Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the members of the legislative assembly would like to join me in welcoming a group of grade 8 students from Osborne Central School, just on the outskirts of Exeter, under the supervision of Miss Hunkin and Mrs. Haugh.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Legislature to welcome as well today 110 grade 8 students from the Maplewood Public School of Essex, directed by Mr. Feldman.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

ACID SPILL AT PORT MAITLAND

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, at the request of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Allan) and others who have asked, I would like to make a statement on the spill in that area.

As you and the hon. members are aware there has been a spill involving a considerable amount of sulphuric acid at the International Mineral and Chemical Co.’s acid manufacturing plant at Port Maitland. I would like to give this Legislature a brief report on this situation as it stood about 30 minutes ago.

At 3:45 yesterday, the company notified my ministry’s west central office at Stoney Creek of a rupture in a 2,000-ton storage tank containing sulphuric acid in 93 per cent pure concentration. Environment Ontario staff from our regional office in Hamilton went immediately to the plant to investigate the extent of the spill, to assess any environmental hazard and to give guidance in containment and cleanup measures.

According to the latest report from our field staff, more than 2,000 tons of acid escaped from two storage tanks, which works out to approximately 200,000 gallons. The cause of the initial rupture is still not definite. Most of this acid was contained by dikes. An area of land about 50 by 50 ft outside the dikes has been affected by acid and some acid has passed from this area into the Grand River.

We have some indication of a minor fish kill but no indication that any portion of the acid has moved into the main current of the river to flow into the lake. As a safety precaution, one of the first steps my ministry’s staff took was to test the water in Lake Erie to check the intake for the Dunnville water treatment plant. This is a ministry-operated plant which draws water from Lake Erie about 2½ miles west of the mouth of the Grand River. This water is being tested regularly and it is neutral and unaffected by the acid.

Lime and limestone were trucked in all night to neutralize the acid along the banks of the river and by 1 p.m. today 105 tons of neutralizing materials had been used. This work is continuing.

I am told the scene of the spill is spectacular with one tank twisted and flattened, others dented, blackened vegetation and bubbling pools of acid on the ground. The roadbed of an industrial siding has been eaten away and some rail cars are canted.

Most of the spilled acid has been confined to company property and there is no indication so far of significant environmental damage or threat to health or safety.

Our staff are on the Grand River in a boat testing water to determine the amount of acid in the river and the area of water affected. So far the tests indicate the water is normal but the tests are continuing and will continue. The neutralization work is continuing, and some steps are being taken to remove an acid foam on the river surface near the plant. This foam is the result of the reaction of acid with soil and vegetation and with the neutralizing chemicals.

The Ministry of the Environment will be conducting its normal investigation into the cause and results of this spill and will work with the company on ways to prevent future accidental discharges from this plant. Obviously this is imperative and my ministry will take whatever steps are required to prevent an accident of this nature from occurring again.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

PREVENTION OF ACID SPILLS

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask a question of the Minister of the Environment. What about his inspection procedures, since this spill of 2,500 tons of acid that he has just been talking about was preceded two years ago by another spill of 800 tons from the same source, International Mineral and Chemical Co.? What are the procedures for inspection, because this is a very serious matter? Surely, we in this House have a responsibility for the inspection through the ministry? Can he give us a report on that?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the spill some three years ago -- it is the same company, but it is now under different ownership -- the berms were built to contain an acid spill. The berms were big enough to contain one tank, but there was more than one tank affected. Most of the acid was contained, and most of it was neutralized. I can’t tell you the exact gallonage that got into the river. So far, with the tests we are taking, the pH is showing fairly normal. But the berms were built as a result of what happened three years ago.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary. Since there was no evidence that there was an injury to the tanks, they could not have come up to the specifications that, surely, the ministry puts forward for the containment of acid in such quantities and in such concentration. Is there some thought that a prosecution might be undertaken, since this is the second major spill?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, this tank apparently collapsed in instead of out. I can’t really say what will happen until I get a full report back on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West with a supplementary.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Yes, since the ministry is responsible for the inspection of the tanks, can the minister give us a report in the Legislature -- I guess Thursday now -- of what exactly the last inspection showed, when it was taken, and whether there was any indication on the part of the inspectorate that there was some pressure on one of the tanks which might have caused it to collapse? I guess what I am asking is: How is it, given the previous spill, that in a period of just three years, the structural condition should have deteriorated so badly that the spill is repeated, when the warning was so clear? Could the minister give us a report on his inspectors’ work?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I will take this up in conjunction with our Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman), since I think his ministry has something to do with tank testing. I am not exactly sure; but I will work with him and report back to the House.

Mr. Lewis: Tank testing?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Supplementary: In view of the fact that the minister said they would do all in their power to prevent spills of this nature, is he going to demand that barriers be built around these storage tanks so there will be no possibility of the pollutant getting into the Grand River again?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, berms have already been built as a safety precaution. I am now talking about containment walls around the tanks in case of an accidental spill.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But there were precautions taken, and they still lost the acid.

Hon. W. Newman: They only lost a very small portion of the acid. There were 105 tons of neutralizing agent put in, and most of the acid was contained and neutralized.

Mr. Lewis: That is a lot of neutralizer on a small spill.

Hon. W. Newman: We are testing in the river right now. We have people down there right now. To the best of our knowledge, the water is showing a neutral reaction on the testing we have done to this point.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Further supplementary: From the knowledge of my own riding, isn’t it a normal requirement for safety purposes and the protection of the environment, that when berms are required they have sufficient capacity to hold any spills?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes.

Mr. Bullbrook: All right, why didn’t they hold it in this case then?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the berms were built, as far as I know, to contain the contents of one tank. When the one tank collapsed, it moved into another tank -- and there was some spillage there. I don’t have all the details right now. I just had a report.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of a general supplementary question then: Is it not a normal requirement in connection with the storage of gas, fuel oil and matters of that nature in my riding -- and concurrently with the storage of acid in this other area -- that the berms have sufficient capacity to hold any overflow or any loosening of the material by accident or otherwise?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware, the berms were meant to hold it. Quite obviously there was some spillover and we don’t know exactly how much but from the testing we have done today we don’t think there was very much spillover. We are out there testing it this afternoon.

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

Mr. Lewis: I didn’t understand the minister’s reference to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Surely it is up to this ministry to ensure that what occurred before would not occur again, and he is therefore tied into the inspection. Somewhere the inspection process must have been negligent. Can he identify that for us?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I don’t know what was the actual cause at this point in time. Certainly I said I would be looking into it and making a full report. Our people are right over on the job now working with the company to make sure that the acid gets fully neutralized, and that’s what we are doing at the present time.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, is he the official tank tester?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, we have responsibility for energy safety and it may very well be that it is our responsibility to inspect the tanks. I have received no communication at all on this this morning. I read about it in the paper.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Who is minding the store?

Mr. Ruston: Why not co-ordinate inspections?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I will have inquiries made as to whether or not any inspection of the tanks comes within our jurisdiction. We do inspect service stations.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is that the Minister of Energy? By George, it is.

Mr. Lewis: He is confused by the minister’s presence.

IMMIGRATION COUNSELLING

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, by St. Dennis. We will speak to him in a moment.

I would like to ask the Attorney General if he saw the account in the Toronto Star a couple of days ago which indicated there was some kind of a racket in immigration counselling going on at the Toronto International Airport and perhaps elsewhere? Is he aware that there are those apparently preying or trying to make a profit on the ignorance and perhaps strangeness of immigrants, and is he concerned that his responsibility should be brought to bear to clean that matter up?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): I did not see the particular article the member refers to but I am aware in past matters that there have been complaints that people have held themselves out as immigration consultants and have inferred they had some kind of a connection with those who make the immigration laws of this country. When things like that come to our attention, they are prosecuted if a fraud has indeed been practised.

I should stress that there are people -- and I can think of some in my own riding -- who do hold themselves out as immigration consultants and do give immigration advice for that particular type of matter. Invariably they have had some experience by having been connected with a federal department in one capacity or another in years gone by. I am not aware of the particular article to which the member refers right now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I have sent the article over to him for his information. If there is substantial indication that people without any grounds of professional background or ability to provide realistic assistance are preying on these people who might like to become immigrants and are assisting them in appeal procedures when they are not in a position to provide assistance, would the Attorney General not think it his responsibility to do something about this as the enforcement officer?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Certainly, it is our responsibility. They would be charged with fraud.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Will the minister undertake to look into it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t know anything specifically about this.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Energy. Can he now report on the communications between the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Prime Minister having to do with increases in energy costs which have been discussed in this Legislature over the past three sitting days?

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, to this point in time the Prime Minister has not yet returned the Premier’s call.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, back to that point: I don’t want to belabour it but when the Minister of Energy first indicated that Ontario was going to seek further information, are we to understand the Premier phoned the Prime Minister and somebody up there said, “Mr. Trudeau will call back” but he hasn’t called back? Should the inquiry not be initiated here? Why wasn’t it initiated here?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it was very much initiated here. The consultation which had been promised has not gone on. The Premier phoned the Prime Minister and spoke to him on the Friday, having asked for a meeting several days before that and having only received an acknowledgement from an assistant in the Prime Minister’s office. The Prime Minister, I am told, promised to phone the Premier back yesterday, and of course we know that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is in Japan. As I say, to this point in time, to the best of my knowledge, the Prime Minister has not phoned back as promised.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is it the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the minister is waiting to hear from? I thought this was a communication between the heads of government. What is the significance of the location of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? I thought it was the Prime Minister and the Premier. Where is the Premier? Is he now waiting by the phone?

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): He hasn’t been here for almost a week.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Shining his medals.

Mr. Ruston: Can’t find him.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, what I was pointing out, and I indicated this last week, was that the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I have been trying to establish a date for a meeting, and that there was no mention at all to us that in fact he was going to Japan and that this was an impediment to a meeting.

In addition, the Premier, by way of a Telex several days before the statement that came out of Ottawa Thursday night, had asked the Prime Minister for a meeting. That Telex had only been acknowledged by an assistant in the Prime Minister’s office, not by the Prime Minister.

The Premier phoned the Prime Minister and spoke with him on Friday. The Prime Minister indicated that he would get back to the Premier on Monday, yesterday, and to this point he has not.

An hon. member: Found another picnic.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West. A supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may: Now that the Prime Minister of Canada has also indicated that negotiations may not work and probably won’t work, and that if the price is set it will be set under legislative authority in the House of Commons, when is the government of Ontario going to make a statement on how it will cushion the blow for Ontario, should the increase occur, as is now likely? That’s one supplementary.

A very quick second supplementary: Has the minister any idea of the existing inventory which the oil companies already have in the system in Ontario, so that we can have an idea of when the increase should actually take effect to avoid excessive and illegitimate profits?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, to answer the second part first, I don’t have the figures here with me, but they can be made available fairly quickly.

To answer the first part, frankly I don’t accept, as I think the hon. leader of the NDP does, that this is a fait accompli. I don’t know that the Prime Minister has indicated absolutely --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is too much background conversation; it’s difficult to hear.

Mr. Bullbrook: The member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) should have his meeting outside.

Mr. Ruston: He should sit down.

Mr. Bullbrook: Will the member wake up? We can’t hear. Let him have his meeting outside.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s not helping matters. The hon. Minister of Energy.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in short, what I’m saying is we have not accepted this as a fait accompli. We believe our position is still a very valid one, in point of fact. If anything, the release on the weekend of the figures relating to the GNP only strengthens our argument, and we will continue to pursue it with the federal government.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary, premising that the Minister of Energy has the right to make telephone calls also, could he advise whether he or the Premier has communicated with the heads of government or the Ministers of Energy of the producing provinces to bring to their attention the Ontario government’s view as to the economic effect of any increase in prices at this time?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago last Thursday I was in Edmonton and addressed the Canadian Propane Gas Association, following which I met with the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources of the Province of Alberta, and made our view very clear to him.

Mr. Bullbrook: What did the minister say at that time, without specific detail? Are we to understand that he told him at that time that it would not be in the best interests of the people of Canada, and especially the people of the Province of Ontario, for them to insist upon the federal government raising the base cost?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member would care to look at the record of the first ministers’ conference on April 9 and 10 --

Mr. Bullbrook: I am not talking about that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- in point of fact, the main arguments put forward for increases in costs were put forward by the Prime Minister of Canada, not by the Province of Alberta.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of one final supplementary -- and I’d like to have an unequivocal response, because some of us here wonder who is responsible for energy policy in this province -- did the Minister of Energy bring to the attention of his corresponding ministry in Alberta that it would not be in the best interests of Canada and the people of the Province of Ontario to insist upon an increase in the base cost at this time? Did he do that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I made it very clear, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Donald Getty, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources of the Province of Alberta, that we could not support the moves by anyone -- that province or the government of Canada -- to increase costs at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions from the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the minister a further question. If a submission is being made to the Ontario Energy Board regarding the application from Ontario Hydro to raise the rates by -- what is it? -- 29.4 per cent, on behalf of the consumers, does the minister feel he has a responsibility to utilize the facilities of the Ontario Energy Board to put the case against an increase -- or is he, in fact, supporting the submission?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the Energy Board is a division, if you will, of the ministry which I head. Counsel for the Energy Board, retained by the board with my approval, are there to question and to challenge all of Ontario Hydro’s figures.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: is it going to be Mr. Macaulay’s position there to be --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it isn’t Mr. Macaulay.

