Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

QUEBEC DOCTORS

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to clarify a statement attributed to me in a Globe and Mail editorial this morning and in an article yesterday.

Mr. Deans: Is somebody saying nasty things about you?

Mr. Speaker: Can we have some order, please? May I remind you that this is a point of privilege?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I was quoted as having said, and I quote from the article and the editorial: “I don’t know if we will have to restrict the flow of doctors from Quebec.” My remarks were taken out of context and then further distorted in the headline to imply that I may restrict the flow of doctors.

The oversupply of physicians is a current concern of most provinces, including Quebec. It was that concern which I was addressing. You will recall that my predecessor succeeded in getting some federal immigration controls implemented on physician manpower. The subject was again addressed at the recent federal-provincial health ministers’ conference in Ottawa last June, where it was agreed to examine and strengthen the mechanisms for ensuring that no post is offered to a potential immigrant physician if a suitable Canadian is available. Further, there was agreement that there is an oversupply of physicians in Canada. No specifics have as yet been addressed as to how this problem will be solved.

When I speak of the flow of physicians, I refer to the production as well as the supply, which includes the flow into and out of medical schools, and the necessity for inter-provincial agreement in this area. Obviously, then, this is a matter on which further discussion will take place between the provinces.

I am a Canadian first, and my federalist stand is well known. I have addressed the subject of national unity on more than one occasion --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, what a splendid chap, a splendid fellow -- if ever one wanted a Canadian, there he stands.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Thank you very much.

The suggestion that I would discriminate against any other Canadian is as offensive as it is ill-considered.

Mr. Lewis: Are you going to compile a dossier on Doyle?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BRUCE NUCLEAR PLANT

Hon. J. A. Taylor: On Tuesday, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) suggested that I resign because he alleged --

Mr. Deans: We accept, we accept.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- that I stood in this House “day after day” declining to provide information in regard to the Lummus construction of the Bruce heavy water plants.

Mr. Lewis: Good Lord, do you have to give credibility to his every statement?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Further, he has stated and impugned on three occasions, October 17, October 18, and Tuesday last, that I, as Minister of Energy, was not familiar with the facts concerning this matter.

Firstly, as Hansard will document, I have answered every question put to me by the Leader of the Opposition, or by any other member of this House, in regard to the construction, costs and progress of the Bruce heavy water plants. Twice on October 17 the Premier advised the Leader of the Opposition that I was both fully knowledgeable about the matter and quite prepared to provide the information.

In his arrogant assumption of absolute knowledge, the Leader of the Opposition declined to ask me about construction of the Bruce heavy water plants.

Mr. Lewis: You must be on the Liberal Party payroll.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: On Tuesday, October 18, the opposition leader did raise the Lummus-Bruce matter and I was able to report that the board of Ontario Hydro --

Mr. Reid: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order. It’s a ministerial statement and the hon. minister may continue uninterrupted. I would like to remind hon. members that everybody in this chamber has a right to be heard. This is a legitimate way in which the minister can explain the policies of his ministry.

Mr. McClellan: Especially ministers.

Mr. Speaker: Do him the courtesy of allowing him to be heard.

Mr. Sargent: He is being very controversial.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: On Tuesday, October 18, the opposition leader did raise the Lummus-Bruce matter and I was able to report that the board of Ontario Hydro had reviewed the entire matter on the previous day; that Hydro had authorized Lummus’ completion of plant B; and had conditionally approved Lummus’ continuance of their contract on plant D, subject to review on August 1 next.

I confirmed that the initial $1 billion estimate of 1975 had been revised this past summer to $1.3 billion. Further, I clarified for this House that approximately half of the increased cost was within the Lummus area of responsibility and the other half was within the area of Hydro’s responsibility and I offered to provide additional information if he so requested. The Leader of the Opposition then erroneously concluded that Hydro’s costs on this project had increased by 100 per cent, an arithmetic error which I was obliged to correct.

Mr. Sargent: How much was it?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: In reply to further questions from the leader of the third party, I further elaborated the decisions of the Hydro board on the previous day.

Mr. Lewis: What is this third party stuff?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: On Tuesday, October 25, the Leader of the Opposition asked whether I would give my approval that the board chairman of Ontario Hydro provide information that he had requested personally of the Hydro chairman. I replied that the Hydro chairman did not require my approval and that I had every confidence that the information requested of the chairman would be forthcoming. Moreover, regardless of my approval, which was neither necessary nor requested, the Leader of the Opposition had, in fact, been in repeated communication with the Hydro chairman between August 9 and October 18, when he profusely thanked the chairman of Ontario Hydro for his helpfulness and frankness.

Mr. Lewis: Obsequiously -- not just profusely.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: But let the record show that the Leader of the Opposition was never, by letter or by phone or in person, in contact with either myself or the Hydro chairman prior to August 9 in regard to the construction of the Bruce heavy water plants.

Mr. Reid: This is a statement.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Let the record show -- and I table the correspondence -- that in April, 1976, Hydro was well aware of problems at Bruce.

Mr. S. Smith: Were you?

Hon. J. A, Taylor: Moreover, tradesmen engaged on the project made allegations of inefficiency --

Mr. Sargent: When are you going to resign?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- and my predecessor, the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) pursued these allegations with the Hydro chairman. It was in May, 1976, in consequence of Hydro’s own audit procedures and those allegations, that Ontario Hydro ordered a complete review of the Lummus-Bruce project.

