to-purchase form, which he also tabled, so as to restrict automobile purchases to energy saving models, compact and small models --

Mr. Roy: Hey, the Minister of Industry and Tourism should listen to this.

Ms. Bryden: -- and to limit the number of options which the government will pay for in this time of restraint?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, any change in such standards would be by way of a change in the manual of administration from the Management Board, and whatever the manual of administration would set down would be our guideline for purchasing.

Ms. Bryden: May I then ask the Chairman of Management Board is he planning to revise this request-to-purchase form in order to bring in a restriction on the gas guzzlers?

Hon. Mr. Auld: We’re always looking at the items in the manual of administration.

Mr. Lewis: A Volkswagen is good enough for my successor.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Volkswagens are not manufactured in Canada.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Would the Chairman of Management Board be prepared to arbitrate between the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) so that we could lower the cost somehow for the Minister of Industry and Tourism on the same car as the Minister of Education purchased?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It has better resale value.

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, Mr. Speaker.

HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTORS

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In the light of numerous complaints in many municipalities concerning shoddy workmanship and non-completion of work in the construction industry, is the minister considering bonding and registration of all home improvement contractors as itinerant sellers under the Consumer Protection Act?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Under the Act, a lot of itinerant sellers are required to register. The problem has always been the ability to find them, to police the Act and follow it through.

It’s an area that causes us some concern. We’re currently reviewing it, though we are not about to report back next week, to see just where we go in the area in terms of an effective system. We don’t want to go with a system which requires registration if it’s going to be meaningless.

We’d be happy to receive any suggestions the member may have with regard to a meaningful way to look after that problem.

PIPE PRODUCTION

Mr. Swart: I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Does the minister still hold to his recent damaging statement that, and I quote, “Some of the technology is not in place in the Ontario pipe industry,” and that Ontario companies therefore may not be able to supply the pipe for the proposed Alaska Highway pipeline?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, back a week or so ago when the question was asked, I was very clear in saying that some of the technology was not in place in this country at this time.

Mr. Wildman: But isn’t Algoma getting it ready?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Just one second. It was clearly indicated by the president of Stelco and several other companies that they concurred with that very observation, but they also said, exactly as I said in this House, that it could be brought into production. The system could be implemented in the Canadian system in a relatively short period of time but it is not here at the moment.

The other point I raised was about the lack of technology and understanding, both in Canada and the United States, of a high-pressure system to carry the product that is being designed to be carried in the pipeline. That has not been carried out. That is why Mr. Homer and the federal government have been negotiating for the larger pipe with a reduced pressure factor.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Does the minister know that Peter Gordon, the chairman and chief executive officer of Stelco, expressed concern at a press conference in Welland yesterday about persons falsely stating that the pipe couldn’t be produced there. He said, and I quote, “We can produce pipe that no other company in North America can produce. There is no question that we can meet the requirements for the transmission of frontier gas.” Does the minister dispute his statement?

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s exactly what the minister said.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I think Mr. Gordon is stating a fact in relationship to certain specifications that could very well be brought in.

Mr. Swart: No, he is not. He made that clear.

Mr. Wildman: Resign.

Mr. Warner: Is that a misunderstanding?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I don’t know whether it’s a misunderstanding or not. I want to make it very clear here.

Mr. Speaker: Please ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There is some relevance to the interjections because it would be best to clear up their lack of understanding.

Mr. Swart: Read his statement.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Very clearly, and it’s been a known fact --

Mr. Foulds: You are in trouble on this one.

Mr. Germa: Go back to insurance.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the minister to ignore the interjections and answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In reply to the question, I say again the fact remains from the federal point of view, and from our point of view and in discussions with Stelco, including Mr. Gordon, the possibilities of the high-pressure pipe have been reviewed. It is not a system they are prepared to undertake at this time because of the lack of technology and experience.

The other pipe system, which has been discussed very thoroughly with Mr. Homer and others, is the one that we feel that Canadians, generally speaking, are capable of producing.

Mr. Swart: Check with the union and read his statement yesterday.

Mr. Warner: Check it out with your barber and then resign.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the hon. member opposite has been on the pipe too long.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Beyond the pipe.

Mr. Kerrio: Is the minister aware of the fact that the large lobbies in the US are attempting to get the pipe specification changed, to disadvantage us in Canada and to have a better chance of landing the total contract?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as the Premier said the other day in response to a similar question, it would be unbelievable for us as Canadians to sit here and believe the Americans and their steel industry, which is depressed at the moment, would not be out trying to secure orders in this Canadian market or anywhere else in the world.

The fad remains that we have been as competitive, from a Canadian point of view, as anyone. We’ve had discussions and committees established, both federally and provincially, to review the essential requirements of the six companies that will install the pipeline here in the Canadian portion of the contract.

Mr. Kerrio: How about Alberta?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There’s also the possibility, and we may as well be honest with that, that the Alberta firm as well will be out trying to seek a portion of the supply of pipe for the system.

Mr Martel: Run them across Canada.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We have had assurance from people with the Foothills Pipeline organization, both publicly and in discussion with them federally and provincially, that we in Canada will be given the opportunity of quoting and participating and likely supplying a very substantial portion of the equipment needed, including pipe, valves and other portions of the pipeline requirement. We’ll be able to tender on it.

I think it would be unrealistic to believe that the Canadians are going to be given a carte blanche position in quoting; they have said, “If they were competitive.” We have that position. We’ll keep a very close eye on what happens with other countries in their bids in the pipeline system.

The member for Niagara Falls has said once before in my estimates something about subsidies coming through special tariff programs or give-away programs of the US government. We will monitor those to make sure that they do not become applicable in the quoting system in pipe for this pipeline.

GARFELLA INVESTMENTS

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this is in response to a question from the member for Etobicoke in relation to the operations of a certain firm known as Garfella Investments.

I’ve had the material submitted to me reviewed extensively; it was submitted to me by the member for Etobicoke, and it was reviewed extensively by law officers of the Crown. It appears that at the present time there is no breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act as the tenants have been advised that their respective tenancies will not be disturbed.

However, the scheme in question is being used as an alternative to the Condominium Act for the sale of residential accommodation. Law officers from my ministry, the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations have made a tentative suggestion that the Condominium Act be amended to ensure that such sales are made in accordance with that Act.

Mr. Philip: The minister’s announcement is very much appreciated.

I have a supplementary: I wonder if the minister is aware that two employees of N.S. Mitro Real Estate, namely a Mrs. Holden -- I don’t have the first name -- and also an Alice Constantino are advising purchasers of the shares in this building that they can evict the tenants on 90 days’ notice following the purchase of shares in that particular building? Would the minister look into the possibility that this real estate firm is violating the Combines Act by way of misrepresenting what they’re selling to the potential purchasers of shares?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If the facts support the information that the hon. member has, it would also appear to be a matter of encouraging a breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act, because in my understanding of the legislation it would be impossible to legally evict individuals on that basis. If the hon. member could provide us with as much information as he can on this, we’d be happy to pursue that aspect of the matter further.

Mr. Philip: I will be providing the minister with affidavits tomorrow, then.

Mr. Foulds: I wonder if the minister can tell us how soon we can expect that amendment to the Condominium Act, inasmuch as it was promised last January by the then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with regard to a similar situation with Waverley Park Towers in Thunder Bay?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no knowledge of that particular matter but I would think that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations might be asked. He is well aware of the situation and I think the question as to when such an amendment is likely to be introduced should be more properly directed to him.

USE OF INFLUENCE

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Attorney General, following his tabling of a previous response on the Armstrong matter: Can the Attorney General tell the House whether the opinions which his law officers have formulated in this instance were formulated with or without the benefit of having heard certain tape recordings of a conversation between the counsel for the Mississauga inquiry and a Mr. Armstrong? Was this opinion formulated with or without the benefit of having heard that particular piece of evidence?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer that question. I think it’s likely that the opinion was formulated without that information, but I can’t be certain of that. I just don’t know at this point in time.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary if I might. I realize we are running out of time and you are kind to allow me to do this, Mr. Speaker. When the Attorney General is getting this information, would he also undertake to table in this House the OMB file on the Jan Davies application in question and also any correspondence between the hon. Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and Mr. Armstrong pertaining to the entire matter in question?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would have to ascertain just what is available from the OMB. I think the matter of the correspondence involving the Treasurer was handed over to the Ontario Provincial Police and that may well be available. But I would like to ascertain that first before making any undertaking.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: We only have time for one more question and in fairness I think we should recognize the hon, member for Carleton East.

BRITISH AMERICAN BANK NOTE COMPANY

Ms. Gigantes: A question for the Minister of Labour: In connection with the strike going on in Ottawa at the British American Bank Note Company by the Ottawa Steel Plate Examiners Union, will the minister personally initiate action or have action initiated by officials of her ministry, so that the management will drop its position that it’s normal for women to be paid less than men for work done by women which is of a similar and/or more skilled nature than men are doing in the same firm?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if indeed that is the position of the British American Bank Note Company, it is in contravention of the equal pay law in the province of Ontario. That law states that in any establishment where work of similar nature or equal nature is done by men and women, the rates of pay will be the same.

REPORTS

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Hon. Mr. Kerr presented the annual report of the Ministry of the Environment for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1976, and ending March 31, 1977.

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr2, An Act respecting the Township of Dover.

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing general government committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor be granted Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Office of the Lieutenant Governor program................................................... 100,000

Further resolved: That supply in the following amount to defray the expenses of the Office of the Premier be granted Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Office of the Premier program.......... $1,478,000

Further resolved: That supply in the following amount to defray the expenses of the Cabinet Office be granted Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Cabinet Office program..................... $1,077,000

MOTIONS

TRANSFER OF ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be transferred from the standing resources development committee to the standing general government committee for consideration not to exceed 25 hours;

And that the following estimates be transferred from the committee of supply to the standing administration of justice committee, namely: Ministry of Correctional Services, not to exceed 12 hours; Justice policy secretariat, not to exceed 10 hours;

And further, that the supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Culture and Recreation be referred to the standing social development committee for consideration within the time already allotted for that ministry.

Motion agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HYDRO NUCLEAR PLANT CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that a select committee of the Legislature be appointed:

First, to inquire into the cost of construction of the two heavy water plants being built by Ontario Hydro at the Bruce nuclear power development and to report to the Legislature on all factors affecting cost, such examination to include but not be limited to:

(a) The requirements for heavy water, the original estimates of the cost of the plants and the contracts signed with the Lummus Company of Canada for the construction of the plants, and the conditions placed on the contracts for Canadian content;

(b) The change in the scope of the work required due to changes in plant design after the original estimates were completed;

(c) The effect on the total cost of the plants and their construction schedule due to the cancellation of the fourth plant known as plant C;

(d) The factors affecting any additional costs incurred by the contractor and Hydro for the supply of major equipment, structural components or other supply items;

(e) The factors affecting escalation of sub- contracts placed by the contractor or Hydro for work related to the construction of the plants;

(f) The factors affecting labour costs for construction of the plants including escalation of labour rates, work stoppages, union jurisdictional disputes, and the shortage of any labour skills required for construction;

(g) The effect of interest rates and foreign exchange rates on the overall costs of construction;

(h) The administration of the contract by Hydro and the control methods used to monitor and minimize the costs;

and to prepare and submit a report for the Legislature upon the conclusion of this inquiry.

Second, to review the implementation of the recommendations of the select committee of the 30th Parliament which examined Ontario Hydro’s proposals for both power rate increases for 1976, such review to include consideration of Ontario Hydro’s status reports tabled by the Ministry of Energy.

Third, to examine Ontario’s nuclear commitment, taking into account the report and recommendations of the royal commission on electrical power planning and Ontario’s energy future, such examination to include but not be limited to:

(a) Ontario Hydro’s system planning strategy for adopting nuclear power, and in particular:

Large versus small generating stations, remote stations versus sites close to urban areas; the ratio of nuclear-fueled generating stations that should be built in comparison to fossil-fueled stations, keeping in mind security of supply and cost differentials;

(b) The economics of nuclear power versus generation from other primary fuels;

(c) The performance and reliability of nuclear generating stations;

(d) The responsibility for and the standards relative to the safety of nuclear generating stations;

(e) Environmental impact and health considerations related to nuclear power.

And that the select committee may prepare and submit interim reports for the Legislature and shall prepare and submit a final report before the end of December 1978, and that the select committee may request such coverage of its proceedings by Hansard and the printing of such papers as the committee deems appropriate; and the committee shall have authority to sit during the interval between sessions and have full power and authority to employ counsel and such other personnel as may be deemed advisable and to call for persons, papers and things, and to examine witnesses under oath and the assembly doth command and compel attendance before the said select committee of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations, for which the Honourable Speaker may issue his warrant or warrants; and the committee shall be composed of 14 members as follows: Messrs. MacDonald, chairman; Ashe, Foulds, Ms. Gigantes, Haggerty, Handleman, Jones, Kerrio, Lane, Leluk, Nixon, Reed, Samis, Williams.

Mr. MacDonald: May I just give notice to members of the committee, to show this is a rather urgent matter, they will be meeting at 6 o’clock tonight in committee room No. 2, with a buffet supper.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is indeed organization.

Mr. Lewis: If it had been a Liberal chairman it would be at La Scala.

Mr. Breithaupt: If it were a Liberal chairman it would be down in the dining room.

Mr. Speaker, we congratulate the government House leader for bringing forward what we see as a very involved and general set of terms that should be easily attended to. There was only one point I wish to raise, and that is with respect to the management, handling and disposal of nuclear waste. I just want the assurance of the government, House leader that, either with respect to that last item (d) in the third part, concerning safety of generating stations, or in the final area of environmental impact and health considerations, there will be an acknowledgement that that subject likely could be seen to be included.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the committee could decide on that.