Mr. Roy: Who is it?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- well, whoever we have retained at this time to take the stand that Mr. Macaulay took when the Energy Board and other agencies were looking at the total programme -- the planned expansion of Ontario Hydro for the next eight years -- to put forward a strong position opposing government policy? Is there instruction given to counsel along those lines?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’m afraid that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is confusing several hearings. There was a hearing in the fall of 1973, or early 1974, on the system expansion. This was followed in the spring of 1974 and the summer with the first of the OMB hearings on the rates. I’m afraid the member is confusing the two hearings.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, I’m not. Mr. Macaulay was acting on both those hearings.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Certainly, I would expect that counsel to the board, Mr. Rogers, will challenge any and all of the figures from Ontario Hydro, including their projections for growth in the system.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A further supplementary: Has Mr. Rogers been instructed to prepare a case setting out the alternatives to the 29 per cent increase?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, again, if the member will look at the transcript, the record of the 1974 hearings, he will find that the counsel at that time, and I expect the counsel for 1975 to do the same, did challenge Hydro, did question it on alternatives for various other possible increases.

Mr. Bullbrook: Has he been instructed?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Has he been instructed?

Mr. Reid: Has the minister told him to?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: And he has, in fact, been instructed to challenge, to represent the OEB and the government.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: I take it, by way of supplementary that yet again, other than a scrupulous challenge of Hydro’s rationale, no lawyer acting at the board independently for the government will challenge Hydro on its existing growth rate. That is not the minister’s proposition, that they should say that Hydro’s existing growth rate is wrong.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, here again, in 1974 this was up for discussion, and it’s going to be discussed again this year. But in 1974, on a point of fact, the OEB in its report commended Hydro for its seven per cent load growth projection.

Mr. Lewis: Based on its growth rate projection.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The board commended Hydro for the way it was calculated and commended it to the government as a -- I’ve used the words before; I’m not sure they’re the board’s words -- a prudent standard standby.

I have said that I anticipated both the counsel retained by the Energy Board and counsel retained by such groups as the Consumers’ Association of Canada, the Ontario Municipal Electric Association, the Association of Major Power Users of Ontario, and various other groups, will challenge these, and other points, in Hydro’s arguments.

Mr. Lewis: Pollution Probe?

Mr. Reid: What if they don’t?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister tell us specifically, not presumably, what his instructions were to Mr. Rogers, and tell us which Mr. Rogers he is talking about? Specifically, what did the minister retain Mr. Rogers to do -- to oppose, or to be there and inquire as he saw fit? There is quite a difference.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will have to dig out the specific terms. He was retained by Mr. Jackson, the chairman of the board, with my approval. His function is to bring out all of the facts surrounding the case and to question all of the basic points in the case.

Mr. Singer: Which Mr. Rogers is it, and will the minister look at the specific form of the retainer and read it to us?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will be glad to pass that information on to the member, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Singer: Which Mr. Rogers is it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Oh, Don Rogers.

Mr. Lewis: I take it that what has happened is that Mr. Rogers is there, as Mr. Macaulay was before him, to challenge the mathematical calculations, but not the basic rationale of Ontario Hydro’s position?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Scarborough West should know, the hearings were adjourned last week until today because of some revised figures submitted by Hydro and it will be the responsibility of Mr. Rogers. It will be the function of every other intervener, or the representatives of every other intervener, to question the premises for this and to put forward their alternatives.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Has Mr. Rogers ever had extensive legal work in, and knowledge of, the field of hydro-electric power? Is this his particular area of expertise, this gentleman Rogers?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, Mr. Rogers does have a background in this kind of work.

Mr. Lewis: What does that mean?

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

Mr. Lewis: Was he ever associated with Macaulay, for example?

Mr. Singer: Is that William Rogers?

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

PICKERING GENERATING STATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the same minister if he recalls my asking him last Friday if he had any information pertaining to 23 leakage incidents at Pickering, to which he said “No.” Yet we were informed that the reactor was shut down because of 23 leakage incidents.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think what the hon. member is referring to, Mr. Speaker, is a report which I understand was on television last night about a conference of nuclear scientists going on in Ottawa at this time. The report, which was perhaps a little distorted on television but was properly reported in the Globe and Mail this morning, dealt with the problem in the unit at Pickering last August and the number of the tubes in the reactor. There have not been leakages and since the question we have checked with Ontario Hydro again and confirmed it. We have checked with the Atomic Energy Control Board and confirmed it -- by the way, the AECB has staff on the site at all times -- and no one has ever heard of such a report. No one can confirm the allegation made by the Leader of the Opposition.

I think the problem is the number of tubes. There are 360 tubes -- or some number like that -- in the reactor and something like 20 or 23 of the tubes were found to be deficient and were replaced.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask if the reactor is working at full power at the present time.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: At the present time I don’t know. I would assume that No. 4 -- I get the numbers mixed up; it’s No. 3 or No. 4 -- the one which was out last summer, is back up to full delivery for all intents and purposes, I believe.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

FEES OF BURLINGTON DOCTORS’ GROUP

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health. Is the Minister of Health aware of a number of Burlington doctors who have sent letters to their patients indicating that because of accelerating costs they are raising their fee schedules significantly above the OMA fee schedule and they insist the patient pay the full cost and seek reimbursement for, therefore, a much lesser percentage from OHIP?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I’m not particularly aware of the Burlington situation. I’m aware that any doctor may opt out and may charge any rate he or she wishes to charge. The patient is then obligated to pay the difference if that patient wishes to use that doctor.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Since the differences are really quite amazing -- a general assessment from $6 on the OMA schedule to $25; a consultation from $20 to $40; a repeat consultation from $15 to 40; any telephone call from $1 to $4; minor assessments from $12 to $20 -- since it involves, I gather, a number of doctors not just one, can the minister summon those practitioners to his office and, to maintain the basic integrity of the plan, discuss with them the value of periodic increases in the fee schedule negotiated with government rather than this kind of unilateral action which does do awful damage to the patients involved who cannot move easily from doctor to doctor?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, when we were faced with the possibility of an excessive demand this year, I implied that I’d be unhappy if doctors opted out totally. I feel the freedom of choice needs to be there. I don’t know yet what freedom of choice exists in that area and before jumping to a conclusion I’d like to look into it.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Recognizing the freedom of choice and the freedom to opt out of the plan, why wouldn’t the minister accept legislation I proposed, prohibiting these doctors from opting out and charging the difference to people who are on welfare, on social assistance, senior citizens and so on. Does the minister not feel that by charging these people extra over and above the fee schedule of OHIP, the doctors are destroying the universality of the plan?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, I don’t, Mr. Speaker. I guess the difference between the member and me is he would force people to do things and I think people should have free choice.

Mr. Roy: No. I said they shouldn’t opt out. I said to some people it would be prohibitive --

Hon. Mr. Miller: That is not the way I read it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The fact remains that for years, doctors, when treating patients who couldn’t pay a difference, often forgave those fees long before insurance was involved.

Mr. Roy: Do they do it now?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I think the member will find that in the city of Toronto where we have opt-out physicians, by agreement or understanding, they often do not charge the patient the difference.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park, a supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: Can the minister tell the House how much it costs his department for each doctor who opts out? What is the additional cost of all the cheques and so forth that the ministry sends out?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I don’t know, Mr. Speaker. It wouldn’t be an awful lot. My staff certainly prefer to send one cheque per month to a physician rather than five million cheques per month, because that’s the number of claims we have per month right now. It’s maybe half a million cheques versus five million that we are talking about. The accounting procedures would be complicated but the computer capability is there. Strangely enough, I have never thought about opting out on a selective basis as a bad thing. In fact, I think it can be a very good thing.

Mr. Lewis: Not if it prejudices medical care in the community.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, if there is prejudice --

Mr. Singer: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Miller: May I finish please? Not unless it means that it’s a closed shop. Under those conditions, I am very concerned about physicians opting out.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview, a supplementary.

Mr. Singer: Could the minister explain a little more about this freedom of choice? In some hospitals where only one anaesthetist or group of anaesthetists is allowed to operate, when they arrive moments before the patient is about to have the operation and say: “Sign here, which will acknowledge that you are to be charged and will pay whatever we decide over and above the tariff”; how does the freedom of choice come about?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And there is not an anaesthetist accredited to the hospital who will take a lower fee.

Mr. Bullbrook: The member for Downsview decided not to take the anaesthetic too.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I was wondering if he was speaking from experience.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: He was missing for quite a while not long ago.

An hon. member: He’s always under an anaesthetic.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Didn’t the member sign the document?

Hon. Mr. Miller: His definition of anaesthetic and mine may differ from time to time. However, I admit that when a patient is being attended to by a specialist who is working in co-operation with either a surgeon or some other specialist the freedom of choice may at times be academic.

Mr. Singer: Yes.

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

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Lewis: I have a question also of the Minister of Health. How does he intend to handle the very considerable discontent in the ambulance service section of the ministry in the amalgamation with Metro that is proceeding, particularly in terms of the unilateral decisions about seniority? Does he not think his own employees or his present employees should have greater protection than has been provided them?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, if I recall the terms of the agreement, the seniority given to the employees goes back to the point where government became their employer.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right, Jan. 1, 1973.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I have a relatively open mind in these things. I would be glad to look at the problems. We are trying to make it easier, not more difficult. However, I think the question of who will represent them and what their status will be in the future has to be argued by those people more used to the process than myself. I’d be glad to listen to them.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since in fact our employees were not consulted in advance but were presented with the terms of an agreement which they subsequently commented on and since they lose their present union -- which is fine, as that is also part of the freedom of choice -- but they can move, the question is could the minister take another look at the seniority clause which is the one thing that seems to be concerning them more than any other since several years work in the private sector can be lost to them?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I will be glad to, Mr. Speaker, but I should point out many of them became provincial employees almost by default. I believe they became ruled as civil servants at one point.

Mr. Lewis: The government is always doing that to people. It’s called freedom of choice in your terms.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

JAILING OF 16-YEAR-OLD GIRL

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Attorney General if he has any further comments to make on the case of the 16-year-old girl in the Don Jail? I would be interested to know whether he has looked at it further.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have since yesterday been advised that the matter involving the young lady came about last summer. I believe she was charged with theft and possession of goods knowing them to have been stolen. She was charged along with a 20-year-old female person and appeared, I think, on two occasions. She was out on bail and appeared on two occasions on which adjournments were granted. On the third occasion, the other accused appeared and Miss Young did not appear. Subsequently, a warrant was issued for her failure to appear. The other young lady was subsequently convicted and I don’t know the disposition of that matter.

The police then did, in due course, receive the bench warrant and were instructed to act on it. They went to the address which was known to them as being her place of residence, namely, her parents’ home -- she was not living with her parents -- received information to the effect that she was living with her co-accused, this 20-year-old female person. The officers went there and were unable to locate her there. They were unable to locate this young woman for a period of months.

I should point out this was not the subject of any wide manhunt or anything, but it is routinely followed up on a four or six-week basis by an officer who goes around to try to apprehend this type of offender. Meanwhile, each police station is given a list of this type of offender and is notified when the offender surrenders or is picked up. When she appeared at the police station late last Friday evening in connection with the most recent matter, the list was routinely checked, her name was observed, and then this brought about the whole series of events that we discussed here yesterday.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Go ahead. I will come in after.

Mr. Singer: Doesn’t it strike the Attorney General as being more than a little unusual that, even though the computer churns and turns up the fact there is an outstanding warrant against this 16-year-old girl, suddenly, she having appeared there voluntarily, apparently to complain about her stolen 10-speed bicycle, off she trots to the cell? Doesn’t he think that is unjust, unfair and inequitable, and that if there was any real urgency in executing the --

Mr. Lewis: It’s wrong.

Mr. Singer: -- and immoral, yes.

Mr. Lewis: No, not immoral; just wrong.

Mr. Singer: -- all right -- if there was any real urgency in executing that warrant, they could have sent out one of the minions of the law to execute it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, these matters are routinely followed up by an officer or officers who have this responsibility. They routinely check when people come in to see if in fact a warrant is outstanding against them. Having made that search and finding that, indeed, a warrant is outstanding against this young woman, what can they do then but take her into custody? That’s the whole purpose of issuing the warrant. Had they not taken her into custody on that occasion but let her walk out, then they would, in my opinion, be in breach of their responsibility. They must take her into custody; they have a warrant for her.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Was June Callwood correct on the CBC morning show this morning when she said that this young girl, when she was brought in, was routinely stripped, subjected to intimate examination and deliced etc., and incarcerated after that? Was that part of the process that occurred at midnight or 1 o’clock in the morning on Saturday? And if it was, doesn’t it go quite far to begin to explain the obvious anxiety and fear which she would have experienced, the events being so abrupt in the process; and doesn’t it also go a long way to raise in the ministry’s minds the police behaviour in the whole fracas?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know of the subjective nature of this particular matter. I do know that when people are taken into custody, they are in fact searched very, very carefully for a series of reasons; sometimes their own safety and to see if they are secreting anything on their person. If the member has not been taken into custody, I would suggest that he not wear laces in his shoes, because he will lose those and he will lose his belt. These things are done quite routinely. Now, if she was being held overnight --

Mr. Lewis: There are other ways of committing suicide when they lock up a 16- year-old that way.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Whether she was subjected to a delousing procedure, I just don’t know that I can find out, but I don’t know if that is the procedure. In my home town, when one is taken into custody he is locked up, his belt is taken, his tie is taken, his shoelaces are taken, his money is taken and these are all kept together. Any razor blades, any narcotics, anything of that nature of course are removed; and if its possession is contrary to a section of the law, then he soon would be charged. Those things are taken because they are processing a large number of people.