Let the record show that in July this year I discussed at length with the Hydro chairman the allegations then raised by a former Lummus cost control employee. On August 9, in furtherance of these discussions, I wrote to the Hydro chairman asking for a full report on this matter.

If the Leader of the Opposition had bothered to contact either myself or the Hydro chairman prior to his press conference on July 25, he might have saved himself the embarrassment of such irresponsible claims as “Hydro is uninterested in controlling costs,” or that Hydro should have built the heavy water plants itself, let alone his need to apologize for the intemperate attack on the Lummus-Bruce labour force which was made at that press conference.

Mr. Ruston: Is this a budget speech?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Indeed, it was not until two weeks after he bought cheap headlines with rumour, innuendo, imputation and allegation that the Leader of the Opposition bothered to write the chairman of Hydro to find out what he, the Leader of the Opposition, was talking about.

Mr. Lewis: Tom Coleman never wrote this kind of stuff for me, I will tell you.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: This letter of August 9 gratuitously began by thanking the Hydro chairman for “Hydro’s rapid response to my questions of last month.”

Mr. Conway: We want Norris Whitney.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: This puzzled the Hydro chairman, who had not previously had any correspondence or conversation with the Leader of the Opposition. It was subsequently revealed that the opposition leader was referring to the flow of questions and answers emanating from press conferences.

First the Leader of the Opposition milks headlines with rumour and allegations. A fortnight later he makes his first attempt to confirm or substantiate his charges. Then, having been in communication with the chairman of Hydro for more than two months --

Mr. Ruston: Are you going to resign?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- without ever contacting me on the matter, he asks my authorization for Hydro’s response. At the same time he abuses the time of this House by pursuing answers here that he had already received from Hydro.

Mr. S. Smith: Do you actually believe what you are saying?

Mr. Breithaupt: What are you doing?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: In documentation of all this, I am tabling herewith my letter of August 9 to the chairman of Ontario Hydro and the chairman’s comprehensive reply to me of August 26, together with seven documentary attachments. I may say that I would have provided this correspondence at any time, but the Leader of the Opposition, in assuming his own breadth of knowledge and my ignorance of the matter, did not bother to ask.

Further, let me table a copy of the Leader of the Opposition’s letter to the Hydro chairman on August 9, asking elaboration of press conference replies, together with the Hydro chairman’s reply one day later.

Next, I table the Leader of the Opposition’s letter of September 16 requesting a copy of the Hydro-Lummus agreement on the Bruce heavy water plants, together with Hydro’s compliance, which was hand-delivered on September 29.

Further, let the record show that the Leader of the Opposition met with the Hydro chairman, at the latter’s invitation, for one hour and 30 minutes on the afternoon of October 13 to discuss the Lummus-Bruce matter. It was at this meeting that the opposition leader asked further questions which Hydro staff are now in the process of responding to. I table herewith the board chairman’s memorandum of that meeting.

And further, let the record show that on October 18, the Leader of the Opposition wrote again to the Hydro chairman, thanking him for his hospitality, acknowledging “the helpful discussions,” appreciating the chairman’s “frankness,” and stating that it was “our desire to scrutinize Hydro ... not to attack you personally.”

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Since this correspondence clearly refutes the opposition leader’s entirely unwarranted criticism of my discharge of ministerial responsibilities, I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition be obliged to withdraw his statements, allegations and imputations of October 17, October 18 and October 25 --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, you are too much. You are just too much.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- with regard to my conduct in this House --

Mr. Lewis: Why are you doing this? Why are you setting him up?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- my knowledge of the Lummus-Bruce matter and my discharge of ministerial responsibilities in that regard.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Give him a radio program.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Moreover, I ask that the Leader of the Opposition acknowledge the willingness of both myself and the chairman of Hydro to provide all relevant information requested. And finally I ask that the Leader of the Opposition apologize to this House for the abuse of its time in asking questions for which he had already had the answers.

Mr. Cunningham: That was silly.

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

Mr. Speaker: I don’t know that there is anything out of order.

Mr. Reid: You haven’t heard me yet.

Mr. Speaker: I have checked our standing orders. Obviously the only order of business that has been heard up until now is statements by the ministry. We have heard a statement by the Minister of Energy that seems to me to be four-square within ministerial statements. You can disagree with the content, if you wish, and you will take up your objections to it at the proper time. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Reid: Abuse of the House, that is what it is.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has a statement.

Mr. Reid: It is to our advantage to hear him; I will tell you that.

[2:15]

RENT REVIEW

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Jean Chretien, federal Minister of Finance, announced last week that the basic guideline on wage increases will be six per cent for the coming year.

As the minister responsible for the rent review program, I am concerned about the effect this guideline will have on the maximum permitted increase in rent. Under the provisions of section 5(1) of the Residential Premises Rent Review Act, the maximum permitted increase in rent is the lesser of eight per cent or the rate of increase as determined under the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines, which uses the consumer price index, or any lesser amount as may be prescribed by regulation.

Because of the present upward trend of this index, the maximum percentage increase allowable under the Act would, in all likelihood, be eight per cent, while wages are frozen at six per cent.