Motion agreed to.

BRIBERY CASE

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to give notice that I was not satisfied with the disappointing answer of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and I’d like to debate it tonight.

OHIP OFFICE CLOSURE

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) filed the necessary notice to raise a matter at the adjournment of the House. The question was addressed to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) on November 15, and with the agreement of both parties the debate was stayed until today, which is November 24. This matter will be debated this evening at 10:30 p.m., along with the matter raised just now by the member for Downsview, who is dissatisfied with the answer given to him by the Attorney General. So those two will be debated on the late show this evening.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moved first reading of Bill 110, An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the three amendments to the Planning Act which are placed before you today have the objective of speeding up the approval system under the Act while increasing the importance of locally made decisions concerning development proposals.

The first amendment concerns local municipal zoning by-laws. The amendment removes the threat of legal challenges as to the conformity of zoning bylaws which have been advertised according to regulations, received no objections and come into force without the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board.

My ministry will shortly issue the required regulations which will be based largely upon the current rules of procedure of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The second amendment provides a means of removing frivolous appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board on consent and minor zoning variance decisions of local committees.

The third amendment concerns appeals to cabinet over local decisions on consents and minor zoning variances.

It is my view these three amendments will significantly improve the planning process and will speed up the process in the province.

[3:30]

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before the orders of the day, I wish to table answers to questions 37, 39 and 40 standing on the order paper.

We will be calling the ninth order, Mr. Speaker, and when doing so, may I indicate to you, and through you to the House, that the whips have generally arranged the debate on Bill 70 and the reasoned amendment which will no doubt be introduced during the course of that debate in such a way that we plan a division tonight around 10:15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: With a 30-minute maximum bell?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I suppose if there is to be a bell we had better start ringing it at 10 o’clock. Do the whips agree to that? Of course I suppose that is a maximum bell, we could agree to have a 15-minute bell. I think that is the agreement, that we have a 15-minute bell at 10:15 p.m.

Mr. Breithaupt: Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT

Hon. B. Stephenson moved second reading of Bill 70, An Act respecting the Occupational Health and Occupational Safety of Workers.

Mr. O’Neil: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We consider Bill 70 to be one of the most important legislation for working people to be brought before the Legislature in many years.

In the last two years particularly, our leader, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith), and the Liberal caucus have consistently challenged the government’s inaction in the area of occupational health and safety. We have been pleased to discuss this matter with labour organizations, management groups, industry people and experts in the health field. The Liberals will be suggesting a number of major amendments to strengthen the legislation to better protect every employee in the province. The amendments will not involve the expenditure of additional public funds or endanger the employment of a single worker.

Providing the minister demonstrates a flexible attitude in her remarks on second reading, we will not block the bill at this stage. We feel amending the bill now before us is a more constructive and responsible approach than that suggested by the NDP. In referring to their suggestion that the bill be passed back to the government, we feel it is better we put it before the Legislature now and have it go to committee.

I would first of all like to make some comments regarding coverage. Coverage under Bill 70 continues to be restricted to certain places of employment rather than including all employees. The minister has discretion to include or exclude work places from the legislation at her discretion; I refer members to section 3(1)(e) and section 3(2)(b). Thousands of workers in the province will likely continue to be excluded because of the high degree of ministerial discretion. Hotel and hospital workers; inside and outside municipal workers; teachers and support staffs in schools, colleges and universities; farm workers; staffs of such provincial institutions as psychiatric hospitals, mental retardation centres and correctional facilities; and workers in medical laboratories -- all continue to be excluded by this legislation. Many members of these groups are exposed to hazardous substances such as pesticides and laboratory chemicals, as well as dangerous work practices.

I would like to read into the record, if I may, some of the statistics supplied in a brief presented to our members by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. Among their members who were excluded from the legislation are: some 9,000 employees of government-run psychiatric hospitals; 4,000 employees of governmental retardation centres; 10,000 employees in Ontario community colleges; and 3,000 employees in Ontario correctional institutions. The only exception to this is the coverage of laundry workers in some facilities under the Industrial Safety Act. All others are in fact excluded from coverage under the Industrial Safety Act because their work places do not fit the definition of a work place covered by the Act.

I would also like to read into the record, if I may, that in the institutions operated by the Ministries of Health and Community and Social Services an equally dismal record exists as to the accident rate. In the St. Lawrence Regional Centre, which employs some 55 OPSEU members. 275 days were lost during the period 1975 to 1977 due to work-related injuries. In the Rideau Regional Centre, Smiths Falls, in 1975, 3,600 days were lost by OPSEU members due to 561 work-related injuries and 238 assault-related injuries. In 1976, a total of 777 incidents occurred, 225 which were assault-related and incidents which resulted in 3,697 days lost by OPSEU members.

In the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital in 1976, 612 days were lost by OPSEU members due to work-related injuries. This year up until March 31, 1977, 401 days were lost due to work-related injuries. We could go on to the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital where in 1975 at this facility there were 829.5 days lost by OPSEU members because of work-related injuries. In January, February and March 1976 -- during those three months -- 86 work-related injuries occurred, which resulted in 502.5 days being lost by OPSEU members.

This clearly shows that this is one segment of many we mentioned that should be covered. I feel that at the time when this comes to committee the minister should seriously consider the inclusion of these different sections in the bill.

As I mentioned, coverage for farm workers is excluded under the bill. I know it is difficult to obtain statistics on the extent of work-related farm accidents. The minister herself has stated that accidental death on the approximately 25 per cent of Ontario farms covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Board increased from 34 in 1975 to 45 in 1976, while the number of lost-time accidents decreased.

Some American authorities have suggested that farming has the third highest accident rate of any occupation, exceeded only by the mining and construction industry.

While there are clearly occupational health hazards in the agricultural community, we also recognize that special circumstances exist in the agricultural community with respect to weather conditions, seasonal nature of work, long hours during peak periods and machinery and equipment designed and manufactured to different standards for agricultural rather than other uses. For example, we understand that the detailed regulations now in effect for industrial machinery and equipment simply do not exist for the agricultural sector.

We note that the minister promised on January 18, 1977 to appoint an agricultural representative to the advisory council on occupational health and safety. She did not do so until the past few days when Mr. Peter Fisher was belatedly appointed. Almost a year has been lost in this delay.

In their joint briefs to the minister, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Farm Safety Association and the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association generally supported an extension of health and safety legislation to agriculture, provided that it is developed by the Minister of Labour in consultation with the agricultural advisory committee. This is contained in their joint briefs of August 1970, page 2.

We commend these organizations on their enlightened approach and urge the minister to take a more active role in encouraging the development of suitable regulations covering such working conditions as roll-over protection for tractors, guarding and shielding of farm equipment and personal protection equipment. While we realize that it will take some time to develop regulations suitable for the farming community, we feel that the minister should be willing to commit herself this time to a specific timetable for the drafting of such regulations and the protection of agricultural workers by occupational health and safety regulations.

The minister stated in the Legislature on October 18 that dispassionate consideration has convinced the government that expansion of coverage of the legislation would be inappropriate at this time. What more logical time is there to consider the expansion of coverage than in the introduction of supposedly comprehensive legislation on this subject? Surely the minister would be prepared to have the question of expanded coverage either of additional groups of employees or more simply and perhaps preferably, of the inclusion of all employees considered at the committee stage of this bill.

I would also like to say a few words regarding standards for toxic substances. There are absolutely no standards for toxic substances whatsoever set out in the bill. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations on a wide variety of subjects, including, “Prescribing any biological, chemical or physical agent or combination thereof as a designated substance”; section 39(2)22. I quote again: “Prohibiting, regulating, restricting and limiting or controlling the handling of, exposure to, or the use of, or disposal of designated substances”; section 39(2)23.

I quote again: “adopting by reference any criteria or guide in relation to the exposure of a worker to any biological chemical or physical agent or a combination thereof.” But there is no indication whatever in the legislation of what criteria or guidelines are to be adopted.

Many scientific groups have done extensive research into the airborne concentrations of substances and conditions to which workers may be exposed day after day without adverse affects. For example, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, which had a Canadian, Dr. Mastromatteo, as a consultant, has compiled a list of approximately 400 toxic substances and set out exposure standards, both with respect to the average concentration for a 40-hour week and for the maximum exposure permissible for a short-term period. Yet the extensive work of the American conference in establishing threshold limit values for over 400 substances could be entirely ignored by the Minister of Labour.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s what we use now.

Mr. O’Neil: We feel that the province of Ontario should adopt standards at least as effective as the threshold limit value standards for all substances for which threshold limit values standards have been adopted.

At a very minimum the legislation should set out specifically that in adapting standards dealing with materials or harmful physical agents the standards should be adopted which most adequately assure to the extent feasible that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity, even if such employee has regular exposure to a hazard regulated by such standard for the period of his working life.

How are these standards to be set? Under the proposed legislation entirely at the discretion of the minister behind closed doors. We propose that employees, employers and independent experts should have a voice in establishing these standards. One possible mechanism for establishing standards might be the advisory council on occupational health and occupational safety to be established under section 10 of the bill.

The Minister of Labour named the 16 members, and as I mentioned it is now 17 following the inclusion of a representative for agriculture on this committee on November 14. This advisory council, including representatives of employees and employers, might serve a useful role in setting standards providing that its membership were representative of all employees and employers, non-unionized as well as unionized, and small as well as large employers.

We also notice, in looking over the list of people who have been appointed to this advisory council, that there seemed to be no one representing some of the smaller companies and worker groups. They all seemed to be from larger corporations or larger unions. We wondered if we could have some comments from the minister concerning this.

In a number of other jurisdictions, industrial health and safety standards are set openly by public bodies and we feel the minister should follow this example in Ontario. The legislation sets out a distinction between designated toxic substances, section 39(2)22, and other toxic substances for which the minister suggested in her introductory statement that guidelines be enacted. It is unclear from the legislation what sort of regulations will be enacted with respect to either category of toxic substances.

Perhaps more important is how will these regulations be communicated to workers on the job site. In our view the legislation should require that a notice containing pertinent information on general occupational health and safety legislation and notice of particular harmful substances be made available to every employee. This is done in some of the California legislation on health and safety.

[3:45]

We are concerned that the bill makes no provision for the introduction of a pretesting program for new substances introduced in the work place which are suspected of being harmful, and we will be proposing amendments to section 15 of the bill accordingly. The federal food and drug directorate provides such protection with respect to food and drugs. We feel that there is no reason that workers should receive less protection.

We understand also that the environmental protection agency in the United States has recently begun a program of pretesting of all substances that find their way into the environment. They are apparently giving priority to these substances with the greatest potential for causing harm, particularly those which may cause cancer. They are utilizing new medical techniques developed by Dr. Ames of the University of California. Surely the government of Ontario could co-operate with other agencies involved in testing new substances, perhaps dividing up the substances to be tested in order that pretesting could be done in an expeditious and efficient manner.

We have had preliminary discussions with representatives of employers’ groups as well as employees on this subject. They’re naturally concerned about possible production holdups and loss of competitive advantages. They are not unilaterally opposed to the concept of pretesting providing that delays are reduced to the minimum possible period.

In our view, this bill is lacking with respect to the involvement of both employers and employees in achieving high standards of health and safety at work. Under Bill 139, the minister was empowered to establish health and safety committees, composed of an equal number of employee and employer representatives, and to appoint worker safety representatives. To our knowledge, the minister has not appointed a single such committee or representative. We feel that such committees are particularly important for non-union employees, who may have no other effective channel of communications with their employer. We feel that the powers of health and safety committees and worker safety representatives are unclear and inadequate as set out in section 7(4) and section 8(5) of the proposed bill. We feel that these groups should have access to both information and training from the occupational health and safety division of the ministry or other sources. Thus there would be more reliance on accurate on-site monitoring and less reliance on inspection from the Ministry of Labour.

In some cases, on-site discussions, inspections and recommendations may not be sufficient. Perhaps there should be some mechanism linking the role of the joint committees and safety representatives with the activities of the ministry. In the event that an employer refuses to accept the recommendations of a joint committee or a safety representative, perhaps an inspection from the Ministry of Labour within a short time, perhaps three days, could be made obligatory.

Also, on the right to refuse work the minister in her introductory statement stated that she was clarifying the right to refuse work. In our view, the new legislation is less satisfactory than the provisions of Bill 139 in this regard. Under the provisions of Bill 139, section 3(1), the employee has the opportunity to refuse work and then report this matter to his employer in the presence of either the health and safety representative, a committee member who represents employees or a representative of the trade union. The important evidentiary and physiological benefit to an employee of discussing this matter of first instance while accompanied by someone else, appears to have been dropped in section 21 of the new bill. We consider this a retrogressive step rather than a clarification.

The rights of an employer to assign another worker to work which another employee has rejected as unsafe, is also left unclear by the section. Should the employer not be required to at least advise the employee of the refusal of previous employee?

Section 21(9)(b) also appears unclear in the extreme and possibly open to employer abuse. It states that during an inspection of an alleged unsafe work place, a worker shall remain at a safe place near his work station unless the employer, “where an assignment of reasonable alternative work is not practicable, gives other directions to the worker.” What sort of “other directions” does the minister have in mind? Suppose the worker is told to go home without pay. Is that the sort of “other direction” permitted by the legislation?

Section 21(11) of the proposed bill has caused a great deal of concern to employees of this province, although some employers have argued that the inclusion of this provision marks no substantive change from Bill 139 where the employer had the same rights by implication.