Mr. Lewis: In the Niagara region the police do that without having people in jail, I remind the minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Not now they don’t.

Mr. Lewis: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East first.

CANCER TREATMENT AT OTTAWA HOSPITAL

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Health. Last week I asked the minister if he would look into -- and he undertook to look into -- a situation in Ottawa in which the Civic Hospital is reported to be using breast cancer radio-therapy equipment which the Mayo Clinic described as Model T therapy which should not be used on anyone and which was outdated 15 years ago. Can the minister now report that this hospital is underequipped and could he also say what he is going to do to try to rectify the situation?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker, I can’t.

Mr. P. Taylor: A supplementary. Would the minister say when he will make such a report?

Hon. Mr. Miller: As soon as I can, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. P. Taylor: A quick and final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister’s response of last week and the fact he does not have an answer this week indicate that he believes the large-scale public interest in breast cancer clinical testing is going to drop off in a matter of time and for that reason the facilities are not needed in Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Miller: By no means, there should be no implication to that effect. It simply means I haven’t got an answer.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

WINDSOR HOSPITAL REORGANIZATION

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Windsor hospital reorganization. Is the minister aware that the Essex County Hospital Planning Council has recommended that a consultant be appointed to study the situation for that council, to last no more than four months, and that study, in the light of $4 million hopefully to be saved, would cost only $50,000? Would the minister be agreeable to that particular proposal as one of the means -- perhaps the means -- of solving that reorganization problem?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that may well be a worthy way of resolving a tough local issue. I believe on Thursday morning the member and the other three members from the Windsor area are meeting with some of my staff to look into some of the facts and figures he queried me about during the estimates the other day. I will be pleased, without jumping to the conclusion we should hire this consultant, to give it consideration. The number of dollars would be roughly one per cent, if I have done my arithmetic right, of the annual savings and if we can get a local agreement for one per cent of the annual savings I’d sure spend the money.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources has the answer to a question.

GRAVEL LICENCE APPLICATION

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough West asked me what the decision had been on an application by Sam Manetta for a licence to operate a pit in the Pontypool area.

The answer is that on May 22, 1974, Mr. Manetta of Pontypool applied for a licence to operate a gravel pit on lots 12 and 13, concession 2, in the township of Manvers. A number of persons objected to the issuance of a licence and the application was referred to the Ontario Municipal Board. The board conducted a hearing in Bethany on Feb. 10, 1975, and on March 26 the board handed down its report recommending that a licence not be issued because the Hall Rd. is not structurally capable of withstanding any further heavy traffic. As a result, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Manetta was notified that the issuing of a licence for the proposed pit is against the interests of the public at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kent.

PURCHASE OF RAILWAY LAND IN ERIEAU

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Is it true that a private developer has purchased the property of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway in the village of Erieau, which is of tremendous concern to those businesses and the homeowners who have their homes built on this property? Mr. Speaker, is the minister in the process of expropriating this property? Could the minister inform me how far it’s gone?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the situation to which the member refers but I’ll certainly check into it and report back to him directly.

Mr. Spence: Is the minister in the process of expropriating this property?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think we have started any expropriation procedures. I think I indicated to the staff that we would like to go the voluntary route and would hope we could negotiate a proposition. Where that stands at the present time I am not aware, but I’ll make myself familiar and inform the member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

SUDBURY HOUSING VACANCIES

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing. Is the minister aware that the vacancy rate in the city of Sudbury has dropped from 9.2 per cent in June, 1974, to 2.5 per cent in April, 1975? What is the minister going to do to alleviate the problem caused by this tremendous fluctuation in housing vacancy in northern Ontario?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the rate of vacancy has dropped in the last year, but I am not absolutely sure it is 2.5 per cent; it may be, but I would like to check that particular figure. It seems to me it was higher the last time I saw the figures released.

In any event, we have certain developments for housing in the regional municipality of Sudbury, and certainly we have plans to develop housing according to the needs of the people in that area.

Mr. Laughren (Nickel Belt): See the Vanniers if any land is needed.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew South.

GRANTING OF BAIL

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Will the Attorney General be relaying to his counterpart in Ottawa the message so ably delivered by the cabbies yesterday with regard to the bail reform Act?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I undertook to do that, Mr. Speaker. I obtained the names of the representatives of the taxi industry with whom I met yesterday afternoon and the names of the companies they represented. I did, in fact, undertake to express their concerns to the federal Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce with a supplementary.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to that question. Does the minister plan to express his concern about the reported fact that 14 of the 16 people charged with murder in Toronto now are out on bail?

Mr. Yakabuski: Because of a federal statute.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t know what the member means about my concern. These people have made application for bail; there has been a hearing at one level or another and bail has been granted, I presume.

Mr. Sargent: The report this morning was that of 16 people charged with murder in Toronto, 14 are walking the streets on bail now.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let the minister answer.

Mr. Sargent: Would the minister report his concern about that to the minister in Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t know whether I really have that much concern, because I am not familiar with the circumstances of each matter. I presume, and I would assume, that the member of the bench who made the bail order had conducted a hearing and was satisfied with the conditions that he or she attached at the time bail was granted in each individual case.

I don’t think I could just make a blanket statement that I am concerned; otherwise perhaps the law should be written that when one is charged with murder that bail is not obtainable, and I don’t think the hon. member would find that a very popular measure either.

Mr. Speaker: I think we should move on to a new question because of the limited time. The member for Downsview, first of all.

ONTARIO ADVERTISING IN TIMES SQUARE

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the somewhat less than favourable critical acclaim that has greeted his debut and the Premier’s debut on Broadway, would the minister now give instructions to those responsible for the preparation of the film that they eliminate the Minister of Industry and Tourism and the Premier and leave in Guy Lombardo and Niagara Falls?

Mr. Lewis: The minister shouldn’t be embarrassed.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Not at all.

Mr. Lewis: New plays often fail on Broadway.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary.

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

Mr. Roy: Does the minister want to respond? He doesn’t want to respond?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The question deserves exactly the answer it is getting.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a quick supplementary question?

Mr. Roy: Yes, the supplementary --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: What is this infatuation the minister has with himself about putting his face on the pictures; and in fact putting his name on all the ads, including the ads of Ontario Place?

Mr. Yakabuski: It takes one to know one.

Mr. Roy: Is that not a Crown corporation? What is the minister’s name doing on the ads?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is the job of the Minister of Industry and Tourism, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

PAYMENT OF BACK WAGES TO NURSES’ AIDES

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that the order by the judge in court about three months ago to pay back wages to 12 nurses’ aides of Iroquois Falls has not been fulfilled because the judge’s order was rather ambiguous as far as the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned? If the judge had some misunderstanding of that Act, would the minister not think that perhaps his understanding of the Interpretation Act, which has caused a good deal of controversy, should be clarified? Would the minister reconsider the possibility of appealing that decision?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that the order had not been complied with. I will be glad to follow it up to see if there is uncertainty in the Act. I admit that some of the Acts that we pass from time to time do have a little uncertainty in them; we will be glad to examine that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

ALUMINUM WIRING

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: At a recent fire in a Burlington plaza -- I think the Pinedale Plaza -- the fire chief indicated that aluminum wiring had been used and that it may have been part of the cause for an electrical malfunction and the fire. Will the minister investigate this situation to see if this is evidence of a need for a 90-day moratorium on the use of aluminum wiring?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen the fire chief’s report. From what the hon. member has said, it appears that aluminum wiring was used in a place where a fire occurred, which was possibly caused by electrical malfunction. That has occurred in many cases across this province in the past. What we are still looking for is indication that can be proved to indicate that aluminum wiring was the chief cause of a fire. We haven’t found that yet.

I have not said at any time I was not prepared to consider a 90-day moratorium, or even a longer moratorium, if necessary, to investigate this matter. I will look into the specific case the hon. member has raised.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

TERRITORIAL DIVISION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Territorial Division Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, this bill contains four amendments to the Territorial Division Act, the first of which simply reflects the restructuring of Oxford county, which was brought about by the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

The other three amendments give names to some 358 geographic townships in the territorial districts of Algoma, Sudbury and Thunder Bay, which are presently designated by numbers or letters only. The selection of these township designations, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, is the work of the all-party committee to name numbered and lettered townships in northern Ontario. I should like to take this opportunity to commend the committee and its chairman, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) on its efforts.

The committee’s selection, incidentally, was approved by my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, who set it up in March, 1973. For the record, Mr. Speaker, I might add that the names chosen include 55 members of the legislative assembly, 39 chiefs of reserves, 81 northern mayors and reeves and four chairmen of improvement districts, past and present. The remaining names include cultural and historical figures who lived and otherwise contributed to the northern milieu, such as the celebrated Group of Seven and 78 of our honoured dead from the Second World War.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Well I see that my name is included in one of these items, and I specifically replied to a letter from the member for Algoma-Manitoulin asking that it not be included. I didn’t subscribe to the kind of nonsense that was being suggested. I would like to know, before we proceed, what pattern was followed -- or must that wait for the debate on the bill?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Oh, I think the hon. member will have to wait for the debate on the bill, and the hon. member may find out that it is not him.

Mr. Lewis: I hope so.

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, this amendment empowers the city of Woodstock and the town of Ingersoll to issue interim property tax bills in an amount up to 75 per cent of last year’s bills. At the present time these two municipalities are limited to pre-estimate levies of 50 per cent, while in the other municipalities in Oxford county the limit is already set at 75 per cent. This measure then will simply bring these two municipalities into conformity with the others.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to bring provincial assistance for administrative welfare costs to Metropolitan Toronto in line with the provincial subsidy arrangements for regional municipalities.

At the present, for the purpose of the General Welfare Assistance Act, Metropolitan Toronto is classified as a city. This means the municipality receives an annual subsidy of 50 per cent of such costs which are in excess of those of the base year 1964.

The regional municipalities, on the other hand, are classified as counties for the purpose of that Act and therefore receive a straight 50 per cent subsidy for their full administrative welfare costs in any year. Only two regional municipalities, Niagara and Ottawa-Carleton, were in a position similar to Metropolitan Toronto’s and the recently introduced Regional Amendments Act will change their designations to counties as well.

STOCK YARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Stewart, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Stock Yards Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, at present the Act provides that surplus moneys of the Ontario Stock Yards Board shall be deposited in the consolidated revenue fund and shall constitute a fund known as the livestock improvement fund. The amendment will permit the board to use future surplus moneys to establish a reserve fund in the consolidated revenue fund to be used in the manner set out in the bill.

ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL MUSEUM ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Stewart, moves first reading of bill intituled, the Ontario Agricultural Museum Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, this bill updates and revises the Ontario Agricultural Museum Act. Some of the features of the bill are as follows: The Ontario Agricultural Museum Advisory Board is continued; provision is made for the appointment of a chief executive officer of the museum and his staff; the objects of the museum are enlarged; the powers of the minister are set out in greater detail; provision is made for the deposit and use of moneys realized from the sale of property of the museum. Provision is also made for the making and tabling of an annual report on the affairs of the museum and for an annual audit by the Provincial Auditor of the accounts of the museum.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of privilege. I am now told that the Lewis township referred to here has nothing to do with me. I would therefore like to know why I was left out?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member took the same approach then as he is taking now.

Mr. Grossman: He is so modest.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for Lambton.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Thank Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Keep on making fun of it and it will catch on.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Henderson: I am sure the hon. members would like to join me in welcoming 46 students, with their principal, Mr. Watson, from the Woodside School in Forest. They have as a special guide Mr. Bradley Boyd, a young man who just completed his tour as a page.

Mr. Roy: The Minister of Industry and Tourism should tell them he is on Broadway.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It’s one place the member will never be.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have a bill to introduce? Order, please.

Mr. Roy: Let him tell them how he exposed himself.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member won’t even make it in Ottawa East.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Does the hon. Minister of Natural Resources have a bill? I called for bills. He may introduce it now.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, could we revert to the tabling of reports for the moment?

Mr. Speaker: Do we have permission to revert to tabling reports?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Bernier presented the annual report of the Niagara Parks Commission for 1974.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That is the one that gets some of those Hydro rentals.

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the introduction of bills. The Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): You have to revert to that too.

MINERAL EMBLEM ACT

Hon. Mr. Bernier moves first reading of bill intituled, the Mineral Emblem Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Stokes: That is the amethyst.

Mr. Deans: This is called the Stokes bill.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, I thought it was going to be the Grossman bill.

Mr. Deans: Not likely; the Stokes bill.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Get on the bandwagon.

Mr. Stokes: He didn’t even know what it looked like until I showed it to him.

Mr. Deans: We thought the minister would be decent enough to --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: How would I know what an amethyst is? I don’t have any jewellery.

Mr. Laughren: They’re always trying to keep up to somebody.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We lead, we don’t follow.

Mr. Stokes: Would you like me to make an explanation of this bill, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Not just now, thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Act is to establish the amethyst as the mineral emblem of the Province of Ontario, and I would suggest that the members could look up Hansard, at page 1861, May 15, 1975, for my remarks when I made the announcement in the House.