In view of this, the government of Ontario is concerned with the protection it is giving tenants for the remainder of the rent review program. For this reason, we have today passed a regulation to limit maximum rent increases allowable, without rent review, to the same percentage as the federal guideline on wages, which is six per cent, effective immediately.

Mr. Breithaupt: We had an election over that.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, thank you. Maybe we should fight an election over it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We feel that this action is necessary to protect the interests of the tenants of the province on such a basic necessity as accommodation.

Mr. Lewis: You are too much.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: This was worth an election a few months ago.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We also appreciate the hardships this could cause for some landlords.

Mr. Reid: Called a flip-flop.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We acknowledge, specifically, that the program impacts most severely on small landlords, especially those with four units or less.

Mr. S. Smith: It is our amendment to the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Will the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Leader of the Opposition decease? Desist! Desist!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The only person who is out of order is the Speaker, and he has taken note of it.

Will the hon. Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations continue with his statement? And will hon. members of the House do him the courtesy of hearing him?

Mr. Deans: What he was telling the Premier was to drop dead.

Mr. Lewis: That is the first public sign of the Speaker’s party affiliation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we feel that this action is necessary to protect the interests of the tenants of the province on such a basic necessity as accommodation. We also appreciate the hardship this could cause for some landlords.

We acknowledge, specifically, that the program impacts most severely on small landlords, especially those with four units or less, I have, therefore, directed the executive director and staff of the rent review program to give high priority to applications from these small landlords.

For all persons applying to rent review, we will assure that there will be quick access to our program and cases will be dealt with efficiently.

I want to reaffirm the government’s intention to achieve an alternative to the rent review program by way of a complete package of tenant protection, while recognizing that the government’s stated position is to withdraw from government-controlled rental programs.

Mr. Sargent: In other words, you called the election for nothing.

INDUSTRIAL MILK REGULATION

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to make a somewhat lengthy statement today on the Canada bulk conversion program for industrial milk, and the objections which have been raised by the Old Order Amish. However, Mr. Speaker, the Amish have today launched an appeal to cabinet for exemptions from the conversion regulations. Under the circumstances, and in fairness to them, I am announcing that implementation of the regulation which was to have taken place November 1 will be postponed until cabinet has reached a decision on this appeal.

Mr. Lewis: You should change your policy now, today.

Hon. W. Newman: The member’s party was contacted, and they made their own decisions. It’s on the record.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t even meet about it, just rescind the regulation.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the Minister of Agriculture and Food has completed his statement, I take it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You’re going to decease too, if you’re not careful.

Mr. MacDonald: There is going to be a mass burial around here.

Mr. Martel: Just getting rid of some of the dead wood.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it was the intent of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) to make a statement today relative to a statement made by the federal Minister of Transport. Unfortunately, he’s been detained at a function in his riding and I’m wondering if at this time we could take note of that, and once he returns we could have consent of the House to revert to statements, in order for him to make his statement when he gets here.

Mr. Speaker: Is it understood that the hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications will be heard with a ministerial statement on his arrival, and if it happens during the question period we’ll deduct that amount of time from the question period.

Mr. Foulds: Add it.

Motion agreed to.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. S. Smith: I will direct a question to the Minister of Energy. What was the price that Ontario Hydro contracted to buy uranium for from Gulf Minerals Limited in 1974? Will he now confirm that Ontario Hydro, in fact, paid $2 more per pound than even the recommended cartel price for uranium, and what escalation factor has been added to the base price due to the provisions of this contract? Will he tell us exactly how this contract will affect hydro costs to consumers?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The contract that was entered into between Hydro and Gulf Minerals in 1974 does not provide for delivery until 1980. So that, first of all, there will be no impact on current hydro rates. The base price at that time was $12.50 a pound. If you carry that forward in terms of the escalation clause, because the contract provided for escalation, based on increases in costs of materials and wages, royalties and taxes as well --

Mr. Kerrio: Profit.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- that price, if the uranium was being delivered today, would be $17.50 a pound. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the current world price is $42 a pound in American dollars.

There isn’t any impact on hydro users at the present time, and I would expect that these contractual arrangements would, in fact, provide lower hydro costs for hydro consumers in the future because of the arrangements that were made in 1974 for deliveries of uranium between 1980 and 1985.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary question: Would the minister direct his attention to my first question which was whether in fact Ontario Hydro paid $2 a pound more than even the recommended cartel prices at the time? We’re all well aware that by buying in 1974, they are doing better than had they bought in 1980 for 1980 delivery. But we’re talking about the conditions prevailing in 1974. Can the minister also tell us whether anyone in the Ontario government approved that contract, and will he table the contract?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: May I say that according to the Nuclear Exchange Corporation -- there is an index, as you may or may not know -- the world price varied between $7 and $15 a pound in 1974. Again, I repeat that the price wouldn’t impact --

Mr. S. Smith: Cartel price.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- because the delivery hasn’t been made yet. It won’t be made until 1980. I don’t have the information on whether there was an order in council in connection with the execution of that contract. I would surmise that there may very well have been. I would be happy to get that information and, as a matter of fact, I invite the Leader of the Opposition to pursue the matter as much as he wishes with the chairman of Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Mancini: What are you doing there? You’re the minister for it.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The hon. member is at liberty to do that, as he very well knows.