The minister has provided statistics which indicated that the right to refuse unsafe work was exercised in only a relatively small number of cases in the year since the introduction of Bill 139, and in only a small percentage of cases was it exercised without reason.

Secondly, virtually all unionized employers have a management right’s clause in their collective agreement which permits them to discharge or discipline employees for just cause. For these reasons, we do not understand any compelling reason for including section 21(11).

The real problem, in our view, exists regardless of the inclusion of section 21(11). It is the inordinate length of time required for the arbitration of discharged cases. With respect to discipline relating to health and safety matters, the problem might be resolved in several ways; by giving the inspector authority to make a preliminary determination of the reasonableness of the employee’s refusal, subject to later appeal, or by ensuring that the employee receives a particularly expeditious hearing by the Labour Relations Board.

The problem of delay in the arbitration procedure extends far beyond the health and safety area, as the minister recognized in her appointment last year of an industrial inquiry commission to examine this matter. Unfortunately, the commissioner declined to hold public hearings and nothing has been heard of his progress, if any.

I would also like to make a few comments concerning prevention. In our view, the bill is particularly deficient with respect to means of identifying and preventing industrial health hazards. Section 15(d) contains a provision whereby an employer shall accurately keep and maintain such records of exposure of a worker to biological chemical or physical agents as may be prescribed.

What does the minister have in mind in this regard? Will these records be available to individual workers, health and safety committees and worker representatives? Most importantly, will the information required by regulation be turned over to provincial registry where each worker’s entire work history can be followed? Surely, this is absolutely essential for two reasons: One, to enable an individual worker to prevent irreversible damage to his health; and two, to enable medical authorities to identify high-risk substances and working conditions.

I would also like to make some comments concerning education. Several other deficiencies in the legislation render it less effective than it should be. The bill fails to establish the Occupational Health and Safety Research Institute which the Premier announced during the 1975 election campaign. What is going to be done about this? Will we have one?

The province continues to lack an adequate supply of occupational health specialists of various fields. The minister and her deputy minister have referred, on many occasions, to the lack of industrial hygienists, nurses, safety engineers and other professional and para-professional personnel; yet, what has been done to remedy the situation?

Even today, nurses who wish to specialize in industrial health must receive their certification in the US. Industrial health experts are being sought after in other jurisdictions at a time of high unemployment in Ontario. Once again, Ontario lags behind in this area.

As I mentioned in my opening comments, we will be very interested to hear what the minister has to say in reply to these questions which I have just raised and other questions which will be raised by other members here, and by the other party. As I said, it is our intention that she provide some flexibility in her remarks so that we will vote for second reading and so that this bill may go to committee where it can be discussed. After the committee meetings when some of these things have been revised and, hopefully most of them included as part of the bill, Ontario will have one of the best occupational health and safety bills in this part of North America. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker. I’m left somewhat puzzled by the remarks of the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil), because I’m not sure whether he said that they would support our reasoned amendment or would not support our reasoned amendment or whether he was saying he was going to wait and see how flexible the minister was.

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we will not be supporting the returning of this bill back to the government. We feel that is not the way it should be handled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, you had your remarks.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I did want that clarified. I did not want to unjustly accuse the official opposition of not being willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Most of the remarks by the member for Quinte I would, quite frankly, agree with. His points are well made. However, I would point out to him he’s dealt in some detail with the major principles embodied in the bill. To then vote for it is a bit of a contradiction. I would urge him, and not in a provocative kind of way, I would urge him, as seriously as I know how, to think seriously about our reasoned amendment. That reasoned amendment was not put on the order paper in my name for frivolous reasons; that reasoned amendment is put there in order to strengthen the bill and so we can, as the member for Quinte also concluded, have one of the best occupational health programs of any jurisdiction.

Mr. O’Neil: We can do that in committee.

Mr. Laughren: That is something on which I would agree entirely with the member for Quinte. I am serious when I say the reasoned amendment was designed and worked entirely to do that. There is nothing in our reasoned amendment, Mr. Speaker, which should cause offence to anyone whose primary concern is to improve the occupational health of workers in the province of Ontario.

Mr. O’Neil: We feel there will be too long a delay.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, we have waited a long time now and I can tell you that’s one reason the reasoned amendment is on the order paper. I can recall very vividly last December when we were debating Bill 139, the father of this or mother of this bill. I can remember proposing a number of amendments in the committee stage and the minister’s reaction was slightly short of violence, because she indicated --

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have never been violent.

Mr. Laughren: She was short, only slightly short, of violence.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Not even short of.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t be offended by the word “short.”

Hon. B. Stephenson: Well, I am.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I recall the minister’s reaction, which was primarily that for heaven’s sakes, don’t try and change this interim bill. The real bill coming up next year will embody all the principles -- well almost all the principles -- about which you expressed concern.

I am very disappointed, as are many people in the labour movement, at the minister’s omnibus bill. This was an opportunity to do something rather exciting about occupational health in the province of Ontario. We have been sadly jolted by this bill, because in some ways it, as a matter of fact, takes a backward step to the former Bill 139 on occupational health. I shall refer to this in more detail.

I think that one of the things that’s bothering me, and bothering others, is that when you introduce a bill like the interim bill, you raise people’s expectations about what’s going to be forthcoming. I, for one, took your remarks last year in good faith. I believe you were reacting in a legitimate political way to pressure from this side of the House and from the trade union movement about problems of occupational health in the work place. Certainly that was the way in which we viewed that Bill 139. That was why we understood your attempt or your efforts to get the bill before the House last spring rather than waiting until now to bring in the omnibus legislation. We supported you on that. We did not feel you were being politically expedient and merely doing it because there was an election in the spring of 1977. I think it’s fair to say we did not accuse you of that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: If you are accusing me of that now that is dirty pool, I’ll tell you.

Mr. Laughren: Well, there’s an expression that goes something like “if the shoe fits”; and I will be careful of my letters.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It doesn’t fit.

Mr. Lewis: You backed away from your commitment completely, which surprised us.

Mr. Laughren: You have backed away from a number of commitments.

[4:00]

Hon. B. Stephenson: Not true.

Mr. Laughren: You have backed away from a number of commitments.

I personally did give the benefit of the doubt to the minister when she introduced the bill in order to get it before the House and to make it the law of the land. But there are a couple of reasons why I am beginning to have serious reservations about the motives of her government last spring.

One is because of the nature of this bill itself, and its refusal to go forward in areas which I shall outline in more detail -- some of which have been mentioned quite adequately by the member for Quinte.

The other is the attitude towards the existing legislation. I think I know the minister will understand those to which I refer. I suspect that it’s impossible for this minister to understand that management rights have no place in occupational health. I suspect that is at the crux of a lot of the problems she has in giving workers a fair shake on matters of occupational health. There is still that narrow approach towards occupational health. It’s still dealing with accidents, it’s still viewing the work place as something which needs to be cleaned up and with giving workers minimal rights in order to protect themselves.

It does not go into the whole area, such as the World Health Organization talks about, of improving the entire physical, mental and social well-being of workers in the work place. That’s where we have to change. That’s where the minister simply has to move from the traditional approach to occupational health and broaden the scope of the legislation.

I am disappointed in this legislation. The reasoned amendment was put very thoughtfully on the order paper. It was a serious attempt to convince the Liberal Party to join with us in sending this bill back so that the improvements in principle could be made. The amendment contains changes in principle which would be very difficult to change at the committee stage.

We say that when we have got the opportunity of an omnibus health and safety bill before us, let’s make it the best health and safety legislation that is reasonable, that is practical at this time.

Specifically, this reasoned amendment is not an attempt to oppose for the sake of opposition. It is an attempt to say to the minister and through her to the workers of the province, that we have faith in their integrity as workers; we have faith in their expertise, and in their interest in improving occupational health conditions. At the present time, workers are still regarded as people who have to fight for everything they can get in the work place. Instead of giving them certain rights, the minister regards occupational health as an encroachment on management’s rights, rather than as a fundamental right of workers. And that’s a very serious shortcoming in her philosophy.

I hope the minister will note that the areas we deal with in our reasoned amendment are not frivolous areas. We have restricted the amendment to what we consider to be the very serious shortcomings of the bill; namely, the problem of committees, the problem of the right of workers to refuse to work in unsafe conditions; the lack of coverage referred to by the member for Quinte; and the whole problem of toxic substances.

Those are very serious shortcomings in the bill. Without those you really don’t have a substantial occupational health program in Ontario. You certainly don’t have a preventive occupational health program in the province. Those basic principles are absolutely crucial if we are going to change the attitude towards occupational health problems.

I would like to talk, first of all, about the whole problem of joint occupational health and safety committees in the work place. I believe that the participation of workers in occupational health is the most crucial aspect of this legislation, bar none. Without worker participation it simply cannot work. The minister has admitted on different occasions that it is not possible to blanket this highly industrialized province with inspectors to monitor the work place and to enforce the existing legislation; it simply cannot be done. Surely she understands that we’ll all be better off if workers are the inspectorate in the work place.

Since Bill 139 became the law of the land last December the minister has not recognized safety and health committees -- period. She simply has refused to recognize the committees and that was one of the key components of the bill itself. She needs no other examples than the big Steelworkers’ Local 6500 in Sudbury where they have been trying again and again and again to have health and safety committees recognized in the work place.

What really is strange is when the minister can say in a letter to Mr. Rothney, chairman of the safety and health committee at Sudbury, “I have no power to designate either committees or representatives. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, which deal exhaustively with my discretionary powers in relation to committees and representatives, contain no power of direct designation.”

Hon. B. Stephenson: Read the rest of it.

Mr. Laughren: I’ll give you one more sentence of your quote. You say, “However, I do not base my decision on these narrow bounds, but have treated the union’s submission as a request for the exercise of those discretionary powers given to me under sections 4 and 5 of Bill 139.”

Then you go on and refuse to recognize the committees, which they have requested. You can’t say in one breath, “I don’t have the power.” and the next minute say, “I will not base my decision on a narrow interpretation.” Then the third step is, you refuse to recognize the committees.

Hon. B. Stephenson: What do you mean recognize?

Mr. Laughren: I mean recognize, under Bill 139, safety and health committees as requested by the workers.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But that’s contained in this Act, so that can happen.

Mr. Laughren: It certainly is. The power is in Bill 139 for you to recognize committees.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, it is not; to designate committees or establish committees, not to recognize.

Mr. Laughren: They would be quite happy to have that done, and you haven’t done that either.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is in this Act.

Mr. Laughren: Why didn’t you do it under Bill 139?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member for Nickel Belt direct his remarks through the Chair?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Through you to the minister, the minister simply has not designated committees when requested by the union, and there is no excuse for that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Power to establish a committee, not designate a committee.

Mr. Laughren: The minister can mumble all she likes over there --

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am not mumbling.

Mr. Laughren: I can’t hear you.

Mr. Lewis: Anything we can’t hear is a mumble.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Really.

Mr. Laughren: We can hear inaudible whispers, we cannot hear mumbles.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But I don’t mumble.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the minister should rise on a point of personal privilege if she’s offended.

The whole question of committees, to me is the major liability in this bill. Unless the safety and health committees are made mandatory in all places of work over, say 10 employees --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Read the bill.

Mr. Laughren: -- you’re simply not going to have adequate numbers of committees in the province. It simply won’t work.

Do you know what the minister’s concern is? The minister’s real concern about appointing or designating committees is that her ministry would not be able to monitor the activities of the committees. That’s her real concern.

But if she’s worried about monitoring the committees’ work, how is she going to monitor the work places themselves?

Hon. B. Stephenson: What an idiotic suggestion.

Mr. Laughren: There is a contradiction in logic there that is beyond my comprehension.

Hon. B Stephenson: It should be, because it is stupid.

Mr. Lewis: Who is going to monitor them?

Mr. Laughren: Who is going to monitor the work places if you don’t allow the workers to? You don’t have that kind of budget in your ministry.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But there is a program for monitoring.

Mr. Lewis: No good faith; like everything else in the Ministry of Labour -- you don’t do it, you don’t execute it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You don’t have to have everything in legislation for gosh sakes; have some faith in human beings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I’d remind the members that the question period expired some time ago.

Mr. Lewis: We are resuscitating it in the interest of good faith.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister through you and to him when she replies, which I hope she will, to tell us how many committees have been designated under Bill 139 so we can understand why she has this reluctance to designate committees.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I don’t designate them.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the minister is playing with words --

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I am not, you are.

Mr. Laughren: -- and she knows full well that what we are talking about is the recognition, I don’t care what words she uses, the recognition of safety and health committees to have the authority as laid out in Bill 139 and under this Act.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Then support Bill 70, because it’s in there.

Mr. Laughren: That is all the union has ever asked for; that is all the workers have ever asked for; and that power in Bill 139 has been refused by the Minister of Labour, time and time again.

Mr. Lewis: It is all in the ministry.

Mr. Laughren: And you ask us why we don’t have good faith?

Mr. Lewis: You have had it before.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s in the bill, it’s in Bill 70.

Mr. Lewis: Well why is it any more valid now than it was before?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is expanded in Bill 70. You have not read the Act, obviously.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have read the Act again and again --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Well read it again.

Mr. Laughren: -- and I have read Bill 139 again and again. The workers have read those bills as well, and they have the same fears I do.

Mr. Martel: They cannot get it recognized.

Mr. Laughren: Because in Bill 139 all the reassurances and assurances were there by the minister; but when it came time to enact or to recognize and designate committees, the minister was found wanting. She simply would not do it. It would be very interesting at some point if the minister would tell us exactly what kind of employers’ lobby there has been in the last year. I suspect there has been a very strong one, otherwise --

Hon. B. Stephenson: None

Mr. Lewis: It is all in the ministry; there is enough there to last a life time.