Mr. Laughren: Outrageous plagiarism.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I, of course, look forward to some very supportive and interesting debate when it comes up for second reading.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, on a matter of procedure. You will recall, sir, that there was a report made to the House on Votes and Proceedings No. 27, on April 29, 1975, and that report contained in part on page 84, the following:

“If a matter or bill referred to a standing is deemed to be of “special interest, the consent of the House must be given to have the deliberations of the committee recorded.”

That was passed. I would like now to ask for the consent of the House regarding Bill 100, which is dealing with the collective bargaining rights of teachers and boards. I think we should have the deliberation on that bill in the committee recorded.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, perhaps I got lost here.

Mr. Deans: Okay. You can appreciate that it would be too late for me to ask for it after it was in committee. I wanted to give the House leader and those persons in Hansard who have to do the setup work the opportunity and the time to make the arrangements in order that the deliberations could be recorded, as per our agreement on that day some weeks ago.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I would also encourage the acceptance of this suggestion by the member for Wentworth, because I believe that this bill has proven to be of great interest to various segments of the community, not only the teachers and members of the various school boards who will be personally interested.

We have not had the opportunity as yet of considering any bill to be of such particular interest that it’s debate in standing committee has been recorded. I think this would be a reasonable opportunity to do this. It would show to the future that bills really have to be of particular significance if this procedure is going to be used. If we take this as an example and almost as a bench-mark for future decisions in this area, I think we will be doing a good service to the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, in response to the particular requests that have been made, I will say that I believe the bill will probably not reach committee until Thursday. I’ll discuss this with my colleagues and probably announce it in the order of business this evening.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. In the meantime, since this would be a precedent as far as procedure goes, we’ll decide on what the proper procedure should be in such an event.

Mr. Deans: If I may, sir, just before the order is called. It wouldn’t be a precedent, it would simply be the first time that we had used that particular rule.

Mr. Speaker: That’s my meaning of “precedent.”

Mr. Deans: I want to be clear that it is not in any way out of order or it’s not the precedent of the type where you would say you are setting a precedent for future discussion. It is simply the first chance we have had.

Mr. Speaker: I might say I was referring to the mechanics of it.

Orders of the day.

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

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERS COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned last night we were talking about section 64 that considered principals and vice-principals as a separate part of this particular bill and as a group which would not be involved in the bargaining unit in regard to this particular bill.

I made the point that, as far as I was concerned and as far as our party was concerned and as far as the opposition was concerned, this was a very bad section in what is otherwise a good bill. It places the principal in a hopeless negotiating position. It puts principals in an impossible position in the school setting. They are going to be in the situation where they will not be working in accord with the teachers under their jurisdiction and authority and it is going to cause hard feeling. It is going to cause difficulties in the administration of the schools and perhaps even chaos in the schools in the event that a particular school is struck.

I think the minister can resolve this problem very easily by simply striking out section 64. I notice there are some anomalies in this particular bill, particularly when it is judged against the Education Act. For instance, when one takes a look at the Education Act, we note that section 1(1), paragraph 39 states:

“‘Principal’ means a teacher appointed by a board to perform in respect of a school the duties of a principal under this Act and the regulations.”

The part I would like to underline, Mr. Speaker, is in connection with “‘principal’ means a teacher.” If a principal means a teacher under the terms of the Education Act, then I suggest to you that the same should apply to Bill 100. If that is the case, then the principals should have all the rights and privileges and responsibilities of such a membership and should be covered under the terms of this particular legislation rather than being divorced from it.

As I said last night, this particular legislation drives a wedge between the principals and their teachers. Instead of creating harmonious relationships as is the stated intent of the bill, it would do just the opposite. I think the minister would be well advised to reconsider this particular section, because if he doesn’t make some substantial change -- preferably strike it out altogether -- it is going to cause him nothing but grief in the future.

Also, on page 200, section 230, paragraph (b) of the Education Act, it states: “It is the duty of a principal of a school, in addition to his duties as a teacher . . . ” There is no question about the fact that the Education Act, as such, recognizes principals as teachers. For the life of me, I can’t figure out how the minister rationalizes that definition in the Education Act and then turns around in this Act and completely divorces it from his thinking in respect to the role of principals in the school.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): The member’s logic is sound.

Mr. Gaunt: The other matter which has been drawn to my attention and certainly seems to be the other contentious part of this bill is in respect to section 1(1) of the bill in regard to extracurricular programmes in the school. I think under the terms of the bill these would become mandatory and here again I can’t figure out the rationale because it would undoubtedly add to the cost if these were contractual arrangements rather than voluntary. It would add to the cost at a time when taxpayers, I believe, are already seriously questioning the validity of the educational dollar.

The decision by any teacher not to continue a voluntary activity could be interpreted under the bill as a strike and punishable by per diem fines of $500 per day. First of all, I think that’s extreme punishment for not continuing what was an unpaid, voluntary activity in the first place. Secondly, I wonder how the minister arrived at that kind of fine when we take a look at some of the other fines applicable in provincial legislation with respect to pollution and all sorts of other things dealt with in the various pieces of legislation we pass through this House.

There is another matter which has been referred to a number of times by various speakers and that’s the matter of the Education Relations Commission. I suppose this is a concern which is based on logistics more than anything but I really can’t figure out how the commission, which is going to be made up of five members, can possibly undertake as many as 233 negotiations which could be in dispute at the same time. I think those five members would be spread very thin under those circumstances and I’m wondering if the minister has thought his way through that one.

I don’t know how that situation could be accommodated. Perhaps it’s academic but I suppose it could happen under certain conditions. If it did happen those five people would be faced with a situation of trying to involve themselves in 233 negotiations all at the same time. I think that would be an impossible situation and one which could disrupt the educational system in the province to a very substantial degree.

Those are my comments on the bill, Mr. Speaker. I particularly want to impress upon the minister that as far as section 64 is concerned, I hope he doesn’t hardline this particular section of the bill. I hope he is prepared to keep an open mind on it. I hope he recognizes the validity of the arguments on this side of the House with respect to that section and the validity of the teachers and their organizations in regard to this particular section, to the extent that he will be prepared to make amendments to it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to join in this debate and I don’t intend to take up the time of the assembly at any length in order to add my voice to what has been said about the concern with respect to the exclusion of principals and vice-principals from the collective bargaining process.

I do so not because I can add anything to what has been said so ably by members of this caucus about this particular section and about the bill in general -- in particular the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), the member for Windsor West (Mr. Bounsall) and the member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr) -- but I must comment simply because, as other members of the assembly have, I have received from respected and highly regarded professional teachers in my riding representations about their concern. In particular I have received from Eastern High School of Commerce -- from the principal and one of the vice-principals -- and from the principal of St. William’s School in my riding, letters and telegrams expressing their concern about the exclusion of the principals and vice-principals.

Perhaps I could simply put as my view of an adequate statement the view of the principal of the Eastern High School of Commerce. My friend, the member for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly), and I were at that school, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the school not so long ago. The principal writes to me:

“The proposed Bill 100 has much to recommend it. I must strongly add my support, however, to the protest on the measure which would split a principal and the vice-principals from the rest of the staff in times of strife. The responsibility of a principal to the board of education is great. The preservation of the unity of the staff, however, is of paramount importance and any step that would destroy this trust would do irreparable damage in our educational system.”

I suppose that states what I want to say about the bill. I have taken the opportunity to write to the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board and the chairman of the Toronto Board of Education about the bill in general, asking for their comments but I haven’t received any comment from them. It may well have been that the reason I haven’t received comment is that they will speak to the matter when the bill is in committee or that they did not have time to do so.

In emphasizing my support I would draw the minister’s attention to the views expressed by the principal of the Eastern High School of Commerce and others who have written to me in my riding on this question of the exclusion of the principals and vice- principals. In my judgement we did the same thing and we did it wrongly with respect to the police force. The Metropolitan Toronto Police, for example, had the top members of the police force excluded from the bargaining unit and excluded from the police association. I think that has militated greatly against the unity and the concerted action and effectiveness of the police force.

At that time I said -- and I don’t want to emphasize all the arguments made at that time -- we have to get away from the idea that collective bargaining can take place only if we corporate the school system. To take the top -- the principal and the vice-principals -- out of the collective grouping and the unity of the community of the school -- the community of the teachers, the principals and the students in the school -- under some misguided view that by so splitting them off one facilitates the collective bargaining process, I suggest is wrong. I would strongly urge the minister not to proceed with any corporating of the school system. The model of the business corporation is not one we must adhere to in fashioning the other institutions within our government system.

I urge the minister to withdraw those particular provisions of the bill.

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

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I think it has been stated many times during this debate in the last few days that section 2 of the bill sums up the purpose of this bill, which is the furthering of harmonious relations between boards and teachers by providing for the making and renewing of agreements and providing for the relations between boards and teachers in respect of agreements. I think if I were to sum this up in a few words I would say the basic principle of Bill 100 is orderly negotiations by reasonable people bargaining in good faith.

I think this bill we have presented achieves these objectives. It presents in a clear step-by-step manner the kind of procedures that are to take place as bargaining proceeds. I think it provides innovative measures to avoid bargaining impasses, and it offers particular alternatives to confrontation as the process moves along. It recognizes very clearly, I think, the realities of collective bargaining in the educational field.

As I have said many times, it’s based on rights, reason and responsibility. It guarantees certain rights to people, to teachers and to school boards. In return, I believe that reason and responsibility can come into play and we can see much less troubled bargaining sessions ahead than we have had in the past. As I say, I think that this in capsule terms expresses the principle of this bill.

I would thank the many members of the House who have spoken, from all sides, who have agreed with the basic principle of the bill. They have agreed with it and they have said -- which I guess is unusual to hear around this House -- some kind things about a piece of government legislation; and I thank them for that.

I think this bill is the right bill at the right time for this particular situation. People have criticized the fact that it has taken so long to come in. I guess you have to live through a thing like this to know why the time had to be taken; the things that had to be done; the events that had to occur to let us arrive at the point where we could bring in a bill such as this.

But I still reiterate what I said when I introduced the bill a few weeks ago. Although the time may have seemed lengthy, I think the bill we have produced was worth waiting for. It really did, in fact, take that long to develop the bill, moving from the position that I think we felt sincerely at the time was the right position back in 1973.

It’s great, I know, to have people read back quotes and to tell you what you said then. I guess one of the things you learn in polities is that if you don’t change your mind, you are accused of having a closed mind and being completely unbending; if you change your mind, then you are accused of caving in. Neither seems to be a virtue; they all seem to be some degree of political sin.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): An honest man.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): I think it is a sign of growth.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have always adopted the position that the thing to do is to look at all the facts that are before you and to try to come up with the right solution at the particular time when you find yourself trying to achieve a solution to that problem; and that may mean a different position at a different point in time.

I might observe, though, or comment on a couple of the statements that have been made by various members and say that I really quite strongly disagree with them. For instance. I do not believe that the presence of this legislation at this time would have necessarily prevented the impasses in the Lakehead and Ottawa. It is nice to believe that it would have. I tell the members, and I am sure some of them know, that the kind of remedies that are suggested in this bill were offered to the teachers and the boards in those particular situations. Granted, they were not there is legislation, but they were offered to the boards and the teachers and they were turned down.

The chance to have fact-finders in, and the chance to have particular votes, all these kinds of things, of course, could have been done on a voluntary basis; but they were not done before those particular disputes. If, as we all believe and hope, that with this bill being in place and being law in this province, we find things go forward in a much more orderly way, then we will know that these kinds of steps that we have suggested can prevent the kind of impasses that have happened in the past. But I don’t think we can automatically assume that had this bill been here, it might have stopped those disputes; I am not sure.

As I have said, I feel this bill is the right bill at the right time. The rights that it guarantees to people, I think, will in the long run at least prevent more strikes than we have had in the past. I hope it will prevent all kinds of work stoppage and strikes and will bring more harmonious bargaining into the educational field. I still have a little feeling -- and I guess this goes back to some of the comments that I made two years ago, and even before that -- that somewhere, somehow we are going to have to find a better way than even that type of confrontation.

But I just have to say that in the 18 months we’ve been studying and working on ways to present this bill, we haven’t been able to find a better way. That’s why I get a little disturbed when I read some of the very glib editorial writers who suggest that instead of granting certain rights and bringing in a piece of legislation such as this, perhaps we should have been spending our time looking for another way, a better way, some other way of settling disputes.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Always undefined.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right, they’re always undefined. That’s exactly what we spend a lot of our time doing. There just isn’t anything else at the minute that isn’t compulsory arbitration in some form or in some way, called by some name. That’s what it really boils down to at this point in time.

I say, and I say this very sincerely, that I hope we will be able to find a better way at some time in the future. I think that it’s probably in the cards somewhere. But at this point in time, in order to get the kind of harmony I think we need in this particular area of the public service, we need to give certain rights in order to get responsible, reasonable people to act in a harmonious way and to bargain in good faith. I think that’s what we’ve tried to do.

Mr. Deacon: I’m sure smaller school boards would help.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m not so sure they would at all. In fact, I think perhaps a part of the problem in this whole area, if I can digress, is the fact that they are unaccustomed to negotiation procedures. That, I think, adds to some of the problems that the boards have got into.

Mr. Deacon: The frustrations of bureaucracy.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I’m not so sure that it’s the frustrations of bureaucracy. I don’t accept that.