Mr. Conway: You’re redundant.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Maybe he has that information already.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Carleton East with a supplementary.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, it’s not a supplementary really, except in the sense the minister did not --

Mr. Speaker: If it’s not a supplementary don’t ask it.

Ms. Gigantes: That being the case, Mr. Speaker, it is a supplementary. I’d like to ask the Minister of Energy whether he will table the contract.

Mr. Lewis: Come on. That’s the crucial question.

Mr. Breithaupt: We already asked that.

Interjections.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: As I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, I will get particulars of the contract and will --

Mr. S. Smith: Table the contract.

Mr. Grande: Table it.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: As far as I’m concerned, I’d be happy --

Mr. S. Smith: But?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- I’d be happy to table the contract --

Mr. S. Smith: You are the Minister of Energy, unfortunately.

Mr. Lewis: Well then, do it.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- as we table all the contracts. However --

An hon. Member: No, just one.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- I am not giving my undertaking today to do that. I will pursue that and give a reply to the hon. member another day.

Mr. Lewis: Come on.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: While the Minister of Energy, in charge of energy in this province and representing the government that apparently approved the contact, is deciding whether some other force on high permits him to table the contract, could he also at the same time simply answer the question, yes or no, is that contract for $2 more a pound than even the recommended cartel price at the time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Your Prime Minister says there is no cartel.

Mr. Martel: Say yes or no.

Mr. Kerrio: Your Tories are talking differently in Ottawa.

An hon. member: He’s not sure.

Mr. Ruston: Always passing the buck.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. If members want an answer, please allow the minister to make a reply.

Mr. Eakins: Yes or no?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I clarify for the House that I did not approve that contract. I have some knowledge in connection with the figures, which I’ve given to the House today. I also indicated earlier in reply that I’m not aware as to whether or not there was an order in council in regard to the authorization of that contract.

I undertook to pursue that matter and also to pursue the matter in terms of the request for tabling.

Mr. Lewis: What does he mean “to pursue the matter?” Supplementary: Why in this Legislature must there also be a touch of conspiracy whenever uranium is discussed? Why can the minister not guarantee today to direct Hydro --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on, Stephen.

Mr. Lewis: That’s true. Why can the minister not table the contract that this government, through Hydro, entered into? Why is the minister equivocating?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, there’s no conspiracy except in the mind of the member for Scarborough West.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This government didn’t enter into a contract.

Mr. Lewis: Sure, you did. Ontario Hydro did.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I’ve been open and frank about these matters. I don’t think there is anything to hide. What I’ve indicated today is that --

Mr. Foulds: We want to find out if there is anything to hide.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- because of the purchase arrangements of Ontario Hydro, and the facts make this apparent, the cost of electrical energy in Ontario is lower because of that.

Mr. Warner: Table the contract.

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: The Premier told the House the other day he would think about putting before the House the contract pending between Denison Mines and Hydro, a $1 billion contract for uranium.

Mr. Yakabuski: The member wouldn’t be in business if it wasn’t for Kincardine.

Mr. Sargent: I didn’t ask the minister this last time because I didn’t think he had any answers, but does he have any answers to this point: Is the minister going to bring this pending $1 billion contract before the House, or is he going to allow the negotiations to go on, or what point are we at now? Is it in the hopper now, or what’s going on?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: If the hon. member had asked me that before, I would have responded similarly. The contract has not been finalized as yet. That contract will go to cabinet and an order in council will, in fact, authorize that contract when it’s settled. At that time, a determination will be made in terms of tabling the contract or examination of it by anyone. Until then, I don’t think it’s accurate to speculate in regard to its terms.

Mr. Sargent: Does the Premier understand what the minister is saying?

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, just to clarify this point: The minister has conceded that a contract like that signed by Hydro in 1974, and now the one under negotiation and hopefully approaching finalization with Denison Mines, has finally to be authorized by an order in council.

Mr. Lewis: Precisely.

Mr. MacDonald: Why does the minister not table the contract as quickly as the order in council has been passed?

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. It’s your contract.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister can do that now, can he not, for the 1974 contract, and will he assure us that he will do it as soon as he has finalized the Denison contract?

Mr. Lewis: You are playing the cartel game. That is what you are doing.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if the member for York South had been attentive, what I said was that I did not authorize the 1974 contract.

Mr. MacDonald: The government did.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I was not Minister of Energy at that time, I was not in the cabinet at that time --

Mr. Grande: You won’t be much longer either.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- and I do not know whether an order in council authorized the execution of that contract.

Mr. MacDonald: You do. You are hiding it. You should be deceased.

[2:30]

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I said I would determine that, I would find that out for the hon. member. So don’t jump to confusion.

Mr. MacDonald: I can’t match the minister’s.

Interjections.

Mr. Reed: Supplementary: Considering that so far in this discourse the minister has not answered the original question about the $2 over, and considering the publicity that has been connected with this contract in recent weeks, would the minister support the idea of having this question examined by the anticipated select committee on Ontario Hydro?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I have no objection to any of this being examined.

Mr. Conway: I think the minister should be examined -- and not by this House.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Again, the question which has been repeated seems to assume that the price to be paid by Hydro on delivery of uranium in 1980 will exceed the world price by $2 a pound. What I’m saying is that is not the fact. There is a base price that is provided for uranium which, of course, escalates year by year. If we look at what the price is today -- we can’t look at a base price; we must look at the price per pound -- we will find that the price per pound today is in the same area of $17 a pound. What I am pointing out is how can you say that is $2 above the world price when the world price of uranium today is $42 per pound in terms of American dollars?