Mr. Laughren: It probably says more, if there has not been an employers’ lobby, about the attitude of the minister and the Ministry of Labour, because I can tell you this bill takes several backward steps. Despite that fact that the minister has stated on numerous occasions that Bill 139 was not abused, yet she still steps back from some of the principles of that bill.

One of the other problems, of course, is that there is still no provision for the education of workers on occupational health and safety matters. There is an advisory council to approve education programs using provincial lottery funds, I understand that, but I am saying that the minister still has a half-hearted commitment to educational programs for workers.

This was discussed during the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and certainly nothing has changed. I think that what we are saying to the minister is: why step back from Bill 139; why not use that as a foundation and build on it to improve occupational health, to give workers more of a say in their own occupational health and stop being so maternalistic about workers.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Don’t call me paternalistic.

Mr. Laughren: I said “maternalistic”; you might check Hansard.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Sorry. All right then.

Mr. Laughren: I made that mistake once in the Ministry of Labour estimates.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Better not make it again.

Mr. Martel: Are you threatening?

Mr. Laughren: Or intimidating me? The minister should; perhaps she would then understand this language better.

If the minister is going to err on the side of one or the other, for once set a precedent and err on the side of the workers in giving them some control over their own health in the work place.

Mr. Lewis: Right; like you do for Aime Bertrand and others.

Mr. Laughren: Just once we would like to see that happen. I would like her to keep in mind as well the whole problem of committees and what it means. It means participation. I don’t know whether you read that as control, but you shouldn’t. In the occupational health, or joint occupational health committees, the workers have a great deal at stake in their own occupational health. They would not be frivolous about it. You need only look at the unemployment figures to understand that workers in the province of Ontario are not going to frivolously refuse to work. That has never been the case and the minister knows it.

The second major liability in the bill is the question of coverage. For the minister to say that, “while immediate expansion of coverage appears desirable, dispassionate consideration has convinced the government that this expansion would be inappropriate at this time,” is to play fast and loose with many of our own employees, employees of her government. For her to promise that regulations will be brought in to extend coverage, quite frankly, is not good enough, given her performance on Bill 139. I see no reason to exclude the employees of the psychiatric hospitals, the mental retardation centres, the community colleges of applied arts and technology -- the correctional institutions.

[4:15]

Those four institutions alone, by my computation add up to about 26,000 employees who would not be covered, all Crown employees. They are very uneasy, as I am, about leaving that kind of discretion up to the minister through regulations. There is no reason to be so vague about who is going to be covered. For example, section 3(1)(e) says this Act applies to: “a work place designated generally or specifically by regulation.” Then it goes on to say in section 3(2) (b): “a work place that is exempted generally or specifically by regulation.”

I am confused that the Act applies, in one breath to “a work place designated generally or specifically by regulation,” and then says, that it does not apply to a “work place that is exempted generally or specifically by regulation.” That is what is making us all very nervous about the coverage in the bill.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union has provided the minister with statistics on lost time accidents. I think they are relevant, and indicate that those people should be covered under the bill as well as anybody else.

Brewery workers are another example that my colleague from Hamilton East raised.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Delivery?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, those who deliver beer to a hotel but are not covered when they are at the hotel unloading the beer. Farm workers are not covered, and they are subjected to considerable danger in their place of work.

Mr. Riddell: I am not sure they want to be.

Mr. Laughren: Quite simply, if protection under this Act is legitimate for some, it’s legitimate for all. The other legislation in the province does not designate classes of people. Whether you are talking about the Ontario Highway Traffic Act or termination pay for workers, they apply universally to workers in the province. So should matters of occupational health, there is simply no excuse for excluding them.

The third point that is sadly lacking in the bill is the whole question of toxic substances. This is where the problems are going to be in the future. I know that the Workmen’s Compensation Board has published statistics indicating that 95 per cent of all lost time covered by Workmen’s Compensation is a result of accidents, as opposed to industrial diseases. But to look back on what has happened in the past, and rather smugly indicate that the real problem is accidents not disease is to have no commitment to prevention. Dr. McCracken was the person who said most lost time was a result of accidents as opposed to illness. I would hope that the minister would not take that attitude. If we are going to be successful it has got to be through preventive measures, not through catching up afterwards. But that is what the minister is really talking about, a catch-up process rather than one of prevention.

There simply must be pretesting before harmful substances are introduced into the work place. The onus should be on the employer to substantiate the introduction of toxic or harmful substances, not on the Ministry of Labour to catch them; not on the Minister of Labour to enforce regulations after the fact. That is not prevention. The minister should take a page out of the book in the UK, where they do have preventive measures. There the onus is on the employer to say to the government that there are certain substances which they are introducing into the work place, the manner they are going to introduce them and outline the precautions they are going to take; and that can be done.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s in the Act.

Mr. Laughren: No, it is not. I have read the Act very carefully. You show me in the Act where it says that there is pretesting.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We are “required to be informed of.”

Mr. Lewis: Oh thank you very much.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I can imagine what that will be like. And also, it is only --

Hon. B. Stephenson: You have no faith.

Mr. Laughren: No, you are absolutely right.

Mr. Martel: I am going to show you why in a few minutes.

Mr. Lewis: None, none at all; and with fairly good reason. Ontario is littered with dead bodies based on faith; that’s right. It’s not a question of faith, with the record of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the former ministry.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Faith, something to rely on!

Mr. Martel: You heard the union the other night.

Mr. Laughren: The minister simply must understand, as I said earlier that given Bill 139 we have lost some faith in your commitment to occupational health. I’d like to see the proof of your commitment. Probably the most obvious and glaring example is your failure to designate the safety and health committees. The minister when dealing with toxic substances still talks about guidelines, except for a limited number of substances. I can tell you that guidelines didn’t do a damn thing for the workers in the Reeves Mine or the Matachewan asbestos operations or in the uranium mines.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Because they weren’t there.

Mr. Lewis: Sure they were.

Mr. Laughren: They’ve done absolutely nothing. It’s only a month ago, in the Ministry of Labour estimates, under the occupational health branch, we were talking about an industry called Royal Industries. I won’t go through it all again, but there were levels in the spring, May 26, 1977 as high as 55 fibres of asbestos when the guideline is two fibres per cubic centimetre. Then when we pushed and got readings for October 7, 1977, there were more readings as high as 12.8, 14.2, 14.2, 4.9, 4.2, 3.0, 4.8, 3.8, 7.4, 2.0, and 2.5. Those are what guidelines do.

Mr. Martel: You have got to have faith.

Mr. Laughren: Unless they become standards, talking about guidelines isn’t going to solve the problem. And the minister has the nerve to sit there and say, “You have no faith.” She’s right of course, we have no faith, but for ample reasons. There are many other examples where guidelines simply have not worked and simply will not work. The part that I relate directly to toxic substances is the limit of one year on prosecutions for violations of the Act. But we know that the latency period with some of the carcinogens, for example, is as long as 20 years. Now what good does that do, when the limitations period is one year? That’s still a broken bones mentality on the part of the minister as opposed to the rather sophisticated problems that exist in the work place. To say that there’s a limitation of one year is to do workers in the province a real disservice.

Guidelines quite simply are unenforceable. The minister can write all the letters she wants, or inspectors can swarm over the work place, when that problem is brought to their attention. But the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that I suspect in many of the worst places of work it’s never brought to anyone’s attention. Perhaps it’s a small shop, perhaps there’s no union at all to represent the workers; perhaps the workers don’t understand their rights; perhaps the workers feel intimidated by the employer.

It could be any number of reasons or it could be all of those. In those cases, the employer, quite frankly, has nothing to lose. As long as some of those employers have nothing to lose -- if there’s only guidelines -- then they’re not going to clean up their act. It’s when we put in standards, backed up by committees that we can get some preventive measures. But to put in guidelines, to not make the committees mandatory, is to make a mockery of preventive health care in the work place and the minister should know that; I suspect the minister does know that.

Mr. Lewis: Of course not.

Mr. Laughren: There have been a number of things to indicate a real weakness. Another -- and it ties in with the toxic substances as well -- is the data bank which we’ve been calling for, for some time now. There simply must be an employee file or a worker file that follows the worker in the province. I know that the machinery is set up to do it, but it’s not there as a commitment to establish exposure files on all workers in the province; and the most logical place for those to have been located was in a provincial institute for occupational health.

There are some of us who remember September, 1975, the eve of the election, when the Premier (Mr. Davis) announced in Sudbury that Ontario was going to have an institute of occupational health. The Premier has never said it again. The minister, as a matter of fact, categorically denies there is even going to be an institute of occupational health.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I didn’t deny it.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, you did. You denied it in the Ministry of Labour estimates. You said, “No, we’re waiting for the federal government to institute a federal one.”

Hon. B. Stephenson: I didn’t say that at all. I said we would be co-operating with a more reasonable kind of approach than the federal one; and that isn’t denying it.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated they were waiting to see what the federal government was going to do. Yes, she did.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Get the Hansard record. I didn’t say “waiting”.

Mr. Laughren: She has indicated the federal government was talking about an institute of occupational health, and I know they are. I’ve had correspondence with the federal Minister of Labour myself and I know they are thinking about it. That’s simply no reason for the minister not to make good on the commitment of the Premier to establish a provincial institute of occupational health, no reason for it whatsoever. Then the minister has the nerve to sit there and suggest we have no faith in her and her commitment to occupational health. The minister says it would be dirty pool if I was to suggest Bill 139 was simply brought in prior to the June election in 1976 as a ploy.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, it would be.

Mr. Laughren: Well perhaps she could explain to me the minister’s statement on the eve of the 1975 election on which no one has acted as yet; no one at all.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I didn’t make any such statement.

Mr. Lewis: No, but the Premier did.

Mr. Laughren: You didn’t make that statement but your government did. You can’t hide behind your own ministry and ignore the promises of the Premier when it affects your ministry.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I will explain it in words of one syllable so you will understand it, Floyd.

Mr. Deans: Nasty.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask the hon. member to address his remarks to the Speaker, and, the hon. minister not to interject. Would you please continue.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall make every effort.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Unlikely.

Mr. Deans: Will you stop muttering.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am not muttering, I am speaking clearly.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the minister can smile and mumble all she likes. The Premier did make a commitment for an institute of occupational health to the province.

Mr. Lewis: Certainly did.

Mr. Laughren: He has reneged on that commitment and the minister won’t even take him to task for it. Surely that should then become part of her commitment as the Minister of Labour responsible for occupational health, but she has refused to do that.

I would invite the minister to recheck Hansard for the Ministry of Labour estimates to find out what she really did say about an institute for occupational health. It was quite clear she had abandoned the idea of a provincial institute of occupational health. There’s no reason why we could not lead the way in occupational health in this country. I can imagine other jurisdictions would be very quick to follow, would try to plug into a worker exposure data bank if we were to set it up.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You don’t have to have an institute for that.

Mr. Laughren: It wouldn’t negate a federal institute if the federal government decided to have one. It wouldn’t detract from that at all. As a matter of fact, it would probably be an incentive and a push to the federal government to do something about it because, quite frankly, they have been as negligent as you have.

Mr. Martel: The compensation hospital you promised in Sudbury on the eve of the election too.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Who did?

Mr. Martel: The Premier. He makes lots of promises, that fellow.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, it will be interesting to see how long it is in the province of Ontario before we do have a serious commitment to occupational health. One way of indicating commitment is to establish the institute to which I refer. I think that’s one of the keys, because then you have spin-off benefits for education, benefits for setting up an employee exposure worker file, and you could plug into other provinces.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s not necessary for that.

Mr. Laughren: I don’t care what you call it, a data bank or an employee exposure file, it doesn’t matter. The principle being, we’ve simply got to keep track of the exposures of workers in the work place, no matter where they work.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Agreed; it’s in the Act.

Mr. Martel: Isn’t that what Ham says in his report?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s in the Act.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the other area of major importance which is embodied in the reasoned amendment is the whole question of the right of workers to refuse to work. Bill 139 had that. Bill 139 was not abused, by the minister’s own admission. Since Bill 139 came in, there have been a number of workers exercise their rights, and so they should; but this bill weakens the right of workers to refuse to work, even though it’s never been abused.

[4:30]

I don’t know whether that’s a Pavlovian response by the minister or whether it’s the result of an employers’ lobby to which I referred earlier, but it has weakened in the first stage of the right of the worker to refuse. It states that a worker can refuse to work and have the problem investigated with the presence of another worker, if reasonably available. The second stage is more or less the same thing. Once again, it’s the presence of a worker or representative who is reasonably available. That weakens the right to refuse for the simple reason some workers will not feel very comfortable exercising their right under this bill and that they should have another worker and a representative there with them at all times.

For the minister to weaken the bill is inexcusable. If she can stand in her place and tell us of all the abuses under that bill, perhaps then we would think that there is some reason for it, but there’s no reason for this. There is no reason whatsoever, except the traditional commitment to management rights, that’s really what the problem is.

It’s weakened further by the employer’s right to take disciplinary action. I want to tell you that if it’s left the way it is now, workers will simply be afraid to exercise their right unless they have a very strong union behind them and unless they have an iron-clad case. It won’t be a case of exercising their judgement in the work place. They’ll be afraid to because of the possibility that they can be dismissed.

I know that it can go before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. That can take up to six months and that’s not fair to the worker, who after all is simply attempting to exercise his or her right under the legislation of Ontario.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But they have no responsibility.

Mr. Laughren: Both the refusal to have another worker there under the Act -- in other words making it discretionary -- plus the right of employers to take disciplinary action, both are a form of intimidation to workers. I think the minister simply must stop regarding the right to refuse to work as an encroachment on management rights. It’s part of the whole system of preventive health care in the work place.