One of the other things that I would say in commenting on the various remarks that have been made -- and I don’t know whether this is a good comment to make but it’s interesting, I think, that most of the criticisms that have been presented here, and of course there have been some very strong criticisms of sections of this bill, fairly well have been the criticisms that have been presented by the Ontario Teachers’ Federation, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation and other teachers’ groups.

Mr. Foulds: There are several others we have presented.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, barring a few; my friend, I think, maybe had a few in his remarks, but most of the others have dealt with these.

I sat here and wrote myself a little note: “Isn’t there anybody in this House who loves the trustees?” I haven’t heard one person on the opposition side stand up and itemize for me any of the complaints of the trustees of this province. It just strikes me as rather interesting --

Mr. Deacon: It is interesting. I have talked to several trustees and they agree.

Mr. Ferrier: They must be a pretty passive group.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): They are happy.

Mr. Foulds: They’ve been remarkably silent during the last few weeks. Silence in law means consent.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m glad my friend feels that the trustees are completely happy, but I think they do I have some criticisms of this bill --

Mr. Deacon: Some of them do have.

Mr. Breithaupt: They haven’t been very active in sharing their problems.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They have some criticisms of this bill but I guess none of the criticisms that they have finds much favour with the members of the opposition.

Mr. Foulds: They should try us.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend knows that one of the criticisms that a lot of trustees have -- they’ve put this to me even in the last few weeks; but I don’t agree with it either -- is about the scope of negotiations. There are a lot of trustees who still feel the scope of negotiations in this bill is too wide open and they would like to see a management rights clause or some limitation on the scope of negotiations.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s a pity they haven’t shared their concerns with us as well.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m surprised that they haven’t.

Mr. Foulds: So are we.

Mr. Samis: Indeed.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I thought the members opposite had some pretty good research people who were always out there looking for things rather than waiting for them to descend upon their desks?

Mr. Foulds: I mentioned a few points --

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am just saying to the hon. members that even if they had heard that complaint, would they have done anything about it? They probably wouldn’t.

Mr. Deacon: We consulted with them. We have one very active candidate who is pursuing the matter.

Mr. Samis: The member for Windsor West quoted from one.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As a matter of fact, we had a very active candidate sitting in the gallery here last night who is a public school principal and who is quite happy with the bill.

Mr. Deacon: Is he happy with the bill?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Sure.

Mr. Samis: Boy oh boy, wait until the campaign starts.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Anyway, I just draw to the attention of the House some of the comments which the trustees have been putting forward and which I am sure they will put forward in the committee. One of them with which I disagree, in regard to the scope of negotiations, is very sincerely held by them.

I have said in this House many times that I think one of the important features of this bill is to lay out a wide open scope for negotiations. I don’t hold the fears that the trustees hold about giving away the shop, by the fact that they now will have to negotiate a lot of things that in the past have been viewed as pure management prerogatives. I think these things can still be negotiated, the management prerogatives can be preserved and the trustees can still be accountable to the people. I think the educational system can benefit much by this sharing of a lot of this area of working conditions.

Mr. Breithaupt: We agree with it.

Mr. Samis: Right on.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t see any problem with that but they do have this serious concern.

The separate school trustees of this province also are sincerely concerned about certain constitutional rights. It is my observation that this concern is not shared by the Ontario English-Catholic teachers. I have discussed this with the separate school trustees and I am sure we will be talking to them in the committee. I think we have to be very careful that we don’t do anything with this bill that somehow gives the English-Catholic teachers of this province a little less rights than the other teachers. I have suggested to the separate school trustees that the best way would be for them and their teachers to work something out. They could come jointly to us if they think there should be something put in this bill to protect certain rights that are guaranteed by the British North America Act.

My friend sitting to the left of me is a lawyer, and the hon. member for Riverdale is a lawyer and there are a few others in this House, but it would be my non-legal interpretation that there is certainly nothing in the statute that we can pass in this House that could override any rights that are guaranteed in the British North America Act. If we did, the courts would soon, I think, put us in place.

Mr. Samis: Rightly so.

Mr. Foulds: I think the fear the separate school trustees have is covered by clause 52 -- the grievance procedure.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t think it is, completely. I think perhaps we will bring in an amendment in committee that may in some way cover it, but at the same time will not in any way interfere with the rights of the teachers. It is not the same kind of amendment they have in mind, but I think we will have plenty of time to discuss that when we get into committee.

Mr. Speaker, I think I sense rightly that practically every member of this House agrees with the principle of this bill. I emphasize again it envisages orderly negotiations by reasonable people bargaining in good faith, and in this bill we have the procedures to accomplish this in the educational field.

There are, of course, still some sections on which there is not unanimous agreement. I am not going to deal with all of those today. Most of the sections that were brought up are not general principles of this bill but they are specifics that properly deserve to be debated in committee. Let me just deal with a couple of them quickly.

I think the matter of principals and vice- principals has been discussed quite extensively by most members that have taken part in this debate. I would like to make it very clear that there was no sinister motive in including this section in the bill. It was merely put in in order to achieve a balance which we believed was necessary in bringing forward a bill to guarantee certain sanctioned rights to a group in the public sector. Although they never have not had these rights in law, they have been presumed by a large group of the public to be a group that does not normally strike.

So, building into this bill the right to withdraw services -- and this is perhaps the difference between where the members opposite sit and where we sit -- we also had to think about the total public good -- about all the members of the public.

Mr. Foulds: Now the minister is being provocative. We in the opposition are very well aware that the public interest and welfare is our responsibility too.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m just pointing out to the member that in bringing this bill forward we had to think about this. Some people think that all we did was bring a bill forward that perhaps would just please teachers. We’ve tried to bring a bill forward that is based upon sound principles that will not only bring forward good-faith bargaining, but will consider also the students and the general public and everyone.

Mr. Foulds: The public interest and welfare.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In doing that we were trying to think of areas where we had to have concern. If a school is closed because of a strike, it’s easy to believe and think that all the students will know that a strike is going on, that parents won’t be confused and that things won’t be happening in that community. Of course, it may not be closed. There may be all kinds of other community activities going on in that school. One has to think about these things.

In drafting this bill we thought that the principal is perceived by the public -- and I don’t dispute for one minute any of the arguments about the principal being the principal teacher -- in his community as being the boss of that school. Inside he may just be one of the staff and the principal teacher, but he’s perceived as the boss of that school in the community.

In the event of a withdrawal of services, if buses are coming to that school, the kids still come. The word may not get around, there is uncertainty as to what’s actually happening, there is uncertainty about the community use of that school, there is also the board’s concern that that property somehow continue to stay in good hands. For these reasons we believe that somebody should be considered as essential. So, in drafting the legislation, we thought the principal and the vice-principal should remain on the job, which is, I understand, not uncommon even in certain industrial areas, without disturbing this balance between them and their colleagues.

If the teachers and the principals choose to make this a divisive type of arrangement, then I guess it will be. With the rights that we now have built in, by this bill the principals and vice-principals can stay members of the bargaining unit and members of the association, can bargain with their friends and can do everything except vote on a strike and take part in a strike. If it is accepted in good faith by all concerned, I think it can work. If it isn’t accepted in good faith, it won’t work. It begins to look to me as if it is not going to be accepted in good faith. I think that it could be accepted, and it could work. I think that if all accepted it, there wouldn’t be any problem.

I would like to quote one thing here just to set the record straight. I have heard read to me many times that section from the Education Act about the duties of a principal. The last person to read it was my friend from Huron-Bruce. I don’t know whether he and others have read the regulations concerned with the Education Act on the duties of a principal. If they read through those duties of a principal they’ll see that a principal is far more than just a teacher in the school.

Mr. Gaunt: Oh, that is true.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Does the member know what they say?

Mr. Gaunt: Well, not verbally, not precisely.

Hon. Mr. Wells: One of the things they say is, subject to section 40, which concerns an inspector being able to take over his duties if he comes in a school:

“A principal is in charge of the management and discipline of his school and, subject to revision by the inspector, is in charge of the organization of his school.”

The duties of a principal also say that he is to make recommendations to the board respecting additions and alterations to school property, inspect the school premises at different times and exercise control over pupils.

There’s a whole list of the things in here which I would suggest is a little more than his just being another one of the teachers and the principal teacher in that school. Regulation 191 lays down as the duties of a principal a lot of things that are concerned with the organization and management of that school. I think that if members accept that, read that and look at the perception that a lot of the people in the public have of the principal of that school, they can see some of the thinking that went into our minds as we developed this section and thought that a principal and vice-principal should be considered essential to the school, therefore not withdraw their services when others did, if this happened in the case of a dispute.

Let me move on to the area of extracurricular activities. It was never the intention and it was certainly never thought of in drafting this bill, that we interfere with the traditional pattern of voluntary extracurricular activities. As I said in an exchange with my friend from Windsor West last night, in this section, the one that has been debated, and that’s --

Mr. Foulds: Clause 1(I)(iii).

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- clause 1(I)(iii) we were really attempting to deal with the matter of work-to-rule, not to set any new patterns concerning co-curricular or extracurricular activities, not to suggest that anyone would be prevented from withdrawing voluntary services or should be paid for voluntary services or anything of the kind. I admit I think perhaps the wording is not right, but what we were trying to do was to say that work-to-rule, which has been a very disturbing and unsettling bargaining tactic that has been used over the last few years, should also be considered as a major sanction procedure.

This came about, incidentally, as a result of the discussions we had with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation a good 1½ or two years ago when we first started talking about negotiation bills. We talked about the right to strike or no strike, and some of them made the point to me that in a bill such as this, we shouldn’t just talk about the ultimate sanction -- complete strike or non-complete strike -- but we should have other perhaps less severe sanctions that could be considered, depending upon the situation at the time.

Mr. Foulds: But the minister had defined all sanctions as a strike in this bill. He has defined all sanctions as strike in this bill; all sanctions and no intermediary stage in sanctions.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right, yes. The intent of this bill is that there be no sanctions such as work-to-rule, or rotating strikes, or mass resignations during the life of a contract. These then become sanctions that could be used when there is no contract and when all the procedures that are laid down and that allow a group to go on strike have been followed. The definition was meant to include all these things. I think that on work-to-rule terminology, as I said last night, I always wanted to just put in 1(I)(iii) “work-to-rule” rather than the phraseology here, but I got talked out of this by the lawyers at various points of time because it was an undefinable term too, and that may be. But that was the --

Mr. Foulds: So are co-curricular and extracurricular.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, I don’t know where they learned those words.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Is the minister not going to tell us what it means now?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am telling the members what it means now.

Mr. Burr: What co-curricular means?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I am not going to tell them what it means. All I am saying is those were the words that were chosen to mean work-to-rule.

What we are really saying is that if a work-to-rule tactic, and I realize that is a very difficult thing to define, but if that kind of sanction is to be used, we felt that it should come under the aegis of this bill, it should come when there isn’t a contract and after all the steps that are laid out for a strike have occurred.

I have explained that. I explained that two weeks ago to the Ontario Teachers’ Federation. They know this, but they have still persisted in sort of generally scaring people, I think, which I regret. I think we could have straightened this out much more easily, judging by some of the letters that they have sent out about this particular area. I explained this and we had a good discussion about it at the meeting we had before we introduced this bill. We had a good discussion about it and they knew exactly what we meant in this particular section.

There was one other alternative to this particular section, of course, that I put forward at the time. With the wording that we had in, I said: “Why don’t we just leave the wording out and get some kind of a memorandum of agreement signed that work-to-rule will not be used as a bargaining tool?” We have now got a legalized route to strike and so forth; let’s get work-to-rule right out of there, because it is a very unsettling kind of thing and it has very dire and bad effects in a lot of areas. It creates bad feeling between pupils, students, teachers and parents, perhaps without their realizing; it’s the same kind of technique as some of the other sanctions which could be used.

Be that as it may, they did nothing in regard to that. Unfortunately it started the letters going around the province that we were somehow trying to interfere with what had been voluntary activities, which as I say is not the intention at all. I think we can get this wording all straightened out in committee on that particular section. I see no problem in that.

The other major points I would comment on this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, include the Education Relations Committee. We see this as a very prestigious, impartial group. I think some of the names my friend from Port Arthur suggested are those of the kind of people I certainly see in my mind as sitting on the Education Relations Commission. I think they have --

Mr. Breithaupt: Except the ones he liked are maybe the ones the minister didn’t like and vice versa.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I didn’t say that. If the member had suggested a few in his remarks, I would have kindly said I liked those, too.

Mr. Samis: The member for Port Arthur is very constructive.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They are the kind of prestigious, impartial people we are looking for and will try to get to make up this Education Relations Commission. It is going to be a very important group.

It has to have a high degree of trust among all the parties, not only the teachers and the boards but the public. It has to have a high degree of competence. It has to have people who know what they are doing and who are able to take this legislation and, really, they will be charged with getting it going, along with the boards and the teachers bargaining in good faith. I think we can accomplish that.

The other matter which has been mentioned but which I don’t really see as a serious matter, although many of the speakers do, is the matter of the termination date of contracts. We really had two things in mind in putting this in the bill. One was that we believed it was only good sense for a teacher whose school year ran from September to June should know his full terms and conditions of employment for that particular period, the period he was going to be employed.

Further, on looking at the situation in the province, we find that 102 boards terminate their contracts at the end of the school year, Aug. 31, and only 23 terminate contracts on Dec. 31, the end of the calendar year. If one is looking for a uniform period coupled with, as I say, the reasoning that it’s better to have the contract for terms and conditions of employment in place for the school year a teacher works, it becomes obvious that the Aug. 31 termination date, with contacts of at least one year from Sept. 1 to Aug. 31, is the best way to go. That’s the way we have gone in this bill.