Mr. Breithaupt: World price?

Mr. S. Smith: The cartel recommended price.

Mr. Speaker: We’ve had sufficient supplementaries on this. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has a question.

Mr. Lewis: On the basis of his performance today, does the minister not think he should resign -- in the public interest?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: No, that doesn’t require an answer.

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

Mr. S. Smith: Regarding, once again, the matter of Inco layoffs, has the Premier attempted to obtain an explanation from his Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) or from Inco executives as to why the layoffs were not discussed in advance with the Ontario government when it is reported that Inco was meeting with the federal government to discuss contingency plans two weeks before the news was made public, as it was so dramatically just a little while ago?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really can’t speculate on why or even if, in fact, discussions were taking place between Inco and the government of Canada. I know that the information that was given to me, came on that Wednesday afternoon about 4:30 to 5 o’clock. While I read a great deal in the press about many issues, I really haven’t had it confirmed to me that in fact Inco discussed it with some federal officials two weeks prior to that date.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a supplementary, accepting the Premier’s answer, of course, and in view of the article in the Financial Post, which says, “Trudeau says Labour Minister John Munro began discussing ‘contingency measures with the Inco people’ two weeks before the news broke,” can the Premier assure the House that he will look into this matter and find out why he was not consulted earlier, and can he tell us what steps he will take to be sure that he is consulted from now on before any major layoffs of this kind occur in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not going to raise any legal problems that emerge in situations of this kind. I expressed my concern at the time that we hadn’t had somewhat longer notice. I am not sure actually what would have resulted by us knowing a few days earlier. A concern expressed by some involves what will be found under our own securities legislation. When matters occur of this significance, that will have some impact on the financial community, our legislation requires that disclosure is to be made by way of a public disclosure. This is so that no one is privy to information for a period of time which might give that person or persons some advantage in terms of the market or share value of that particular organization.

I think in general terms that is very wise legislation. If memory serves me correctly, some members opposite even voted for it. This may come as a surprise to the Leader of the Opposition, but the concept of disclosure I think is relevant. I will endeavour to confirm for the Leader of the Opposition whether there were discussions which indicated the extent of the layoff, or that there were in fact to be layoffs, between Mr. Munro and officials of Inco some two weeks before it was made public.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: In the context of the Premier’s discussions with Inco, can he report anything further to the House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really had anticipated this would have been the first question but we all have our priorities I guess.

Mr. Laughren: You know what your priorities are.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I must say that we had a very lengthy meeting this morning.

Mr. S. Smith: I would have thought there would have been a statement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I say with great respect, we met until nearly 1 o’clock. It has required a great deal of attention on the part of a number of us, and I quite genuinely anticipated, in the light of the interest expressed, and I think properly so, that the first question would have been, “Is there anything to report?” So I am now answering.

We had our discussions on this matter that gives us all very great concern. I raised with the officials of Inco some of those questions that have been raised by the members opposite, some that we raised as a result of certain press reports and so on. There is a meeting scheduled tomorrow morning in Ottawa. I believe that either three or four ministers from here will be attending that meeting. I have personally invited, I believe it’s the chairman of the region, the mayor and union representatives to meet with me on Monday morning. I don’t want to come to any conclusions as yet.

The one point I think is essential -- I have expressed this to some members opposite and I know what politics is all about -- but I just will not be part of any approach which might raise any level of expectation in the minds of those people who are very directly affected that is not realistic.

I think it is also important to point out to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leader of the New Democratic Party that part of my responsibility as Premier of this province also has to relate not just to the several hundreds of employees whose employment will be terminated but to the security and the protection of the jobs of those 14,000 people who continue to be employed by the largest nickel producer in the world.

If I can offer any advice -- and I hope it’s understood in the way I am suggesting it -- I hope my discussions with Inco have been along these lines. Inco is geographically located here, and there are thousands of Canadian shareholders of that organization and an awful lot of them with 100 shares or less who are very dependent on the future of that company. There are also people in the money markets and elsewhere who are watching pretty carefully the discussions that are going on and what is being said.

I will not in any way create any impression of false hope in terms of those specific jobs. But the one thing I was reassured about this morning, the part that to me is important in the long-run, was the assurance from the chairman of the board of Inco -- and I know there will be people in Sudbury who are concerned about six months from now, a year from now, and two years from now -- his very firm statement to me that any suggestion on any press speculation that Inco was moving ont and that it did not have confidence in the Sudbury basin, the work force and its ability to compete in the world market win totally and utterly ludicrous. Inco is in a position to be and will continue to be a viable operation, providing thousands of jobs in the Sudbury basin.

At the same time, it is evident there are bright spots. I am sure this will emerge in the discussions which I hope will be held in a constructive way and in a way that is worthy of the members of this House because Inco will come before the standing committee. They will not need to be subpoenaed or summonsed. They will come because it is my view they want an opportunity to share with members opposite the problems with which they must contend.