Hon. B. Stephenson: What a dumb thing to say.

Mr. Laughren: It is. Otherwise why did the minister put it in there? Perhaps when the minister responds she can tell us why she has taken these backward steps, because they’re clearly backward steps. It’s not nit-picking or looking for loopholes. They’re very clear backward steps in the right of workers under this legislation.

I think the minister has to have a broader view of occupational health in regard to committee representatives, the pretesting of toxic substances, worker training, and more expertise in the colleges of applied arts and technology to provide training to the committee members. All of these things are part of a package of preventive occupational health care in the province. For the minister to continue to weaken the bill by these kinds of actions simply is not fair.

The final thing is the whole question of regulations. Quite frankly, we want to see them and we see no reason why the regulations could not be tabled at the same time as the bill is debated.

When I look at the bill itself, under the regulation section, the power of regulations is awe-inspiring indeed. These are the right of the cabinet, which is the minister in this case I assume, to make regulations in the following areas:

Requiring and regulating equipment, materials and protective devices in clothing for workers; regulating or prohibiting the handling of, exposure to, use and disposal of any material, biological, chemical or physical agent or combination thereof, or thing in a work place; respecting medical examinations, tests or x-rays of workers and the report that should be made of such examinations; regulation of or prohibiting atmospheric conditions to which any worker may be exposed in a work place; describing methods, standards of procedures for determining the amount of concentration or level of any atmospheric condition or any biological, chemical or physical agent or combination thereof in a work place; describing any biological, chemical or physical agent or combination thereof as a designated substance; prohibiting, regulating, restricting, limiting or controlling the handling of, exposure to or the use and disposal of a designated substance; and section 39(2)23: “requiring the maintenance and keeping of a record or records of biological, chemical and physical agents, the use thereof, the disposal thereof and the exposure of workers thereto.”

Those are pretty powerful regulations. I would feel much more comfortable, given the way the minister exercises her discretionary powers, if those regulations were embodied in the bill. We are uneasy about having that kind of discretionary power in the hands of this minister, or any other minister on that side.

Perhaps the minister could rationalize bringing it into the bill, because some other minister might not have her commitment to occupational health in the province. We object to an abbreviated bill like this. It’s simply not good enough. It simply puts too much reliance on the regulations.

We have made what I would regard as an honest attempt to amend and we are serious in asking the Liberals to reconsider and to support our reasoned amendment. We are not asking that the bill be defeated. We are asking that the bill be amended before it comes back for further consideration.

We ask that the minister think about the kind of protection available for labour. You know capital has all sorts of protection available to it. It’s extremely portable. We have seen that with the resource industry. Capital goes where it can be best protected; labour cannot. Labour simply cannot move that way. Labour has a lack of protection and it’s up to the minister to help provide that.

It’s clear to us that it’s not management that suffers from asbestosis. It is always workers and her predecessor --

Mr. Martel: Put the minister in.

Mr. Laughren: -- or the Minister of Labour then, didn’t like when I suggested to him that the whole question of occupational health was a working class problem. It’s not a management problem. That’s why you are stepping back on this bill. Plain and simply, that’s why you are stepping back.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is everybody’s problem.

Mr. Laughren: Do you know why you make the same mistake as your predecessors have made? It is because you say: “My job, as Minister of Labour, is to be impartial.” I have never heard the Minister of Industry and Tourism say that. The Minister of Industry and Tourism, and the Minister of Agriculture and Food, stand in their places and say they are there to protect the interests of small business, tourism, the agricultural sector; but the Minister of Labour doesn’t stand in her place and say: “I am here for the interest and the betterment of workers in the province of Ontario.” She stands there and says: “I am impartial.” Well, if that’s the case, how is it that the minister would take backward steps in this bill compared to Bill 139? These are undoubtedly backward steps. That’s not even debatable.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You just don’t know what direction you are going in, that’s all.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. Would the member please continue and ignore the interjections.

Mr. Laughren: If the minister believes that it’s not a working class problem, let her say to us that she’s going to reduce the differences; she is going to take away some of the differences that now exist in the work place between workers and employers and reduce the occupational health hazards for workers all across Ontario. Let us build a model in this province, in this jurisdiction, to which others could aspire.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s precisely what this is.

Mr. Laughren: That’s not what you are doing when you are stepping away from a previous bill. How does backing off from existing legislation help us build a better model?

Hon. B. Stephenson: We are not backing off.

Mr. Laughren: You are. You are backing off on committees; you are backing off on the right to refuse to work. You are not extending coverages the way you should be. You haven’t brought in the regulations.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You just don’t understand it.

Mr. Martel: Oh no; and you are the only one who does.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Lots of other people do.

Mr. Martel: They are all in management.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, would the member please continue?

Mr. Laughren: It is for those reasons, and a great disappointment in the minister and this legislation she’s brought before us, that I place this reasoned amendment.

Mr. Laughren moved, that the motion for second reading of Bill 70, An Act respecting the Occupational Health and Occupational Safety of Workers be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting therefor the words, “this bill be not now read a second time but be referred back to the government to have incorporated therein:

“1. Mandatory health and safety committees with authority to implement change, and with access to all relevant information;

“2. Extended coverage for workers not now protected by the Act;

“3. Protection of workers from harmful substances in the work place by; (i) pretesting all such substances before their introduction; (ii) ensuring that workers are fully informed about all harmful substances to which they may be exposed;

“4. The right to refuse unsafe work, free from intimidation and disciplinary action;

“And further, that the regulations be tabled by the time of reintroduction, in order that those affected may assess the extent and strength of the standards, guidelines and directions contained therein.”

Mr. Laughren: That’s the end of our reasoned amendment. I would ask the minister to reconsider, and I would ask the Liberal Party to reconsider, so we can all join together and give workers in Ontario a better quality of life.

Mr. McGuigan: I rise to lend my support to this bill, subject to the amendments proposed by our critic. I would like to speak on behalf of the farm community in Kent-Elgin, which I represent, and all of Ontario. I have had a quite extensive background in farm politics, particularly in the fruit and vegetable field, and in the matter of farm labour.

I don’t think there is any farm leader in Ontario, certain no one I know of any stature whatsoever, who would want to delay implementation of health and safety regulations for the protection of farm workers. I would like to point out that most of the farm workers in Ontario are the farm families themselves. And when a father, wife, son or daughter, or any farm person is injured in any way, in addition to a terrible human loss, it often results in the end of the farm operation. It breaks the continuity of the family and it has tragic results.

I don’t know of any farm leader who would want to delay the implementation of the fullest protection for farm workers in Ontario.

I note the Act does not specifically mention farm workers, but it does have a section where it says “the work place shall be regulated”; I certainly assume under that regulation at the minister’s discretion and at the proper time, regulations will be brought into effect to give that very needed protection.

I do, however, have reservations I would like to mention on behalf of farm people. I think these reservations are rather well founded in the fact that over the many years farmers sent their best brains to agricultural colleges. They put them forward and they are now the deputy ministers and in places of high office in this government. Equally, the labour union people sent their brightest sons and daughters into the Ministry of Labour, where they are fighting today to bring the best deal that they can for workers.

Mr. Deans: I don’t think that is necessarily so.

Mr. Ruston: You just listen.

Mr. Deans: I wouldn’t hang my hat on that if I were you.

Mr. McGuigan: Well, those that couldn’t make it that way came into the Legislature.

Mr. Deans: I wouldn’t hang my hat on that one, either. I have a suspicion your comparisons are a little out of whack.

Mr. Kennedy: The analogy is good.

Mr. McGuigan: We will have to each make our own judgements on those matters.

Mr. Deans: I have made mine.

[4:45]

Mr. McGuigan: My dealings with some of the ministry people in the past would lead me to believe that many of these officials have brought with them that 19th century bitterness -- probably well deserved -- that bitterness built up in the nineteenth century, the terrible things that happened in those days. They brought those bitternesses and prejudices along with them and when you try to reason with these people, as I have had to try to do many times, I found that they just have a deaf ear to reason.

So we fear regulations that are brought by these people. We would certainly ask the hon. minister that when and if the regulations are brought forward that a farm advisory committee be allowed to look at the regulations to make input to them.

We realize, of course, that the final decision is hers, as it properly should be. We would not try to take any of the authority away from her office. We do have faith in her.

Mr. Martel: Boy, I tell you we do too, baby; we have got faith.

Mr. McGuigan: We do have quite a bit of faith in the minister, but we have a little less faith in some of those zealots and people who have brought these 19th century ideas with them.

Mr. Martel: They must be two centuries ahead of you.

Mr. McGuigan: Maybe.

Mr. Martel: Maybe.

Mr. Gregory: The world isn’t ready for you, Elie.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. McGuigan: We just want to make these appeals to the minister, that these considerations be given. I think we have good grounds for that when she promised about two years ago that a person would be appointed to an advisory committee. We found a good deal of resistance on the part of the ministry to recognize that and it was only within the last few days that that happened. So we would certainly feel a lot better if she would give those assurances to the House that when and if agriculture is appointed that due consideration will be given to allow the agricultural community to make input to those regulations.

I would point out some of the differences between industry and agriculture, the matter of atmospheric conditions, working under certain weather conditions. A fruit grower is sometimes subject to such conditions, when it rains steadily for three or four days on a particular variety of fruit or vegetable, the crop may mature in that period of time and the grower could well be faced with harvesting it in the rain.

Tobacco growers, when they start in the morning to fill a kiln of tobacco, must fill that kiln by night or the entire kiln is lost. So it becomes necessary sometimes for people to work in bad atmospheric conditions.

We would ask that these situations be recognized. We are very sympathetic to the television advertising of the Workmen’s Compensation Board telling people to tie ladders to buildings and obstacles when they’re working on them. It’s certainly sensible and very commendable. But in the orchard business we would suggest that tying the ladder to the trees would be a little bit ridiculous. In my own orchard business we make a great point of pointing out to people, when we introduce them to a ladder, to “stay with the ship.” When the ladder begins to fall, hang onto the ladder because it won’t go very far. It’s going to fall into the tree. It doesn’t fall sideways, like a ladder leaning up against a building, it will fall into the tree and if you hang onto it you’re only going a very short distance.

It’s good advice, I guess, for airplane drivers too, but they --

Mr. Bounsall: They are called pilots in this day and age.

Mr. McGuigan: I just mention those two or three things to indicate why we have these concerns, Madam Minister, but certainly we will support inclusion of agriculture, when and if this is brought about. Thank you.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the reasoned amendment to this bill. It is necessary that we make some positive changes in Bill 70, the legislation that is before us, because it is certainly not what most of us were led to expect in the debates on the previous Bill 139.

The minister, in her comments about the complaining that we may be doing about this bill, reminds me of the mother watching her son, Johnny, marching off to war and commenting that everybody was out of step but Johnny. I would suggest to the minister that she might be the one who is out of step in this particular case.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, two steps ahead of you, Bob

Mr. Martel: With the advisers you have you should look around.

Mr. Mackenzie: She also says she wants us to have faith. In the first set of labour estimates I was in, I was a lot more naive than I am now. Faith with the labour movement and some of the problems we have had in this country, was something that you had to earn. Let me tell you, that is not what the minister is doing.

We debated the first bill, Bill 139, at considerable length in this House. In the course of that debate we moved a number of amendments to areas that we thought were weak. It included such things as mandatory committees, toxic substances, further coverage; a whole range of points just did not seem to be adequately covered in Bill 139.

I recall with some chagrin that, in the votes on most of those amendments in this House, we usually lost, even when it came to things like mandatory committees and toxic substances, and you name it. We had the Liberals voting with the government on those amendments on Bill 139.

When we were raising the points during those debates, I would hope that at least we would be given credit for raising them in a serious vein. Certainly that is the position I held and I believe all of my colleagues held. Most of us, whatever else the minister may think, have had some identification with and some interest in and some communication with the labour movement, for some of us for many years. Throughout that debate, we kept getting comments back from the minister. I would like to read two or three of them into the record if I can.

On November 18, 1976, in Hansard, page 4791, the minister commented: “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.”

Well certainly this bill does not cover all employees.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But it will.

Mr. Deans: When?

Mr. Mackenzie: She went on a little further to say: “I want this House to understand,” and I want this clearly on record and this is her exact wording, “that the government is firmly committed to meeting the twin needs for greater openness and greater employee participation in matters of health and safety. Combined with these objectives, the government wants to provide the most effective external evaluation system possible.”

And then she says: “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 consideration and practical language required to respond to the new technology.”

She went on at the end of that particular paragraph to say there would also be changes in 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.”

Later in that debate she makes the comment, Hansard, page 4792. “Before you, Mr. Speaker, is Bill 139, the interim legislation.” Again the minister said: “To suggest that this government is less than totally committed to the development and maintenance of the best program of occupational health and safety is spurious fabrication.”

We were led, time and again, to believe that this was going to be a bill that all of us could be proud of. She said again, after some brief interjections, and a comment by one of the Liberal members, Hansard, page 4792: “I will emphasize again that this is interim legislation.”

She went on again to say: “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.”

The feeling or the hope, or as I will point out a little later the comment of one columnist just the other day, the euphoria that was around that we might finally be getting somewhere, continued when we moved on to December 10, 1976. She was being questioned during the debate on some of our amendments under clause (h), section 1. In response to one of our members she said, “I would have to tell you that these indeed are the goals of the Ministry of Labour in proposing this kind of bill. However, as the hon. member for Nickel Belt has suggested, we believe it is inappropriate to introduce this section at this time because this is much more appropriate for the omnibus health and safety legislation.