There will be a couple of amendments in committee to allow boards in the transitional stage, those which are not on the school year contract, to decide whether they want to have 20-month contracts or eight-month contacts, whenever their contract comes up, to get back into line. They will not be forced into the longer contracts as they would under the present reading of the bill. There will be some changes suggested in that particular area.

Mr. Speaker, with those few remarks I won’t comment on any of the other sections. There are many which we will be fully debating. I hope the bill can get into committee on Thursday afternoon and we can have a full and very detailed debate on all the sections with the various interest groups who wish to present points of view to us.

Again, I thank the members for their support of the principle of this bill. We have very high hopes for it. I think it can achieve the hopes we have and bring about real good-faith bargaining in the teacher-board area, keeping in mind all the time the educational needs of the young people of this province.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, if I may. Would the minister take the opportunity to express to the House leader his views with respect to the point raised by my colleague, the House leader of this party, about the recording of the proceedings in the standing committee of the Legislature, as this bill is one of special interest.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the House leader has already indicated we have spoken about it. He is going to make some determination about it I think later in the day.

Mr. Renwick: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is simply that obviously the minister is the one whom he will consult. It’s a matter of the consent of the House, and I would ask him to give assurance to the House leader that he would give such consent himself.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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

OMBUDSMAN ACT (CONTINUED)

House in committee on Bill 86, An Act to provide for an Ombudsman to investigate Administrative Decisions and Acts of Officials of the Government of Ontario and its Agencies.

Mr. Chairman: When we ceased discussion at the last time the bill was being considered in committee, I understand we were at section 13, subsection 1.

I believe Mr. Renwick had moved that section 13 of Bill 86 be amended by deleting everything after the word “office” in the fourth line. Does the hon. member for Riverdale wish to comment?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): On section 13: Yes, I would like first to make a clarifying comment. My amendment applies to the whole of section 13. I intended to delete everything after the word “office” in the fourth line of subsection 1 of 13, and to include in that deletion subsection 2; because, of course, subsection 2 is the limiting clause to which I was taking exception.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could refresh the committee’s mind about my reason for moving the amendment. When we rose at the close of the sitting last Thursday, I was expressing to the minister the concern which we have throughout the bill about the way in which the government has decided to circumscribe the function of the Ombudsman in a way which is unacceptable to us.

My colleague, the member for Lakeshore, (Mr. Lawlor) is not able to be here and will not be here for the remainder of this debate. But he and I were emphasizing to you that the essential limitation which we were being asked to impose -- because it’s going to be an oath administered to the Ombudsman in this assembly by the Speaker of this assembly -- is one which is objectionable. Because subsection 2, which is the only exception, would have to be read in the very limited sense that the only matters which the Ombudsman could disclose in any report are such matters as ought to be disclosed to “establish the grounds for his conclusions and recommendations.”

That is a very limiting restriction, I believe, as I have said both on second reading and on occasion when we were discussing the previous section of the bill, if we are creating an institution of government -- and I personally consider we are creating one. In Great Britain, certainly, the office of parliamentary commissioner for administration is considered to be a constitutional arrangement for the protection of the individual in his relationship with central administration, or one of the ways in which he is so protected. It would appear to me, therefore, that the oaths the Ombudsman should take should be the general grant to him that he will exercise the function of his office faithfully and impartially. I feel we should not impose any further restriction on him. We feel that it’s of sufficient significance -- assuming we have sufficient members in the House -- that we will divide at this time and not stack that amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to comment?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Yes. I listened with interest last Thursday evening when this matter was debated at some length. I think, Mr. Chairman, that there may well be a difference of opinion here. I wonder if there isn’t really a difference in understanding.

I can recall debating with the member for Riverdale and the member for Lakeshore, perhaps a year and a half ago, the matter of privacy of the individual. We had a very interesting discussion on that occasion dealing with the matters of privacy and confidentiality of the citizen. It was a discussion which came out of the legislation then being considered, the Credit Reporting Act as it was called.

That section, Mr. Chairman, is in the Act, not for the protection of the government or any of its members, but for the protection of the individual who sees fit to bring a matter to the attention of the Ombudsman. I can visualize many situations where a person, not wanting his or her affairs known generally or widely or publicly, must feel there is a confidential aspect in his or her bringing a complaint to the attention of the Ombudsman. It must be this way. It must be the same type of confidentiality that leads people to make disclosures in privacy to their solicitor knowing full well that legally they can rest assured the solicitor is not going to run forth and tell the world at large the affairs of his client.

That is the reason the section is there. The escaping section, subsection 2, allows latitude to the Ombudsman to make disclosures if, in his opinion, he feels they ought to be disclosed. In some instances, with the concurrence of the individual citizen, the Ombudsman will undoubtedly make those disclosures if he sees fit.

I point out, Mr. Chairman, that a number of jurisdictions which have similar legislation have recognized this principle. I deal firstly with the New Zealand legislation. Section 8 deals with the oath of office. I don’t think there’s much point in reading all of the sections into the record, but section 8 says: “Before entering his duties, the commissioner shall take an oath of office and shall not, with the exception of section 18, divulge any information received by him under the Act.”

By the way, that New Zealand legislation was, I believe, introduced in September 1962. In 1972, the Province of Saskatchewan, following the New Zealand legislation, likewise reflects the same type of situation in its legislation, namely, in section 10(1) which says: “He shall not disclose.” In subsection 2 -- it may be even the same, word for word -- it gives him the discretion, if he finds it necessary, to make disclosure.

Nova Scotia’s legislation was introduced in 1970-1971. Section 3, subsection 5 of that legislation says he shall take his oath of office and will not divulge any information received by him except for the purpose of giving effect to the Act.

Alberta, in 1970, introduced similar legislation; and that statute, in section 19, says he shall maintain secrecy in respect of all matters which come to his knowledge or to people working for the Ombudsman within the scope of their employment.

I am paraphrasing these things. There is a subsection 2 to section 19 of the Alberta legislation allowing him to disclose, if he in his opinion feels something should be disclosed.

That, Mr. Chairman, is the only purpose in having that in the bill we are debating here today. The member for Downsview (Mr. Singer), in his private bill, has the same type of section; it is shown in his bill as section 7.

I think the draftsmen of this type of legislation recognize there must be confidentiality and that the Ombudsman must be bound by the legislation under which he operates and that it must be settled in the statute.

With the greatest of respect, I suggest and submit very strongly that it is not there to circumscribe the powers of the Ombudsman or to shroud in secrecy the activities of this government or any ministry within it. It is there primarily for the protection and privacy of the individual subject who sees fit to bring a matter or matters to the attention of the Ombudsman. That’s all I can really say on it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have never accepted the argument, which is the minister’s argument, that repetition in other statutes -- when it is simply a direct steal from particular statutes of other jurisdiction -- makes it correct for this assembly to pass it. I may say it may have some minor persuasive force.

We are not speaking about the confidentiality or privacy of the citizen. What we are speaking about here is whether or not we are prepared to have the Ombudsman swear the oath of office in a way which will accord to him the respect to which his office is entitled without at the same time facing him with a serious problem about whether or not he can report.

I know, as well as the minister knows, that the Ombudsman, if he has any respect for his office, is not going to be divulging matters with respect to the privacy of citizens unless there is an overriding public interest for him to do so. We are always faced with that situation. There are many situations in which the privacy of the individual is breached because of the overriding public interest.

There cannot possibly be any way by which once a citizen has indicated clearly there is a matter of complaint he cannot then rely upon the Ombudsman to take whatever action is required, limited, of course, for the purpose of protecting that citizen. To suggest for one single moment that this is a limitation to protect the citizen is a misreading of what is in the statute. What this is is a limitation on the Ombudsman’s capacity to report to this assembly as an officer of the assembly. Either you have respect for him or you don’t have respect for him. If you don’t have respect for the office you are creating, you leave the qualification in. If you do have respect for him, yon take it out. I don’t think we need to be repetitious about the argument.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I can’t share that argument. The fact that I am remaining very silent over here, Mr. Chairman, is not to be presumed by the member for Riverdale as condonation or approval of the principle as he puts it.

The respect of the office of the Ombudsman, I suggest, is not the matter we are debating here; it’s whether by statute he shall be precluded from disclosing, except those matters that he includes in his report, those matters which in his opinion he feels should be brought to the attention of this House. I think that is the nub of it. I can say nothing further about it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I want to make one further comment. We were defeated the other night about the capacity of the Ombudsman to make reports from time to time to this assembly if he saw fit to do so. We were defeated on that amendment.

Now we are being asked to further circumscribe the capacity of the Ombudsman by saying that by the very oath administered to him, we will restrict him in such a way that it will affect the nature of the reports which he can make, even in the very circumscribed way set out in section 22(4) in the situation in which he is not satisfied that any action is going to be taken, he has discussed it with the Premier and then he lays the report before the assembly on the matter as he thinks fit.

That report is going to be the circumscribed report which you are imposing on him. You are going to be able to say to us that we are not entitled to anything else, we are not entitled to any further explanation; the most limited explanation possible is all that this assembly is to get.

We will say, “Why can’t we have a full and complete explanation?” Why? Because of the oath which you in this assembly administered to him and you circumscribed of your own volition, in this Assembly, the very jurisdiction that you are granting to him.

That is the way it will work. That’s the way government secrecy has always worked. That’s why the bills are modelled on the New Zealand bill, the Alberta bill, and now on the number of other bills which have been passed. It’s natural that it would be so. The long history of executive secrecy, and the inability of a private citizen to get anywhere near it, is being breached in a minuscule way; and the executive, having to move because of the need for such of an office, immediately clams up and imposes the limitations which both in law and in the wording of this statute are going to so circumscribe him that it will not be possible for him to function in the way in which it is intended he should function.

The committee divided on Mr. Renwick’s amendment that section 13 of Bill 86 be amended by deleting everything after the word “office” in the fourth line, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 30; the “nays” are 45.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment defeated and section 13 carried.

Section 13 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments, questions or amendments prior to section 17 to which the minister has an amendment?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, section 14.

Mr. Chairman: Section 14; the member for Riverdale.

Order, please.

On section 14:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, may I direct the minister’s attention to section 14 and the companion section, section 21, subsection 1, items (b) and (c)?

I am concerned, as a matter of the drafting of the statute, that section 14 is a flat statement without any qualification as to the application of the Act or the non-application of the Act to judges or to the functions of any court or “(b) to deliberations and proceedings of the executive council or any committee thereof.” Yet in subsection (c) of subsection 1 of section 21 it is only those matters related to the proceedings of the executive council or of any committee of the executive council which relate to matters of a secret or confidential nature and would be injurious to the public interest.

I take it that the Attorney General would have to make a determination before he certified as to whether or not the disclosure of proceedings of the executive council -- as distinct from its deliberations -- would be relating to a matter of a secret or confidential nature and would be injurious to the public interest. If the Ombudsman receives such a certificate he is precluded from inquiring further; that is what I take the section to mean.

I am concerned that if section 14 simply states this Act does not apply to deliberations and proceedings of the executive council or any committee thereof, without any cross-reference to the exception in item (c) of subsection 1 of section 21, as a matter of interpretation all matters related to the proceedings of the executive council or of any committee of the executive council would be protected from the operation of the Act. That is my specific concern; perhaps the minister would respond to it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the two sections referred to by the member is that under section 14 the two functions are excluded, i.e. the courts and the deliberations and proceedings of the executive council or any committee thereof.

Section 21 is there because in the course of his investigations, the Ombudsman may well be dealing -- and in many instances will, of course -- with other ministries of government. As he involves himself in his investigations it may be necessary for him to find out same of the proceedings carried on in cabinet. He may find cabinet minutes in a file or request a file which contains cabinet minutes which by themselves at the cabinet level would be excluded.

If the minister or the official says “I can’t release this because it does deal with disclosing proceedings of the executive council,” the Attorney General has to take a look at it to see if it is contrary to the public interest. If so, he certifies it to be such and that is the end of it. If the Attorney General refuses to certify it, of course, it must go forward to the Ombudsman.

There are, as I see it, two distinct areas: The one set forth in section 14 and then the ones coming under section 21, which would be very directly related to decisions made at cabinet. I don’t think we are questioning the court thing. As I understand the member’s concern, it is the proceedings and deliberations of the executive council that he turns his attention to.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I guess I haven’t made myself clear. I would have assumed that if you are going to have the qualification in item (c) of subsection 1 of section 21, regarding the non-disclosure of only those matters relating to the proceedings of a committee’s executive council that are of a confidential nature or are injurious to the public interest, that section 14 would have been written the same way. So that section 14, in my view, would have had to read that this Act does not apply (a) to judges or to the functions of any court; or (b) to deliberations of the executive council; or (c) proceedings of the executive council or of any committee of the executive council relating to matters of a secret or confidential nature and would be injurious to the public interest. I am simply saying that item (c) of subsection 1 of section 21 is in conflict with section 14, item (b); and that section 14, item (b), would override item (c) of subsection 1 of section 21.

Hon. Mr. Clement: My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that the necessity of (b) in section 14 is that the decisions made in the deliberations of the executive council would not be subject to the scrutiny of the Ombudsman.