There are one or two bright spots, not as they relate to Sudbury, but in terms of the potential of job opportunities for those people who are directly affected. Inco has already had inquiries -- these are very bona fide inquiries as to the availability of men who will no longer be employed by Inco. There will be discussions between the union and the company as to the questions of seniority, if a person does leave the employ of Inco to go to work somewhere else for a period of time. These are matters that I think properly should be discussed between the union and the company.

I hope the members for Sudbury (Mr. Germa), Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) will understand that I am not saying what I am going to say next as being a solution in the terms of the problems of Sudbury. I am also concerned, as we all are, as to the job opportunities that are available for those people who have been affected. The company has already had requests for some 400 people for immediate employment -- at least between now and March, but some of it immediate from Syncrude, some 280 at Rio Algom, some 130 at Denison, and some from Cominco. In fact, there is a fairly long list which I think at this point in time is far from complete as to job opportunities that will be available to those employees.

I also discussed with Inco the situation at Thompson, Manitoba, not in any way interfering with that great new government that is now there --

Mr. Swart: Transitional.

Hon. Mr Davis: -- but on the basis that the rate of attrition at Thompson apparently --

Mr. S. Smith: This is a statement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am trying to anticipate as many supplementaries by trying to tell the members all I can. The Leader of the Opposition says that this is a statement, Mr. Speaker. I will be guided by you and I will sit down at your suggestion any time you say. I am really just trying to share as much as I can with you.

Mr. S. Smith: It is appreciated, but it should be a statement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right, all right. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks I am taking too long, I can’t help it.

Mr. S. Smith: I didn’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I discussed the Thompson situation; they initiated it. Apparently the attrition rate at Thompson is much higher than it is in Sudbury. I believe the company is prepared to suggest to the union that there will be jobs in Manitoba. I don’t say this is palatable to a number of the workers and I am not going to argue this, except to say there will be jobs. There will be over 800 jobs -- I may be low on that figure -- available over that period of time in Manitoba through attrition. The employees of Inco in Sudbury will be given the first opportunity to move to those jobs.

This doesn’t solve the problem of Sudbury. But, at least to the extent one can be optimistic at any of these situations, there are job opportunities in other places. From our standpoint, because to me it makes sense, I hope that, in our meetings tomorrow, on Monday and at what other further meetings take place, the potential of Rio Algom and Denison is explored first and foremost, because I guess if one is being relocated it is better to be relocated 100 and some miles away rather than several hundred. From our standpoint we shall be prepared to do anything we can do to expedite those discussions or negotiations.

[2:45]

I will be getting further information for members of this House. As I say, the company is quite prepared to come before the standing resources development committee. I would like the understanding of the House that I would like the meetings tomorrow and Monday to be concluded to see if there is something new or perhaps something that might be included in the committee’s deliberations, and some time early next week we would frame a resolution that would enable the standing resources development committee to deal with this issue in what I urge -- and I say this most sincerely -- be a constructive, appropriate way for members of this House.

I’m concerned about this year and I’m concerned about February, but I’m very concerned about two years from now and five years from now in terms of not only Sudbury but the perception of the mining industry, the perception of this province and this country in the outside world, because while we may not always like to deal in that way, the fact of the matter is we must.

I can assure the members of this House that other people are watching these discussions and these debates as closely as we are and I hope we approach these discussions with that in mind.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Since I agree with the Premier that the Sudbury basin is, in fact, competitive with the rest of the world and shall remain so, can he confirm that in his discussions with Inco the officials of Inco did, in fact, confirm with him -- as is suggested in the Financial Post as well -- that the Sudbury basin could produce nickel as cheaply, or more cheaply, as nickel being produced next year from Inco’s plant in Indonesia for entry into the Japanese market?

Hon. Mr. Davis: These are matters of judgement, but certainly I gained the impression, and perhaps partially because I wanted to be persuaded, that in terms of Inco’s competitive abilities, in terms of the work force, in terms of the technology, in terms of the plant that is available and in terms of the ore body itself, that Inco can compete effectively -- maybe I’m a little prejudiced -- with any other part of the world. That may not be totally accurate --

Mr. S. Smith: Absolutely. I agree with you. You are right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but certainly can compete with Indonesia.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Is the Premier not telling us, in his own inimitable fashion, that in fact, Inco is not prepared to alleviate the problem of the job loss to the Sudbury area -- in other words, is not prepared to stop the layoff? Furthermore, did the Premier put to the company the request by the union which would alleviate the problem to some extent, did he support the position of the union, and what was the response of the company?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I had a list of some 10 or 11 matters that were raised, primarily, I think, by the union in the discussions yesterday. I understand that two or three of those matters are presently under discussion between the company and the union. I would anticipate that these matters will be part of the discussions tomorrow and with me again on Monday. I gave to the company the best information that I had that emerged from the discussion yesterday. I think there were some 10 or 11 points -- they may not all have come from the unions -- and suggested that these be considered, and that I expected these same points would be raised with me on Monday.

So I think it’s fair to assume -- unless I didn’t have knowledge of all of the matters that were raised yesterday, and I think I did -- that these matters were placed before the company in our discussions this morning.