“The purpose of this bill is an important first step, as I have said on at least three or four occasions.”

Once again the feeling certainly was that while we were fighting and raising and moving certain amendments so we would get a first bill established, we would see the improvements in the omnibus bill that was to come down.

She went on further to say: “It is our intent -- and we are working on the omnibus legislation right now -- to introduce a comprehensive bill which will incorporate some of the goals that have been stated here.” That once again is in response to some of the amendments we were moving in the House.

And a further comment, “and that we can get on with the careful examination, in the drafting of the omnibus legislation, of the very useful suggestions made by the hon. member for Nickel Belt.” That in response to some of the criticisms, some of the points that we were making at that particular time.

On page 5605, Mr. Speaker, that same debate: “It seems to me that it would be entirely inappropriate -- ” this once again is the Minister of Labour in her response to some comments by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere of our party, “ -- to include in this bill those sections to which they are not directly relevant. I believe they are reasonably relevant to the development of the omnibus bill, which I have said repeatedly will be developed in major consultation with the groups which are going to be affected by it.” I don’t know where the consultation was in the changes from Bill 139 to Bill 70, but they certainly didn’t come from the labour side of the fence.

Further, she goes on to say: “With their expert advice, I think we probably can develop for the omnibus bill this kind of definition which will be rational and which we can indeed live with.” This was in reference to a definition of health and safety.

On that same page I made the brief comment or interjection, Madam Minister, and it really strikes me as being apropos now: “I am wondering how long we would be debating those same sections, even in the omnibus bill.” What we are going to be doing is dealing with amendments that are almost identical in some cases to those we were dealing with a year ago after we had gone around the province on that tour.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We didn’t do the tour until April.

Mr. Mackenzie: This is a comment of the minister, on page 5607; “We get on with this business now and do away with this long drawn-out discussion of specific added sections, which would be much more appropriately discussed in the consultation process in the development of the omnibus legislation which has already begun.”

I don’t know whether or not the minister agrees, she probably doesn’t, but certainly anybody sitting in or listening to this would get the indication that we could expect some positive changes in the omnibus bill.

Another comment, on page 5610, “That modification can be made at the time the omnibus bill is introduced, but I think it would be much more rational to leave it in this form at this time and proceed in that direction.”

Mr. Mancini: How does it sound when it is read back to you?

Mr. Mackenzie: I think it is important to recognize that the purpose of this bill, as the member for Nickel Belt has said is to protect the workers. She goes on to further discuss changes that can be made in the omnibus bill coming up. I find interesting, and we are dealing with mandatory committees once again, her comments on page 5687, are exactly: “If we find that it doesn’t work, then indeed when the omnibus legislation is introduced we can most seriously consider the possibility of introducing mandatory committees.” Now that is a comment, a statement out of Hansard, by the minister.

[5:00]

Mr. Martel: You said that?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Right, of course; but they do work, it has worked very well.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am wondering, in view of those comments time and time again during the debate, where are the improvements and changes in this legislation? This legislation does not improve the right to refuse, it weakens the right to refuse unsafe conditions.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, it does not.

Mr. Mackenzie: It doesn’t strengthen the bill or extend it to additional workers. We don’t know what the regulations are. We are not getting pretesting. Issue after issue is there.

I also heard the minister in her interjections today indicate that it was possibly the member for Nickel Belt who was squawking. You know I find it interesting that almost every labour group in the province is squawking about this bill.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I didn’t say that at all. Where were you, you weren’t here.

Mr. Mackenzie: I was right here. You were squawking that we were the only ones objecting to the provisions of this new bill.

It’s very difficult to understand just what’s going on, except that we know what your position will almost automatically be now. That’s one of the reasons why there’s a lack of faith.

Mr. Martel: I will give you two or three more reasons.

Mr. Mackenzie: Here are two or three indications of the extent of the opposition to this bill. This is from a statement by Clifford Pilkey, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, October 20, and it says --

Mr. Martel: He doesn’t understand either, does he?

Mr. Mackenzie: I realize he’s unimportant, as some of the rest of us are in the minister’s feelings. He comments: “What should have been the single most important and comprehensive piece of legislation for the protection of workers’ health and safety in our time turns out to be a disappointing combination of housekeeping amendments and a timid advance in only one direction, the designation of certain toxic substances for control by the Ministry of Labour.” He goes on to make a number of other comments, none of which are very complimentary to the minister.

I won’t take the time because we’ve covered them to some extent. Some of the other comments deal with the areas on safety.

Hon. B. Stephenson: So what?

Mr. Lewis: But this bill won’t be effective if there is so much antagonism to it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Of course it will.

Mr. Lewis: And these are people who know, these are people in the work place.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But there’s no reason for them to be antagonistic, none.

Mr. Lewis: Oh yes there is, your staff for openers.

Mr. Martel: Talk to Dr. Muller; they love him in the labour field.

Mr. Acting Speaker: May I remind the members that the member for Hamilton East has the floor.

Mr. Mackenzie: Let me go on. He’s listed very clearly some of the complaints and elaborated on a couple of them. “The minister clarifies the right to refuse to perform unsafe work by giving management the green light to impose discipline for a frivolous exercise of the right, leaving it to the suspended or fired worker to file a complaint with the Labour Relations Board. Some cases of discharge for union activity under the same section of the Labour Relations Board have taken up to six months to a year for a decision.” He also makes the comment: “In almost 10 months since Bill 139 was passed into law, to our knowledge not a single committee has been appointed nor a single representative selected.”

Mr. Mancini: Not one.

Mr. Mackenzie: That’s from the president of the OFL. The minister has had wires from the Canadian Union of Public Employees outlining some of their objections.

Mr. Lewis: What is the date?

Mr. Mackenzie: The Ontario Public Service Employees Union has very strong objections to the bill, and in most cases they’re the same objections, Madam Minister, that we’ve made. They deal with the same weaknesses and errors in the legislation.

Mr. Martel: You don’t understand.

Mr. Mackenzie: No, none of us understand. None of the labour movement understands, obviously. And everybody is wrong but the minister.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That isn’t what the telegram says.

Mr. Laughren: Everybody else is out of step.

Mr. Mackenzie: I really wonder; we went through the build-up, the hearings over the mine conditions, the Ham commission; we come in with this legislation. We hear the objections, the urging for strengthening of the bill from almost every union group in the province. I myself heard the minister say in the estimates that there really hadn’t been any abuse of it; and then we get presented Bill 70. Really it’s a bit of a disgrace.

I read with interest in a piece in Wednesday’s Hamilton Spectator some comments by John Lennie of Local 1005 in my own city, who has been long involved in this. He makes the comment, in an article by Peter von Harten, that there was “a sense of euphoria in the trade unions as trade unionists trooped before Bette Stephenson and her officials in April to give their views on health and safety. The provincial labour minister had already provided interim legislation giving workers the right to refuse unsafe work and was promising more wonders in a comprehensive Act. The employers were also at the public hearings and there was trepidation on their part as they argued that the minister had already given workers power to shut down operations.

“‘Under the guise of an unsafe work situation, workers could stop work, the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce claimed in its brief. Although Mrs. Stephenson told the chamber that there had been no frivolous abuse of the interim legislation, she appears to have bought the employers’ argument.

“The new industrial health and safety Act now before Queen’s Park has a specific clause giving employers the right to discipline employees who refuse work considered unsafe without reasonable grounds. The clause, which questions workers’ motives before any argument on whether the job is actually unsafe or not, and the lack of any new wonders, has left trade unionists disappointed and let down with the new bill.

“‘The shell of a good Act may be there but there’s no meat on it and it’s even a step backward from before,’ said John Lennie, Local 1005 safety chairman.

“He goes on to make a number of comments: ‘The lack of detail and regulations would tie up the province’s labour board with questions of discipline, and keep health and safety in the adversary arena of collective bargaining.”

“‘I thought that one of the reasons for this was to get over some of the problems we’re having in negotiations over health and safety matters which shouldn’t have to be a matter of that kind of confrontation. We had been hopeful in 1005,’ he goes on to say, ‘of keeping health and safety out of negotiations. Now we are going to have to keep hanging away at the bargaining table to get anything that we need. Companies are not going to give anything away on health and safety that isn’t provided in the legislation, and the bill gives little protection for unorganized workers at all.’”

I don’t know who the minister wants to go to in the trade union movement. I don’t know whether she’s got a few flunkies or not, but she’s going to have to look hard to find those who have any confidence in this bill, or who support it in any way whatsoever. And I also would strongly urge the Liberals to take a look at it because the bill is not adequate. It’s a step backwards.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have a communication from Mr. Pilkey that says he supports it.

Mr. Lewis: Where? Where does Cliff Pilkey say he supports the bill?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s a verbal communication.

Mr. Mackenzie: If he does, I don’t know when the minister was talking to him. That’s not the position.

Mr. Lewis: I thought maybe it was spiritual communication or celestial or maybe --

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Now it’s on the record.

Mr. Mackenzie: The bill is not supported by the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Auto Workers, the Steel Workers, CUPE, OPSEU or almost any of the major unions in this province.

Mr. Lewis: How do you expect to make it work?

Mr. Mackenzie: As a matter of fact, there is strong opposition to the bill as it stands. What they’re saying is: “Why go through the whole route again starting from a step backwards?” And that’s exactly what the minister is asking us to do with this bill. If ever there was a party that was afflicted with tunnel vision or was rigid and was dogmatic and wasn’t willing to break out or make any changes or make any innovative moves at all in an area that we should be leading in in this province, it’s the Tory party; and not to assist in something as basic as health and safety of workers is going to come down around their heads.

The people who are dogmatic, who are ideologues, are on that side of the House, not over here.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, sir.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on this bill, and at the outset would like to bring to the attention of the members of the House and the minister, the comments made by a gentleman who practises law and deals particularly in litigation involving job safety.

The individual is a Mike Stoyka who, in comments before an association meeting, made the following observations: “The Ontario Health and Safety Act has improved working conditions in Ontario industries since its creation in December of 1976 but suffers from a vague definition of terms,” according to him. “Mike Stoyka, a criminal and labour lawyer who has been involved with health and safety regulations for three years, told about 100 members of the Essex county division of the Industrial Accident Prevention Association that the Act does not define unsafe conditions.”

That’s been his principal gripe. We certainly hope that the new Act would define it a little more specifically so that when he has clients whom he is attempting to show they were in the right he is on safe grounds and the unsafe conditions are clearly specified.

“Mr. Stoyka said the lack of definition has created some problems in interpreting the law, particularly as it applies to industrial-created diseases such as silicosis which became prominent in the mining industry two years ago.

“But, overall the legislation has created a new spirit of co-operation between management and labour in the identification of work hazards.”

So it has been a step forward, and we hope that we could step a little further forward in respect to the new legislation.

My comments will be essentially on toxic substances. It does concern me very much that we are now approaching a chemical nightmare as far as job hazards are concerned.

We can all recall, not too long ago, the unusual experience in the town of Seveso in Italy where a substance called tetrachlorodibenzodioxine, or TCDD, had been sprayed around in the area and, as a result, they had to completely evacuate the town. It was such a horrible chemical that it only led to extreme disaster.

The United States had a similar experience in the town of Verona, Missouri, where 515 people had to be evacuated from the town as a result of the manufacture of the same chemical. The chemical is so dangerous that the company, when it went into bankruptcy, sold some of it to an individual who used it to overcome dust problems. That man sprayed the oil on the earth floors of three horse arenas in Missouri. Many animals were killed and some humans made sick, although it wasn’t until four years later that scientists at the communicable diseases centre in Atlanta discovered that TCDD had been the cause.

You can see, Mr. Speaker, the long range effects that some of the new chemicals are having on us in general and, specifically, on the individual who may be in the work place, either manufacturing or exposed to the chemical.

On February 20, 1977, a fairly comprehensive article appeared in the Detroit Sunday News headed: “Modern Perils for Pauline -- Dangers Lurk in Women’s Jobs.

“Chronic exposure to chemicals in factories, offices, foundries, auto plants and even hospitals is a danger most workers are not aware of.”

I’ll read the whole article because it lists so many dangers involved in so many work places that the employees are exposed to these hazards it is frightening to contemplate what could actually happen if this were not controlled.

“They are nine to fivers -- secretaries, office workers and other women employees, whose routine jobs lack all the splashy glamour and risks seen in their homes on television.

“But there may be different kinds of risks -- unseen and unknown -- all around them at work.

“The culprit is the ubiquitous chemical, and it affects the lives and health of both men and women in a number of jobs and over a wide range of manufacturing processes.

“Because women workers tend to be older and get less desirable jobs, however, their problems are magnified, in the view of some labour union representatives, consumer health groups and researchers.

“There have been worse times for women in the work place, of course.

“In 1908, for example, more than 1,250 women and children working in match factories had their jawbones disfigured by phosphorous used to produce match heads. Four years later, 154 women died in a New York garment factory fire. The building was not equipped with fire escapes and the doors were locked from the outside.

“‘Deathtrap’ sweatshops like these no longer exist. For the most part, they’ve been replaced by well-lit, relatively clean workrooms. But take a closer look.

[5:15]

“According to Dr. Janette Sherman, a Southfield internist, women often face hazardous jobs as an indirect result of their role as mothers.

“‘A lot of women wait until their children are grown up to go to work. And when they finally do, a lot of them work in small plants making small parts for the auto industry,’ she explained.

“Dr. Sherman said she knows of at least three women who now have lung disease after less than a year’s exposure to polyurethane on the job. Adhesive and insulation workers, lacquer and plasticizer workers, textile processers and upholstery makers work with TDI” -- which is toluene diisocynate -- used in the production of polyurethane.