Mr. Renwick: No problem.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No problem on that. As a result of certain deliberations of the executive council, minutes to that effect or directions to various ministries, and so on, would be sent forward to the ministry involved. In the course of investigating something in the ministry involved, let’s call it, the Ombudsman may well want to see the authority in which the minister or an official acted, and the official may have some qualms that this is breaching his oath of office. Then, this would involve the role of the Attorney General who would in most instances say: “Look, it doesn’t matter, it’s not secret, it’s not confidential; and it’s more in the public interest that the thing be disclosed, so go ahead.”

But I think that someone has to make that certification and the Attorney General has been selected as the one to make that. So that section 14 really relates to the discretion and the judgements made within the executive council chamber. Section 21 relates to the documentation, if they are of a secret and confidential nature. If they are and are injurious to the public, then I presume the certificate would be issued by the Attorney General stating that it’s not in the public interest, that they are of a secret nature and should not be disclosed. If they don’t meet those qualifications, then I don’t see how the Attorney General could issue a certificate and the Ombudsman then would be at liberty to delve right into the very door of the executive council. I just see the two distinctions.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 14 carry?

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): I’d like to ask the minister a question, if I might. Perhaps I am out of order, since I don’t know the legal significance of this as well as I should, but I know it’s a question in the minds of many lay people: If a particular judge has a strong bias towards a particular law, either for or against, and he is lenient or very stringent in his judgement, is that beyond the duties and scope of the Ombudsman to question that judge?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Parrott: Is there any other place where that particular judge’s decisions could be challenged? In the appeal court, yes; but having done that, there is no further appeal?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, it depends on the nature of the offence you are appealing. We’ll take a capital offence which can find its way from the trial into the court of appeal for this province and then on to the Supreme Court of Canada.

There are other matters that are what we call summary matters -- say careless driving. It would move from a provincial court judge hearing it to a county court or district court judge hearing it as a trial de novo. It is not new evidence but the same evidence or additional evidence is introduced at that time.

I know of no judicial process in this province that does not allow for at least one appeal. In some instances, such as murder, there can be two appeals -- that is two levels of appeal.

If a judge decided that he didn’t like a certain offence -- for example careless driving -- and regardless of the evidence before him always found an excuse to acquit, the Crown attorney in that area would be obliged to carry on those appeals which he felt were given as a result of the judge’s bias. I am sure that it would only be a very short period of time before the court of appeal would make it amply clear to that judge that he was in breach of his oath if he had exhibited that bias in his judgements.

When a judge takes his oath of office, he swears that he will adhere to the theory or the policy of what is called stare decisis, or, that is precedent. It means he will be bound by the decisions of higher courts. If he’s not, then he’s in breach of his oath. Should he continue in that vein, then depending on what type of a judge he was -- whether he was county or Supreme Court -- it could lead to his being impeached.

I know of no judge who would say, in spite of the law of the land I’m going to find it this way because I happen to believe in this sort of thing. Judges are called upon to rule in matters in which they have, I’m sure, personal biases. They find certain matters very repulsive for moral, ethical or religious reasons, but they still apply the law of the land.

Sometimes they apply it in error, and that’s why we have courts of appeal; to correct those errors, hopefully. Sometimes the court of appeal may be wrong, and that’s why we go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Up to 1949, it we didn’t like it there we went to London, England, and had it dealt with by the Privy Council.

I don’t really think that you would find any judge in any common law jurisdiction in Canada who said in spite of the law, I’m going to call the shots this way. There is machinery available to review a judge’s conduct and it would be most unprofessional and most unethical and most unlawful to have it otherwise. Judges have little biases and they will sometimes show them, but not really to the root of the matter that’s being deliberated before them.

Mr. Parrott: I won’t pursue that at any length. However, had that same person, rather than an appointment to the bench, been appointed to the OMB, his actions would then be subject to scrutiny by the Ombudsman, is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Parrott: Right. So I think it is a common feeling that you might be wise not to have a certain judge hear a particular case. Let me give you two illustrations. One might not be so prevalent today as a few years ago, but certainly it would be thought wise to a divorce action heard outside of a particular judge’s jurisdiction, because he might have been more lenient toward the same kind of evidence.

That’s sort of a subjective statement. I accept that, but it is very difficult to prove. Nevertheless I think you might agree with me that frequently that feeling exists. If he goes to the OMB, on the other hand, he might be very opposed to high rise buildings or whatever. We know they have their biases.

My point is that the same man might have gone either route; appointment to the OMB or to the bench. In one case his actions are subject to scrutiny by the Ombudsman, and in the other instance they are not. I think that in the minds of the people, certain judges do have a bias. Since we exclude them in the bill from the actions of the Ombudsman, we give rise to the feeling that the bench is above public scrutiny. I worry about that.

I know the explanation you have given is technically correct. However I think there are an awful lot of people who feel that once you are appointed to the bench, granted you have to work within the law, but when sentences are not mandatory the discretion is to a very marked degree open to the bias of the judge.

He’s human, I understand that problem Nevertheless I am not happy that we tend to continue the concept that once appointed to the bench there is no further scrutiny other than by peers.

It probably doesn’t appeal very much to the legal minds of this House, but I see other professions now coming under the scrutiny of their peers and then a review board of lay people. I give you the Health Disciplines Act as a prime example of that. It seems to me we should consider if there is any way that improper judgement could also be reported by the Ombudsman; not just for judges but for the actions of the court. However, we have set them aside entirely from that.

I can’t propose an amendment to you, Mr. Minister, but it seems to me that the people should have a way of coming at that through the Ombudsman.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I was just going to make an observation that I hadn’t made earlier. There is in the Province of Ontario what is known as the Judicial Council. It is an advisory committee to the Ministry of the Attorney General. Its deliberations are held in private and it looks into the conduct of judges. It looks into the conduct of those who would aspire to be a judge. There is lay representation on that committee --

Mr. Parrott: Could I have the name of that committee again? Sorry.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It’s the Judicial Council Advisory Committee.

Someone might indicate an interest that he or she would like to be a provincial judge, in the family or criminal division, for example. I get letters every week from people practising throughout the province indicating this interest. If a vacancy comes along in that area, I will submit the resume of that particular individual to the members of that committee.

I may be wrong, but I think the Chief Justice of Ontario sits on that committee, as well as the chief judge of the High Court, the chief judge of the county district courts, and the chief provincial court judge. I believe there is a Mr. Andres from Niagara-on-the-Lake -- a layman -- who sits on that committee.

I am trying to think of the people who sit on that committee. I write them privately and send these things on, and in due course an observation or a recommendation will come back. They are not always to the effect that this man is acceptable, but they don’t indicate to me the reason why he is not acceptable. The reply says merely the investigation of that committee has indicated that that person, in their opinion, for one reason or another, is unable to undertake the responsibilities that he wants to share. It is called the Judicial Council, for provincial judges.

If the conduct of a provincial judge is such that a person feels aggrieved, or I as the minister feel that some of the commentary he has made both in and out of a courtroom are improper, I will refer it to the Judicial Council for their inquiry.

One of the mainstays of democratic process is an independent judiciary. The nub of the question you raise here is, how far do you carry that independence? All I can say in making a passing observation is that up to the present time it’s been pretty good across Canada. I think the vast majority of the people who fill these roles, do so with a sense of responsibility. I’ve met many judges. I didn’t like them all. Some of them I thought were very discourteous to me, but they were still fair.

This is really what we are talking about, applying the law and adhering to the rules. I would hate to think that one individual, be it Arthur Maloney or anyone, would have the power to step in and start to interfere with the administration of justice, because the burden for that responsibility is set out in the British North America Act as that of the Attorney General in each province, not the Ombudsman. So I don’t think we could have the Ombudsman really have jurisdiction, even if we wanted him to. We would, in effect, be trying to amend that piece of legislation.

I know of nothing else that I can say, Mr. Chairman, about the role of the judge. I think the law must be independent and it must be seen to be independent. People don’t always perceive that. I’m constantly amazed at calls I receive from different people and constituents asking me to call up judge so and so, and tell him he should give more for people committing a certain type of offence. That would be most improper for me to suggest that to a judge. If I’m going to do that, I may just as well go run all the courts and be the judge for everybody.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the important distinction on the point you made, is that the Judicial Council, as I understand it, and it hasn’t been in existence all that long, is simply to advise you in your capacity as Attorney General. That is why I’m glad the member for Oxford raised this, because strangely enough, the very point the member for Oxford has raised is part of the duties of the Ombudsman under the different judicial system in Sweden.

Of course he does not interfere with the conduct of the judge in the performance of his judicial function regarding the law. But certainly in Sweden, as I understand it, he has the same obligation with respect to the decorum in the court, the behaviour of the judge both in and out of the court, how he comports himself, and what he says. Not with respect to any particular case, but with respect to his reputation in the community, resulting from how he conducts himself or what he says both in and out of the court, how he comports himself, and what he says. Not with respect to any particular case, but with respect to his reputation in the community, resulting from how he conducts himself or what he says both in and out of the court which would lead you to believe, as Attorney General, that this reputation was affecting his capacity to operate independently as a judge. As I understand it, it is one of those sensitive areas where an Attorney General, in fact, would have to speak to the particular judge. The Judicial Council may have to act as a buffer between him and the judge, so he has some support and considered view before he simply calls each judge in on the carpet because a particular lawyer or member of the public didn’t happen to like the judge. But I think it is clear that what this bill is doing is reserving to the Attorney General his responsibility in the field of behaviour, decorum and deportment, verbally and otherwise, of members of the judiciary.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes. I want to make this clear if I may, Mr. Chairman. The Judicial Council I’ve been mentioning here earlier, applies only to provincial judges. That would be the criminal and family divisions. It does not apply to judges of the county and district courts of this province or judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario or the Ontario Court of Appeal. If their conduct came into question, as I understand, I have no role in this whatsoever. Then, there is some type of apparatus at the federal level which appoints these judges that could end up as I understand it, in the ultimate, leading to impeachment proceedings before the House of Commons.

I’ve only heard of one and that was probably seven or eight years ago and that didn’t get quite that far. They may have introduced legislation since that time to give them powers of suspension or of discharging them from their judicial responsibilities. I know up to about eight years ago it was going to be by a debate of the House, in effect.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, it’s important that we be very clear upon this. You would have a responsibility with respect to the conduct within Ontario of a particular judge in relation to informing, say, the Minister of Justice --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, but I’m not involved in the disciplinary aspect whatsoever, other than, maybe, being a party to initiating it or something like that.

Mr. Renwick: I think it’s also quite clear that it would be as a result of your action, in the performance of your office as Attorney General. You might find yourself in the position of having to recommend an address of this assembly for the removal of a provincial court judge. I think, again, that is the ultimate method by which he would be removed; as, indeed, it would be the way in which the Ombudsman would be removed -- by an address of this assembly. Am I correct?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s my understanding, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Is section 14 carried?

Mr. Renwick: I want to speak a little further on section 14, because I want to be clear on this section, and again on section 15 and later on, when we come to this section 21.

All I know about this problem is that it touches upon the two cases to which I referred on the second reading of the bill, the Duncan vs. Cammell Laird case and the Conway vs. Rimmer and another. I have read and reread those two cases -- the second one, Conway vs. Rimmer and another, because it over-ruled the substance of the Duncan vs. Cammell Laird case. I have read and reread them and it would appear from a reading of those cases that no proceedings of the cabinet in the United Kingdom would be available.

As I read the Act of the House of Commons in England establishing the parliamentary commissioner, there is no exception in the British Act for the disclosure of any of the proceedings of the cabinet. I can’t understand the nature -- it’s the problem I tried to raise as a drafting matter a few minutes ago. There are, in fact, some proceedings of the executive council or of a committee thereof which you could certify could be disclosed, under item (c) of subsection (1) of section 21. That is, documents which didn’t relate to a secret matter or the disclosure of which was not contrary to the public interest.

The English Act states:

“No person shall be required or authorized by virtue of this Act to furnish any information or answer any question relating to proceedings of the cabinet or of any committee of the cabinet or to produce so much of any document as relates to such proceedings. And for the purpose of this subsection, a certificate issued by the secretary of the cabinet, with the approval of the Prime Minister and certifying that any information, question, document or part of a document so related shall be conclusive.”

I guess so far as this section is concerned, all I want to say is that I take it that in item (c) of subsection (1) of section 21, there is some kind of an exception which permits the disclosure of proceedings which do not relate to matters of a secret or confidential nature and that would not be injurious to the public interest, and you would so certify. Therefore those proceedings could be released. But the English Act, so far as cabinet is concerned -- along with the Duncan versus Cammell Laird case and Conway versus Rimmer and another -- seems to give them protection inviolate. I am curious as to why you have carved out the exception in item (c) of subsection 1 of section 21, but perhaps we can deal with it there.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Section 14 bars investigations of the court or its functions, or of the executive council. The Ombudsman cannot investigate any deliberation or proceeding of the executive council. He cannot investigate any function of the court or of a judge of the court. If you look at section 15, his functions are set out there and they are really quite simple to investigate.

Mr. Renwick: I see, right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: While investigating those matters over which he has jurisdiction, it’s pretty obvious that at some time he may run across decisions or proceedings of the executive in the course of looking into the activities of a particular ministry. If in the opinion of the Attorney General he runs across any such documentation which is of a secret or confidential nature and it would be injurious to the public interest to disclose it, the Attorney General certifies that the document does not have to be delivered or released to the Ombudsman. As I read section 21, Mr. Chairman, I don’t certify that it can be released, I only certify those which, in my opinion, for the reasons set out, cannot be released. That’s my reading.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you. I think you have solved the problem that I originally raised on section 14 in its relation to section 21. I take it that because of the nature of this assembly as the government institution which is creating this office, the proceedings of this assembly and of its committees are not subject to any investigation by the Ombudsman, and that there is no need in the statute to so state.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right. We are supreme in this assembly.