Mr. Haggerty: Supplementary: I’d like to direct a question to the Premier concerning his remarks about the meeting this morning with Inco. I believe he said he was going to have a meeting next week with the mayor of Sudbury and union officials. Would he not include the same representation from the city of Port Colborne and from the local union at the Inco refinery at Port Colborne? I can tell the Premier that the layoff of personnel at the Inco refinery in Port Colborne is just as important there as it is at Sudbury or any other community in Ontario, because it has reduced the work force there by 30 per cent. I would suggest consideration should be given to those groups.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether at this moment I can tell the hon. member that I can arrange it so that they are part of Monday morning’s discussions. But if the hon. member is asking me whether I would meet with the mayor of Port Colborne and union representation from that community, the answer to that, of course, is yes.

Whether we can schedule that, or whether it makes sense to have the two at the same time; and whether there is any different set of circumstances whereby they might prefer to have a separate discussion, are things I will explore. But the hon. member can rest assured that I would be more than prepared to meet with representation from that community.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary; the hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: On the long-term projections for the future of the city of Sudbury, is the Premier aware that Inco now has two ships on the Pacific Ocean exploring the seabed nodules and that they are scheduled to start coming ashore in 1983? Was it part of his discussion as to what will be the future of Sudbury when seabed nodules start coming ashore?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was impossible to cover every area this morning. I would only state to the hon. member that while there is a certain exploration going on -- and I think this is something that would be very appropriate for the committee to discuss with Inco -- the impression I have is that no matter what further exploration is going on, their commitment to the Sudbury basin -- and we are probably talking about a $2-billion capital investment; in fact in today’s dollars, it will be substantially higher than that, and that is already based in the Sudbury area.

I just repeat that this is an area that I think is worthy of discussion. Without knowing the first thing about it from a technical standpoint, I think one has to be optimistic that the demand for nickel will continue to increase over a period of time at -- who knows -- four, five or six per cent a year. Obviously new sources are going to be found over the next 10, 15 or 20 years but, in this total process, the plant -- and, just as importantly, the work force -- in Sudbury is such that it will remain competitive.

I think it is a very valid question. I don’t think it is immediate in terms of the present situation, but perhaps it could have some impact in the longer term although, if the hon. member wants an uneducated guess, I would say, knowing very little about it, that it would not affect the long-term prospects for the community of Sudbury.

Mr. Speaker: It had been agreed that we would hear a ministerial statement from the Minister of Transportation and Communications when he arrived. We will hear that now and I will add this time to the question period.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

URBAN TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Snow: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. members of the House for agreeing to hear this statement at this time.

I have now received a letter from the Hon. Otto Lang, Minister of Transport, Canada, informing me that the federal government has approved an urban transportation assistance program. It is one of the most unresponsive and disappointing transportation programs put forward by the federal government in years. Because this new proposal seriously affects Ontario’s plans for transportation development, I would like to take this opportunity to outline the situation for the members.

Over the past three years the federal government has indicated that it would be willing to support the development of urban public transportation. These were not casual or “maybe” commitments. They were public statements of the federal government’s intent to give its full support to this important program. In fact, in 1974, just prior to the last federal election, they promised $100 million for this purpose. They repeated their expression of support again in 1975. In fact, I believe it was included in two Throne Speeches.

Specifically, Ontario had verbal assurances that they would share in the financing of 80 bi-level coaches, soon to be delivered for GO Transit, and in the cost of the Toronto transportation terminal redevelopment project which covers improvements to Toronto Union Station and its rail corridor for both GO services and inter-city rail services.

Then in August, 1976, the federal government began to back away from their promises. Their first move was to propose the lumping of the urban transit related programs with the railway relocation and crossing programs within one fund. At that time I voiced my objections quite strongly, to both Mr. Lang and his colleague Mr. Macdonald, on the basis that it constituted a federal withdrawal from their commitment to the program.

Mr. Conway: Just Darcy’s arithmetic.

Hon. Mr. Snow: At that time I also felt that we had reached a clear understanding that the two programs were totally different and should be funded separately. I also expressed my concern to Mr. Lang that the federal government’s hesitant attitude placed the entire Toronto transportation terminal project in jeopardy.

Last July 4, I again met with Mr. Lang to discuss this project and I came away with the impression that enough Ottawa funds would be available, over and above announced programs, to cover interim improvements to both commuter rail facilities at the Toronto terminal and to inter-city rail service.

It was my understanding that these funds were over and above allocations for rail relocation and grade crossings.

Ontario had agreed to pay for the Union Station improvements and the federal government agreed, in principle, to share the first stage of improvements to the rail corridor. The basis for the share costs was to be calculated on the percentage of use by -- and the benefit to -- inter-city rail services which share the use of the tracks with GO Transit.

We were so confident an agreement was inevitable that staff from my ministry met with their counterparts from the Ministry of Transport, Canada, and drew up the final details for the design and cost sharing. I concurred with the agreement that was reached at this level, and in discussions with Mr. Lang I felt certain that he did too.

Now I have received the federal government’s latest proposal regarding the urban transportation assistance program. I find this rather stunning in light of our negotiations with Mr. Lang and his associates.

Mr. Mancini: You said that last time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, it reverts completely to the same proposals that were made last August; that is to lump urban transit related programs, and railway relocation and crossing programs in one fund.

Although Mr. Lang states that funds from the newly-announced program could be used for the Toronto transportation terminal project, this is unrealistic in light of Ontario’s provincial and municipal needs for railway grade separations, which are required for the safety and convenience of the travelling public; and Mr. Lang is very much aware of this situation.