She has also seen women with sores in their noses, sometimes breaking entirely through, among workers who chrome-plate small parts. Inhaled as dust, mist or fumes, chrome can cause eczema, ulcers of the skin and cancer.

“Women who never set foot in factories also face exposure to harmful chemicals.

“In her workbook, ‘Working For Your Life: A Woman’s Guide To Job Health Hazards,’ Andrea Hricko, health co-ordinator for the labour occupational health program at the University of California, Berkeley, warned women in almost every field, from office worker to hair stylist, of job hazards around them.

“Approximately 10 million female clerical workers are exposed to potential danger from asbestos in the air conditioning, chemicals for office machines, noise, solvents, ultraviolet lights and poor ventilation. Hazards range from poorly designed chairs to liquid ‘eraser’.

“‘At last one of these fluids,’ reports Ms. Hricko, ‘is known to have contained trichloroethylene, a chemical which can cause headache, fatigue, nausea, vomiting and confusion with acute exposures and that has recently been implicated as a cancer causing chemical.’

“Compounding the problem, many solvents found around the office are not labelled with chemical components.

“Detroit lawyer Jeanne Mirer, of the centre for urban law, who once handled worker’s compensation cases, said she knows of women office workers who have complained of headaches and dizziness from contact with correction and stencil fluids.

“Nearly 15 million women face similar work related health hazards, Ms. Hricko maintains. Beauticians, dental assistants, flight attendants, textile workers, dry cleaners, laboratory workers and a host of other job-holders are exposed to harmful chemicals that can cause everything from dermatitis to death.

“A study by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the United States gives hair stylists reason to worry, Ms. Hricko pointed out.

“It found twice as many symptoms of lung disease in hair stylists with the longest exposure to hair spray. A bacterial study on hair dyes revealed that 89 per cent of the 169 hair dyes tested produced mutations.

“Dental workers have also been tested. In a survey of 303 dental workers, those showing the most exposure to mercury vapour were 107 dental assistants, all young women, who mixed mercury amalgams for filling cavities.

“Textile and apparel workers ... daily handle chemicals untested for chronic effects of exposure. Recent tests by the National Cancer Institute with a flame-retardant chemical called TRIS, commonly used in children’s sleep-wear, show it to be carcinogenic. Tests conducted as early as January last year aroused suspicion about the chemical.

“The chain of those affected by TRIS is dangerously long. ‘Chemical workers manufacture the flame-retardant; children may suck on their pyjamas, and the flame-retardant material touches their skin ... Textile workers may actually touch the chemical itself; apparel workers may handle and breathe treated fibres.’

“‘The study of these harmful chemicals has barely begun,’ said Portia Hamlar, Chrysler attorney who handles Occupational Safety and Health Administration litigation. She spoke on the legal implications at a national conference exploring women’s job hazards.

“‘Ignoring this problem is consistent with ignoring female problems in general. Prior to the last 10 years, women were not looked upon as permanent or part-time employees, as a rule ... ’

“‘Working women have not only themselves to think of, but the health of their unborn child,’ said Ms. Hricko, a four-year veteran of Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen’s Health Research Group and a member of the task force on health hazards for the Coalition of the Labour Union Women.

“‘The majority of women workers are in their childbearing years, and the federal government recently estimated that over one million of these women may be exposed to chemicals that could harm their babies in some way,’ she added.

“Among the work places where this potential danger may exist is, ironically, the hospital. Dr. Thomas Corbett, an Ann Arbor anaesthesiologist, became suspicious of chronic exposure to anaesthetic gases when he discovered his wife could sniff out certain gases on his breath, even when he wasn’t directly exposed to them.

“He began a survey of 621 female nurse anaesthetists in the state in 1973 and found an incidence of cancer three times as high as expected ...

“In a much larger study” -- sponsored by NIOSH in the United States and the American Society of Anaesthesiologists -- “he found 1.3 to two times the incidence of spontaneous abortions in exposed women. The incidence of congenital abnormalities among babies was double” -- as a result of exposure.

“The mounting evidence that something is amiss in the operating rooms has nurses concerned, said Margo Barron, chairperson of the University of Michigan Professional Nurse Council, which brought up the health issue during the 1976 negotiations at the hospital.

“‘It’s the chronic exposure to low doses of these gases day in, day out,’ said Ms. Barron, who works in the surgery outpatient unit at University Hospital ...

“Leaving a job is not necessarily the answer, said Ms. Hricko; nor should industry ban pregnant women from jobs considered unsafe ...

“‘Some employers are refusing to hire women of childbearing age unless they can no longer bear children -- instead of cleaning up the work place so everyone is protected.’”

“General Motors, for example, has a longstanding policy of keeping women who are able to bear children out of its lead operations and soldering jobs. Lead has been known to cause reproductive problems, specifically miscarriages ...

“However, the company began transferring women out of its Canadian operations two years ago. The push made national headlines when a worker, Norma James, had herself sterilized in order to keep her night shift job in an Oshawa, Ontario, battery plant.

“Of all the industrial chemicals, lead and its effects have probably been publicized the most ... The outcome of the lead issue will probably decide whether or not industry can continue to treat women differently from men.

“In an up-coming conference on lead standards in March, speakers ... will argue that there is scientific proof that lead also endangers the reproductive systems of men and produces blood disorders in blacks ...

“Chemicals do not pose the only danger. When Detroit lawyer Linda Miller Atkinson attended a 1975 National Safety Council convention in Chicago, she walked among the 730 displays of safety equipment manufacturers had put out.

“‘out of the five who sold fire-fighting equipment, none of them had a fire suit, boot, or equipment to fit women,’ she said. Although the safety regulations require equipment for certain factory jobs, few safety face masks are made to fit women.

“There is one danger that working women are exposed to, said Ms. Atkinson, who handles Workmen’s Compensation cases. On-the-job stress seems to hit women” more than it does the male.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is not proven scientifically.

Mr. Nixon: It is not scientific?

Hon. B. Stephenson: There have been studies about that and they are not accurate.

Mr. B. Newman: It may not be so. All I can tell the minister is what I read from the article as published in the Detroit Sunday News on February 20, 1977. The minister as a medical doctor could probably find faults with other comments made in the article. But I read the article to point out the inherent dangers in playing with chemicals when they have not been tested properly, and when they are not as safe as sometimes we are led to believe.

Mr. Lewis: Did you see the medical association medical report on the jaundice of a child from breast feeding by a woman having lunch with her husband in an unsafe environment? And there is no testing in this bill?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make few other comments, but simply read certain newspaper headlines. April 17, Detroit Free Press, “Miscarriages Tied to Work Hazards.” “Lead Poisoning: A Worker Worries.” “Pajamas, a Cancer Threat,” that as a result of TRIS the chemical used.

Hon J. A. Taylor: Stop wearing pajamas, Bernie.

Mr. B. Newman: TRIS was also used and continued to be used up until this year in the General Motors plants where they used seat cover reinforcing strips treated with TRIS. Now General Motors has abandoned that practice I think, and in place of the chemical TRIS they’ve used a chemical called Fyrol FR-2. They find that chemical is more dangerous than was TRIS, and it was the substitute used as a fire retardant.

“Herbicide Cancer Warning” -- so you can see the exposure to which our farm friends are in danger. “Farm Chemical a Sterility Peril.”

Mr. Martel: That is why you should support the reasoned amendment.

[5:30]

Mr. B. Newman: EPA -- that’s the Environmental Protection Agency -- makes mention of DBCP, a common pesticide, as being extremely dangerous. There is pentachlorophenol now found in cattle. There is benzine which I see has been listed as one of the chemicals that could not be used, benzine being dangerous in the home.

In the state of Michigan we had the PBB problem, where the fire-retardant was accidentally sprayed on animal feed, and the horror stories that have resulted from that, and which still have not been resolved. From the PBBs we get into the PCBs. I hope that in the legislation, or the regulations, there will be something to cover the workers who will be involved with the new PCBs, the incineration of PCBs, the drivers who are going to handle the vehicles, those who are going to have any type of exposure to the PCBs. Because it is a chemical that, when one realizes its dangers, one has to wonder why our scientists ever invented it.

Another area brought to my attention, is aerial spraying. I know a lady by the name of Mrs. Dumont lost a son to Reyes syndrome and, if the minister can recall, at one time I discussed that with her. Now she still maintains today that the spraying that took place in her community may have been one of the causes for losing a member of the family.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Was it the bud worm spraying?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is second reading.

Mr. B. Newman: I could carry on with --

Mr. Speaker: This is no time for interjections.

Mr. B. Newman: -- with other types of chemicals. I bring to the minister’s attention that the toxic substances portion of her legislation has to be toughened and strengthened to the point that we will not be exposed to any of these. We are playing around with things we think we know something about. We don’t find after effects from them immediately. They are long-range, and they are devastating in their long-range harmful effects to those in the work force who are exposed to them.

Mr. Lewis: We in this caucus have put forward the reasoned amendment because we believe profoundly that Bill 70 is a singular retreat from Bill 139. We did not want to believe that. As evidence of the good faith with which we greeted the introduction of Bill 70 when I walked out of this Legislature on that day, right after question period -- and I think that was true of my colleague from Nickel Belt -- we said to the media that this was the omnibus bill which we had all been waiting for and hoped to receive. Instinctively, we wished to support it. On the assumption that a number of things were written in it which were logical, and which had been promised, we would support it fulsomely.

I must admit that it was only upon a careful reading of the bill and the sudden recognition of what was excluded by way of designated chemicals, that I, and my colleagues, were extremely disturbed to realize that this was not a major advance in omnibus occupational health legislation. That this was, in fact, in some particulars, a retreat.

I ask you to recall, Mr. Speaker, the incredible revelation that occurred on the day the bill was introduced into the House. When we walked out of the House it emerged that asbestos, the single greatest contaminant in the work place -- I challenge you to name one that is a more documented hazard than asbestos -- was not then to be included on the list of the designated substances viewed as a standard, rather than as a guideline.

Now any bill that can be brought in with that much bad faith at the moment of introduction is immediately suspect. I know the minister went outside the House and chatted with the media and said something about a committee still sitting and still working and deciding whether or not asbestos should be designated as given a certain standard, presumably two fibres per cubic centimetre. And overnight, lo and behold, asbestos was given that designation -- was incorporated as one of seven substances I guess it is -- and we were, in that one particular, appeased.

But it is indicative of the lack of thought about the bill and the lack of commitment to its work that that could have happened.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Those are incredible statements. Absolutely incredible.

Mr. Lewis: With respect to the minister, it is inconceivable that in Ontario in 1977 she could introduce a bill of this kind and not have asbestos as a designated standard. It is not possible.

If anyone in that blessed occupational health division of hers, or the minister, had given it adequate thought I submit to the minister, through the Speaker -- and I don’t particularly want to get exercised about it; I want to make what I think are a series of simple and plausible arguments -- it is simply a reflection of the way in which this legislation is being treated. It is not being treated with sufficient importance. The minister is making what she believes to be marginal improvements on Bill 139 and which we know to be retrograde steps.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Balderdash. Absolute balderdash.

Mr. Lewis: With great respect, retrograde steps. I can recall that little happenstance when Bill 139 was brought in when the minister asked me for the amendments that day, back at the end of 1976 and I journeyed across the floor and gave the minister 30 or 40 pages of amendments. She looked at me as though I were mad and she said to my colleague from Nickel Belt later on; “How dare the member bring in these amendments? Our omnibus bill will cover it all.”

Hon. B. Stephenson: How dare you? Right. Exactly. Exaggeration. Gross exaggeration as usual.

Mr. Lewis: Well, “How dare you” may be a slight poetic licence. She said, “How can you bring these in after all we promised you? This is only intermediate legislation.”

Mr. Laughren: Worse than that.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I think in fact the minister abused you and was quite agitated, yes.

Interjection.

Mr. Lewis: It was quite out of character for this minister, who is usually restrained, of course.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Just keep on going, I won’t leave.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the minister that her intermediate legislation last year was better than her present legislation. I want to tell her something which she will find hard to accept because she is not a person of what one might call infinite flexibility. I say to the minister, through the Speaker, we would prefer to stay with Bill 139 rather than many of the sections of this bill. We would prefer it. We would actually prefer it.

I want to tell you why, Mr. Speaker, and I interject on the Speaker’s behalf to say that the galleries in this august assembly are not allowed to participate in the debate, even by way of adoration or clapping.

Mr. Nixon: Did you say adoration or clapping?

Mr. Lewis: Yes. Leaping from the galleries, I meant, and clapping audibly and other functions. Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Nixon: It’s awfully hard for the jammed gallery to contain themselves.

Mr. Lewis: The minister went around the province in the early part of 1977 soliciting contributions from the trade union movement and observations and submissions on the bill and she got them. And now --

Hon. B. Stephenson: From employers as well. The important part of the equation.

Mr. Lewis: And from employers as well. And now when she brings in the new legislation, the trade union movement almost universally has condemned it.

The Minister of Labour takes this very much in stride, she thinks “Well, so be it. So what?” But the fact of the matter is that when this kind of legislation, which cannot work without the support of the trade union movement, is universally indicted by them, it should make the minister and her colleagues pause. Does it make her pause? It drives her forward.

I think the minister and her colleagues get a positive exhilaration out of the opposition of the labour movement because it confirms in their minds that they have fashioned a bill satisfactory to the employers of the province of Ontario.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is hogwash. You are guilty of gross exaggeration constantly, just constantly.