Mr. Chairman: Section 14?

Mr. Renwick: No, again simply because I want to understand that you, as the law officer of the Crown, take the law to be as it is set down in Duncan versus Cammell Laird and in Rimmer and the other case stating that the deliberations and proceedings of the executive council or any committee thereof are inviolate insofar as the Ombudsman is concerned, and he cannot investigate.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have not read that judgement and I would be hesitant to agree. I am not saying I disagree. I’d be hesitant to agree until I read it and understood it. With reference to the hon. member’s question relating to the activities of this chamber, I point out section 15 which describes the duties of the Ombudsman:

“The function of the Ombudsman is to investigate any decision or recommendation made or any act done or omitted in the course of the administration of a governmental organization and affecting an individual [and so on.]”

This House is not a governmental organization. Does the member agree with me on that? That is my interpretation of it -- that this House is not a governmental organization, and therefore he would have no jurisdiction to inquire into the decisions of this House or indeed to enter into the discussions within this House, except those relating to his responsibilities.

Mr. Renwick: I would have taken the judges and the functions of the court not to be a government organization by virtue of definition. I agree with you that way, but I also agree on the other principle. I think that it is not necessary for it to exclude the Ombudsman from investigating this assembly because, by the sovereign nature of this assembly, he couldn’t do it anyway.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No.

Section 14 agreed to.

On section 15:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, section 15 is the operative section of the bill and there are some matters which I need assistance on in trying to understand it. Throughout the bill these words appear: “decision,” “recommendation,” “act done or omitted in the course of the administration of a government organization.” I don’t have any quarrel with those words. I think they are descriptive and inclusive. If they are not sufficiently descriptive and inclusive, then only over the course of time in the work of the Ombudsman would he find that those words don’t pick up all of the kinds of maladministration that we are talking about.

However, I am very much concerned about the use of the word “affecting.” I am not suggesting again that I know any better word. But let me express my concern. I think my concern is over the whole question of whether or not a person has standing with the Ombudsman. In other words, whether he is affected in such a way that he has standing to make a complaint must be one of the first jurisdictional questions that the Ombudsman is going to have to deal with. He is going to have to say to himself when he receives a complaint, is it from a person or a body of persons -- let me just skip the body of persons for a moment -- who is affected?

I think that goes to the whole question of jurisdiction and goes really to the kind of questions which the courts often have to decide as to whether he has got standing to make a complaint. What bothers me is, if the Ombudsman transmits the language of the courts about the meaning of affecting or the meaning of standing, the Ombudsman is going to limit the kinds of complaints that he can deal with and the way in which it has been dealt with for the question of standing before the courts.

Let me illustrate what I mean. I happen to have an article that refers to this question of standing in the courts. This is the way in which this particular writer deals with it. Perhaps I could set it out and then come to the particular area that bothers me.

Of course, in this context I am talking about the right to have standing with the Ombudsman so that he will initiate the investigation which you as the complainant want him to initiate. The article says:

“The conventional jurisprudence on the right to commence actions may be simply stated:

“1. If the plaintiff is merely suing to enforce a right peculiar to himself, e.g., in an action for trespass, there is no problem of standing.”

Let me set that one aside. I assume there will be many cases where it is clear that he specifically, as distinct from all other citizens, has been aggrieved by this particular act of the government organization and that therefore the Ombudsman is not going to have any question of jurisdiction because it is peculiar to the particular complainant and obviously relates to a matter which has affected him from a government organization. Then we go on:

“If this complaint is of interference with public right, he may still bring his action if he can show that he has been especially injured.”

I would take it that there are situations where a complainant may be one of a large number of members of the public -- not part of the same organization or body, but a large number of persons who may feel they have been adversely affected by an interference with what that individual complaint takes to be a public right. As it is a public right there are obviously going to be any number of other people who may also be affected by it. He would say, “They don’t want to make a complaint. I want to make a complaint. The fact that there are many others in the same position as I am is irrelevant.”

It seems to me that is one of the problems the Ombudsman is going to begin to run into from persons who make a complaint. They are persons who feel their public right as a member of the public has been interfered with by the administration, without it being simply and peculiarly a matter related to the individual.

It goes on to refer to the municipal taxpayer suing for a declaration. That is not appropriate for our purpose. It refers to company shareholders suing on behalf of themselves and other people in class actions and so on. Then it goes to the fifth class:

“For purely public actions, where the rights of the public alone are at stake and no plaintiff can show an interference with his own private rights, the Attorney General must be the plaintiff. He can either bring the action by himself, ex officio, or can consent to his name being added in a related action commenced by a private citizen. Attorney General actions are used most commonly to restrain a public nuisance or to prevent a public authority from exceeding its powers.”

It is that kind of problem which I think will face citizens who feel there is a public right to which they are entitled, or a public duty owed to them, as the public at large. It seems to me there are going to be situations where, everything else being within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman is going to say, “I am sorry; you are not affected. You are not the person who can bring this kind of a complaint.”

The analogy, and I think I made reference to it -- I haven’t got the case -- I think it was Mr. Justice Lieff in the Supreme Court of Ontario, who heard the case with respect to the sand dunes in Prince Edward county, as to whether or not the destruction of those sand dunes and the alienation, by the government by way of licence, of the right to dismantle those sand dunes affected this particular person who brought the proceedings in the Supreme Court of Ontario. The court held he had no standing to maintain that action.

It would appear to me to be not difficult to transpose that situation into a situation where a person as a citizen might feel himself aggrieved by a decision of government with respect to some portion of the natural environment in which the particular ministry or the particular body or organization of government charged with the responsibility, was destroying that right. I assume in that kind of situation the Ombudsman would not have any jurisdiction. Again, the action of the ministry would not be subject to any review unless you could find a statutory right of review somewhere under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act or some action you could take under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

I don’t know whether I have made myself clear to the minister but it seems to me the very use of the word “affecting,” even though it is not a term of art and even though it is a term of broad general usage, may still face the Ombudsman with situations where jurisdictional questions are going to be raised because he has transposed into his office the rules which have been developed in the courts on questions of standing.

I thought that perhaps the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court or Canada in the case of the Nova Scotia Board of Censors and McNeil would have thrown some light upon the question of standing, but try as I do to read the particular judgement and analogize it to the office of Ombudsman, I think it does nothing but illustrate the kind of problem.

If you transpose that situation to the Province of Ontario and say that a person feels that he is aggrieved by the Board of Censors under the Theatres Act of the Province of Ontario because of the prohibition of the showing of a particular show in one of the movie houses, and presumably if he made a written complaint to the Ombudsman about such a matter, the person alleging aggrievement being simply a member of the general public and not himself specifically adversely affected, as distinct from all other members of the public, the Ombudsman in a sense would have to tell that citizen: “I am sorry. You are going to have to go to the courts the way Mr. McNeil did in Nova Scotia.”

Perhaps the minister could comment or we could have an exchange about that matter.

Hon. Mr. Clement: One needs status to litigate before the courts. A child cannot litigate before the courts except through a next friend or a guardian ad litem if he happens to be a defendant. A mental incompetent has no status in his own personal capacity before the courts. To initiate litigation in the courts, there is an inherent litiga-taking on the part of the plaintiff certainly that he or she will be responsible for costs in the event that his suit is unsuccessful. If the defendant has reason to doubt that the person is not substantial enough in a material sense to pay those costs, under certain circumstances he can of course obtain an order for costs prior to the commencement of the action to get security for the costs.

This is not the same type of thing. The Ombudsman is not concerned and should not concern himself with status. He should be in a position, and indeed will be in a position, to take complaints from mental incompetents, from people under the age of majority and from all those classes who for one reason or another could not on their own initiative, in their own single capacity, bring an action before the courts.

If he took the position of playing a judicial role in the sense of determining whether the person was or was not affected and came to the conclusion that the complaint from the citizen was indeed too remote, in that it has not really affected that citizen in the mind of the Ombudsman but the citizen has pointed out a bureaucratic decision or recommendation which really runs contrary to the principle of justice or fair play, then under the existing legislation the Ombudsman could of course initiate the investigation on his own. He doesn’t need the intervention of the citizen to initiate it. Indeed, as I understand the Act, if he read of something in the press or heard of it on the radio or television and found that distasteful, he could initiate an investigation into it.

As for you analogy with the sand dunes situation, let’s say that the executive council of this province came to a decision and directed that decision, as it does every week, to be carried out by a ministry of this government; and a citizen finds that decision to be adversely affecting him in his assessment, and comes forward to the Ombudsman and complains that he is an affected person. I would think the way it would work is, the Ombudsman would look into it and he would say to the Ministry of Natural Resources, if that happened to be the one carrying out the undertaking, “Why are you carrying out that undertaking?” If their response was, “Because we were directed to by the executive council of this province,” that’s where the matter would end. Because he cannot investigate the activities of the executive council to see if, indeed, it was a fair or equitable or rational type of decision, because the ultimate responsibility has to be on the shoulders of government in any event.

So I don’t really see it as a barrier. The Ombudsman is going to be able to interpret his own legislation the way he thinks is in the best interests of the people of this province. If he thinks the person is affected, fine, he undertakes the investigation. If he feels the person is not affected, but that, indeed, fair play has not prevailed, then he has the right, on his own initiative, to investigate it.

There will be areas that the Ombudsman simply will not have jurisdiction over. If a decision of any court is handed down and I am a person who is adversely affected, as an adjoining landowner or something, and I go to the Ombudsman, and say, “I don’t like that decision. It adversely affects me,” he just says, “I don’t have the right to investigate it. My sympathy is with you, Mr. Citizen, but I can’t do anything for you.” That’s the way I perceive it.

I would hate to think that we would ever have anyone filling the role of ombudsman in this province who says: “Well, now young man, let’s see how you are affected. We have got to give you some kind of status in law in order that you can get here before me under this statute.” I think this is the concern the member for Riverdale has. We don’t want that to happen. You don’t want it to happen either. I hope that just simply doesn’t come about. I would think that the Ombudsman, whoever he or she might be -- and I am speaking over the broad future period, not just the next 10 years -- would take that attitude.

If he says that you are affected, that’s good enough, and he initiates the investigation; because, really, who is going to stop him? I really wonder who is going to stop him. I think that’s going to be the test. It’s a very interesting point you bring up, very interesting indeed. I hope we don’t get into this status situation, and I mean status in the legal sense, as we are understanding one another.

Mr. Renwick: I am hopeful that the Ombudsman-designate will read what’s being said in the debate, because I think it’s very important that he not feel constrained about questions such as, “Who has got standing to come to me with a complaint?” He should be open to hear complaints from any sector. He may have to decide ultimately that he hasn’t got jurisdiction for other reasons, but not for the purpose of initiating the complaint. Indeed, as I would see it, it may very well be, with the multitudinous numbers of proceedings that are available in the province in various situations -- whether it is to a licensing tribunal or whether it’s under the Judicial Review Procedures Act or under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, or some other method; or to the courts directly -- that in a sense, the job of the Ombudsman is equally not only to investigate complaints which are within his purview, but also to assist the citizen in selecting the proper forum within which his particular complaint can be investigated, if it can be investigated at all.

A second aspect of that, and one which bothers me, is -- strangely enough, one of the bills which is on the order paper mirrors the problem, and we have done it in a number of other statutes -- if it’s by an order in council of the executive council of the Province of Ontario, say, with respect to granting a licence of public lands for the purpose of exploitation for the sands -- using the sand dunes case as an example -- then that presumably is entirely protected under the section which we have just passed, because it just doesn’t apply to it.

The odd distinction which is going to crop up is that a number of the ministers have amended their Acts as a matter of administrative convenience to provide that, notwithstanding the Executive Council Act, such and such an agreement, if signed by the deputy minister or another person in his ministry, will be binding upon the Crown.

I notice in Bill 96 to amend the Ministry of Health Act, which is before us, that very same provision is now in one of the amendments we are going to be asked to approve. Under the Ministry of Health Act, 1972, the minister may “in writing delegate that power to a deputy minister or to any officer or officers of the ministry subject to such limitations, conditions and requirements as the minister may set out in the delegation.” It goes on to say, “Notwithstanding the Executive Council Act, such an agreement has the same effect as if it was made and signed by the minister” -- that is, it binds the Crown.

It would seem to me that if a complainant made a complaint with respect to such an agreement, the Ombudsman might find himself in the funny position of having to make one of these legal distinctions. He would have to decide whether it was an act of the executive council of the government of Ontario by order in council, or one of these agreements which a minister has delegated to a deputy or somebody else to sign, and which has the same force and effect as if it were an act of the executive council.

This would bring about the strange situation where in the one case, as I understand it, the Ombudsman would be able to carry out an investigation and in the other he would have to say, “No, I can’t.” That seems to me to be a rather strange and arbitrary distinction, if my analogy is correct. I raise it simply because of having noticed this Bill 96 provision to which I have just referred.

Hon. Mr. Clement: In view of the hour, Mr. Chairman, I would move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Chairman: I don’t think you have to move the adjournment.

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