Mr. Mackenzie: That’s what you are guilty of.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry to agitate the minister, but I must say if any other Minister of Labour were to bring in a bill of this kind and have the opposition of the trade union movement most directly affected by it, she would withdraw the bill. She would withdraw the bill. It is simply not fair. It is not possible for the bill to work adequately. Either she imputes --

Hon. B. Stephenson: It will, when they understand the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. minister doesn’t have to interject at every comment. She will be given ample time to conclude the debate.

Mr. Lewis: Sure, of course.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Will I have two hours, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: You will have as long as is necessary.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Two and one half then please.

Mr. Lewis: I’m sure that’s true.

If the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Steelworkers and the Auto Workers and CUPE and the Textile Workers and a great many other organized trade union groups, representing hundreds of thousands of workers in the province, all them with a vested stake in occupational health, all of them who wanted to believe that this would be a good bill, all of them who participated in its formation by coming to the meetings and making submissions in good faith, if they collectively say that the bill isn’t doing the job, then the bill should not be proceeded with in this form. Because they are the people affected.

My colleagues from Nickel Belt and from Hamilton East put it very well. It is a working class reality. It is the workers of the province of Ontario who are governed by the content of this bill. The minister can’t just dismiss the observations of their representatives. It is a grave mistake on the part of her government not to have listened to what they’ve said.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No one has dismissed them.

Mr. Mackenzie: You are not listening.

Mr. Lewis: My colleagues who spoke earlier indicated to the minister that one of the things which was really a bother was the whole question of health and safety committees. That’s why we have indicated that particular area as part of our reasoned amendment. How can the minister possibly ask the trade union movement or the New Democratic Party in this Legislature to believe she’s operating in good faith when in the process of Bill 139, so far as we know, over a period of 10 months, she allowed for the formation of no health and safety committees at all, which were recommended by the unions. How can she justify that?

The minister was interjecting so volubly when my colleague from Nickel Belt was talking about the differences between Bill 139 and Bill 70 that I went and read them both in conjunction carefully again. Let me say categorically that it was entirely within the minister’s capacity to appoint any number of health and safety committees recommended by the workers over the intervening 10 months. The fact that she appointed not even one, for example from local 6500, is evidence that she doesn’t really take this legislation seriously at all. It’s called bad faith. It says in Bill 139, in section 4:

Hon. B. Stephenson: And you don’t know what you are talking about -- that’s all.

Mr. Lewis: “The minister may, by order in writing, require an employer to establish a joint health and safety committee.”

Hon. B. Stephenson: Right.

Mr. Lewis: What words could be clearer than that? Did you do it with 6500?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, for good reason. Read the letter.

Mr. Lewis: No, I rest my case. I go no further. I want to go to the next point.

Mr. Martel: I read the letter.

Mr. Laughren: No, no reason at all.

Mr. Lewis: The workers asked her. Have they no influence on the minister? They asked her to protect their health by appointing committees. She has the power under the Act, she assures us she will do it, and then she dismisses them.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I didn’t dismiss them.

Mr. Lewis: Oh yes, she did. And we’ll say why she dismissed them. Because Inco didn’t want those committees. And when the chips --

Mr. Laughren: The company didn’t want them.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, you didn’t read the letter and you don’t understand.

Mr. Lewis: My colleague quoted the letter into Hansard.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No he didn’t.

Mr. Lewis: Oh yes, he did.

Mr. Speaker: Order, will the hon. minister come to order please. If you are going to have any time at the end of the debate I suggest you allow the speaker to go uninterrupted now.

Hon. B. Stephenson: He will go on forever anyway.

Mr. Samis: No self control.

Mr. Lewis: I could quite happily go to 10:15. Yes I could quite comfortably do that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: By all means, go ahead.

Mr. Lewis: We also objected and included in the reasoned amendment the whole matter of the exclusion of large numbers of workers in Ontario. I think the Liberal Party has spoken to that as well. Its labour critic who began this debate spoke to that.

Mr. Mancini: Did a good job too.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, not only in terms of OPSEU and the number of categories that were excluded but right through to the question of the people who work on delivery from the breweries. All of these categories of workers should be included. The fact that they’re excluded from the bill is intolerable. On top of that --

Mr. Mackenzie: Offensive as well.

Mr. Lewis: -- the section in the bill on toxic substances is painfully, terribly deficient. On the basis of that section alone we could not possibly support the bill as it now stands.

[5:45]

If one accepts what is generally conventional wisdom, that 80 to 85 per cent of all cancers in contemporary society have environmental causes and if one now accepts what more and more scientists are telling us -- and it’s what the member for Windsor-Walkerville spoke to, about toxic substances -- that these terminal illnesses are more and more frequently caused by exposure to chemicals in the work place, then it is the better part of common sense, Mr. Speaker, to have a pretesting and prescreening apparatus built into the whole procedure provided by the province of Ontario. We do not have that. Worse still, we do not have it at the federal level.

At the federal level, we have something called the Environmental Contaminants Act. There’s a fine little Science Council of Canada background study, October 1977, entitled “Canadian Law and the Control of Exposure to Hazards,” which deals with the Environmental Contaminants Act and points out -- and I know you will be interested, Mr. Speaker -- that the federal legislation does not allow for spontaneous or adequate pretesting, does not allow for the look at chemicals before they are introduced into the work place.

If it is true that we introduce 2,000 to 3,000 new chemicals and chemical compounds and chemical combinations into the work place every year, how can we bring in an Act of this kind which does not have a testing apparatus embedded in its content? It’s simply impossible for us to support that kind of legislation without bringing in a reasoned amendment. It means, very simply, that we’re going to continue to have tragedy upon tragedy in the province of Ontario, noted only 15 or 20 years after the effect, because we have been so negligent and deficient in the pretesting of chemicals when they’re going to be introduced into the work place.

The minister may say that it’s not our job to do. That’s for the Food and Drug Administration to do. That’s for the federal Environmental Contaminants Act to do. I say with respect, Mr. Speaker, if other jurisdictions waive their right or their obligation, then it’s necessary for us as the most highly industrialized province in this country to undertake it. This Act makes no provision for it.

More than that, this Act has set up this invidious business of standards and guidelines whereby you give to a handful of chemicals -- seven, I believe, in number -- certain standards which must be complied with and then the whole range of everything else. And this includes, as I think my colleague from Hamilton East was saying, benzpyrene in the coke ovens of Ontario. All the other hazardous and dangerous areas are left purely to guidelines.

There was, in the study which I referred to, a reference to guidelines and the regulations that they provide. I just want to read it into the record: “The data show that regulators seem to have a clear preference for issuing guidelines rather than regulations.” Why? What effects does this practice have? We’ve already noted that guidelines are not enforceable and that they are very much more difficult for researchers and other members of the public to find. No doubt, they can be changed more quickly than regulations, but perhaps the loss in enforcement and publicity is too high a price to pay for greater flexibility.

All that the researchers are saying is that if you set out guidelines rather than standards and let industry get away with a constantly fluctuating level, you end up counting the bodies 20 years down the road. And a great many of us in this Legislature are tired of counting the bodies. We’re just tired of it. May I point out to the minister through the Chair that just today there is an article in, I guess, The Globe and Mail; and it’s the first time I’ve seen it. It’s about the first two cancer cases coming out of Eldorado Nuclear at Port Hope, each of them with over 20 years’ work experience, both of them lung cancer, both of them now before the Workmen’s Compensation Board to attempt to establish the association between exposure in Eldorado Nuclear and the incidence of lung cancer.

Virtually every time one turns around nowadays there is yet another example of a serious carcinogen in the work place, or another example of disease or fatality as a result of exposure. To go through a piece of legislation which does not have pretesting and has only six or seven standards is to bring into Ontario occupational health legislation which it is not possible, in good faith, to support.

I want to say something terribly controversial. In a sense, I apologize in advance for saying it but I want to say it anyway, because I couldn’t rest easily if I didn’t. There is, everywhere in the province of Ontario that I’ve had contact with -- the contacts may be limited -- a widespread feeling among the trade union organizations, in many of the university settings, among a good many scientists with whom I’ve had contact, a great disillusionment and unhappiness with the new occupational health division within the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Laughren: It didn’t take long.

Mr. Lewis: I think it is important for the minister to know, that there is a gradual feeling out there that the new occupational health division, instead of being a consolidation of the best knowledge we have with a determination to enforce, is once again playing the apologists’ role; that their voices are muted; that their energy is misdirected; and that they are nowhere nearly tough enough about the contamination to which workers are exposed. To put it in a simple phrase, it is a very bitter disappointment.

I just want the minister to know that it is a widespread opinion that the much-heralded business of this new occupational health division with -- what is it? -- an associate deputy minister, or an assistant deputy minister, just isn’t washing. People feel no more vigour, sense of urgency, direction and toughness from them than they felt in the desperate division of obligations in all the previous ministries.

I don’t know what happened. I don’t know where it went wrong. I have a feeling my colleague from Sudbury East may speak to that as well this evening.

Mr. Martel: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: I want to emphasize that there is a loss of confidence and trust among the trade union movement in particular, but I have a feeling it goes beyond that, in the energy and the focus with which this division is bringing to occupational health. That may be simply because the minister plays a role which seems so often to impede rather than to encourage reform in the field of occupational health.

This doesn’t help very much when it is added to the reality of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which continues to drive most of us in this caucus to distraction. I don’t have to deal with it in this legislation. It is mentioned in the bill on a couple of occasions, but given that the Workmen’s Compensation Board excites no confidence among members of the New Democratic Party, where occupational disease is concerned; given that the occupational health division emerges as something of a disappointment, then you can see, Mr. Speaker, why we would wish written into the legislation itself a far greater expression of tough, disciplined, no-nonsense enforceability, and it’s not there. It’s just given to endless vaguery. Imagine, a bill of this kind where the regulations allow, in 40 separate clauses, the Lieutenant Governor in Council to do virtually anything and everything.

So we have again asked in our reasoned amendment, I think entirely logically, that those regulations be made available to the Legislature and, in fact the list of hazardous and toxic substances be made available to the Legislature prior to any intended passage of this bill. There is too much lacking in the bill; too much that is wanting in the bill.

Look at the section which attests to the last item which we have in our reasoned amendment, the section on the right to refuse unsafe work. That is a distinct retreat from Bill 139. This bill introduces the potential for intimidation of workers who would wish to refuse unsafe work that Bill 139 did not have.

If you want to perform a service in this Legislature, then withdraw these sections from Bill 70 and replace them with Bill 139. The irony is the minister herself has attested to the value of those clauses as they previously worked. Now they bring in amendments whose only purpose can be to undermine that value.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, this bill is just wanting on too many fronts. I know the members of the Liberal Party want to see the bill come in. They want to see us get on with occupational health. Who in this Legislature would wish it otherwise? As I say, when the bill was introduced, when we first directed ourselves to it, we intuitively, instinctively wanted to endorse it. In fact, a couple of us went far out on a limb and did so before we read it, so anxious were we to believe its contents were valuable.

I think it’s important for this Legislature to recognize that the contents are not a significant step beyond Bill 139. If we were, in good faith to return this bill to incorporate the strengthening features which we put in our reasoned amendment, then Bill 139 can serve happily in the interim because Bill 70 takes us no further.

In fact, Bill 70 takes us back sufficient that it is the kind of legislation which takes enormous affrontery to introduce.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You are suffering from cerebral ossification.

Mr. Lewis: Well, let me tell the minister cerebral ossification is an occupational health hazard in this Legislature. It has afflicted a number of cabinet ministers for a very long time. Mr. Speaker, I guess this fits nicely with the ending I want to make as we approach 6 o’clock. I believe the cabinet and the ministers, for a reason that is utterly beyond me, have decided to dig in their heels and take a position on this bill which isn’t really very logical. I don’t really understand it, nor do my colleagues understand it. All we are saying to the minister is there are certain principles inherent in this bill which surely can be embodied in a much more thoughtful and effective way:

One, the mandatory setting up of the safety and health committees in a fashion which will allow them to occur -- to be appointed, rather than to stand in limbo forever. Imagine 10 months under Bill 139 and not a single additional health and safety committee in Ontario.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You are wrong.

Mr. Lewis: Well, certainly not in the important areas like Inco for example and Sudbury, because the minister didn’t want to appoint them.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Many important areas.

Mr. Lewis: Imagine a bill with a Toxic Substances Act where only seven substances are designated as standards when the minister herself knows the problem of guidelines. Imagine a bill which doesn’t require pretesting and prescreening in a province like Ontario where the chemical hazards are so great.

Imagine a bill which retreats on the right of a worker to refuse to perform unsafe work when the minister herself admitted publicly that it worked effectively under Bill 139. Why does she change it significantly under Bill 70?

Imagine a bill which excludes from its content a large number of workers in the province of Ontario about whom we know there are hazardous exposures. The minister has conceded it, whether it is in the public sector or certain aspects of the private sector. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if in good faith, we want to bring in health -- I don’t want to fight with her about it terribly -- I just want to put the case.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Oh yes you do.

Mr. Lewis: No, I don’t frankly. If we want to bring in a bill which has good occupational health and safety legislation and she said it would be omnibus and it would be a significant improvement on 139 and we accepted that in good faith at the time --

Hon. B. Stephenson: And the mechanisms are here to do it.

Mr. Lewis: Then why haven’t we done it? Why is our progress, if anything, lateral rather than substantial? That’s why in good faith we moved the reasoned amendment. We have told the minister the areas in which she can strengthen the bill and have said to her: “Look, Bill 139 is just as good at the moment. Continue along with it and for heaven’s sake, let’s improve the principal particulars of this bill before us now.”

I shan’t prolong it further. My colleagues will pick up and pursue it this evening. I guess I should take my seat and somebody else will move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Sweeney moved the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener-Wilmot has the floor next.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.