What they do propose is the allocation of $2 per capita to each province each year for five years. For Ontario, this will represent a total of $16.5 million per year. These funds are expected to cover: Rail grade separations on provincial and municipal roads; rail relocation studies; implementation of these studies; commuter rail assistance; urban transportation assistance.

As far as Ontario is concerned, this is expecting too much from too little.

Let me explain for a moment. In 1976 Ontario and its municipalities received over $14 million in federal assistance under the railway grade crossing program alone. In 1977, this current year, this assistance should total approximately $18 million. Priorities at the moment for new grade crossing work indicate that the province and its municipalities expected to apply for federal funding of approximately $20 million in 1978, $24.4 million in 1979 and $28.2 million in 1980. This totals approximately $72.6 million for a three-year period. This is for grade separation alone, and I must say this is a conservative figure. The new program would provide a maximum of only $49.5 million over the same three-year period.

[3:00]

Without any extensive discussion, it is obvious that this offer falls far short of the amount that Ontario will require to meet its needs for grade crossing work alone. Also, it is disappointing, because this is an area in which the federal government has participated for over 60 years, recognizing its responsibility for, and jurisdiction over, railways.

Obviously, the federal government assumes that the $16.5 million a year will also cover the implementation of rail relocation studies. We feel this is an unrealistic expectation. There are currently three of five proposed pilot studies approved and under way. We need an opportunity to examine the results of these studies before we can come up with a meaningful estimate of implementation costs. We have pressed for an opportunity to base funding responsibilities on a sound knowledge of the facts. Obviously we are not going to get it.

In the light of the present announcement, we will have to consult with the municipalities to review the advisability of continuing with the rail relocation studies now under way, and under these circumstances it would appear unlikely that any new studies could be initiated. As a consequence, the future of the railway relocation program is seriously in doubt, to the detriment of our urban transportation program, Ontario municipalities and the people of this province.

In addition, the grade separation program will be more difficult to administer. Federal approval on specific projects will still be required, and more municipal programs will have to be reviewed by the province to establish priority.

The new program announced by Mr. Lang is far too typical of the federal government. It does nothing to recognize the different needs and projects of each of the provinces. Perhaps the only good thing about the program is that it clarifies the federal government’s commitment to urban transportation in this country, and that’s no commitment at all.

Mr. S. Smith: Like your Edmonton commitment.

Hon. Mr. Snow: They must realize that the funds offered will mean that we will fall even further behind in improving rail grade crossing safety and efficiency.

Mr. O’Neil: Blame it on the feds.

Mr. Eakins: Darcy likes the budget.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Why has the federal government taken this stand? Mr. Lang states that it is fiscal restraint.

Mr. Conway: They read your charter.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s what Darcy says about the municipalities too.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would ask the questions: Is it an attempt to save funds for other federal projects; is it an attempt to pull back from recognized areas of federal responsibility for rail; or is it just an attempt to bail Mr. Trudeau out of some of his 1974 election commitments prior to his next consultation with the people of Canada?

Mr. S. Smith: One hundred thousand jobs; two trees for one.

Mrs. Campbell: The Edmonton commitment.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know which of these reasons it is.

Mr. Sweeney: They have been reading your budgets.

Hon. Mr. Snow: What we do know is that the federal government has committed itself to undertake a national upgrading of inter-city rail services through VIA, its newly established Crown corporation. By their own studies this undertaking will require the expenditure of billions of dollars.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that on the 90 miles of commuter rail operated by GO Transit there are twice as many passengers carried daily as on all the inter-city rail services throughout Canada, on over 14,000 miles of rail line.

Mr. Lewis: Incredible.

Hon. Mr. Snow: With this comparison the federal government’s order of priorities defies understanding.

This announcement forces us to continue to go it alone on commuter and urban traffic transportation, and on improvements to Union Station. The need for these programs has been clearly demonstrated. Therefore, we see no other solution but to proceed, particularly with plans to improve Union Station and the rail corridor so that the bi-level cars will be able to operate as part of the GO Transit operation.

Mr. Haggerty: They go around corners.

Hon. Mr. Snow: But we will have to cut back significantly on our plans for this program. Therefore, I am authorizing the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority to take the necessary action to carry out limited improvements. I expect to be in a position, in a few weeks, to give the House a detailed report on the extent and scheduling of these improvements.

These limited improvements will upgrade commuter rail service facilities at the Toronto terminal and the present GO rail network to allow for the introduction of the Richmond Hill and the Streetsville-Milton GO rail services. We also have a commitment to improve our GO Transit services along the lakeshore. As part of this improvement, 80 bi-level coaches will soon be delivered, at a cost of some $40 million. They will be going into service on this route in the very near future.

We have done it by ourselves, without a penny of assistance from the federal government.

Mrs. Campbell: For once.

Mr. Conway: Where were the cars made?

Mr. Haggerty: There should be a tunnel in Port Colborne.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Not that we wouldn’t have welcomed federal assistance in a very innovative urban transportation program, but we did not get it, and it doesn’t look as if we or the other provinces are going to get any real assistance in the future. The choice is very clear. We must proceed with the job of meeting the transportation needs of the people of Ontario as best we can, in spite of the federal government.

Mr. Conway: He sounds like Rene Levesque in a blue suit.

An hon. member: I think he’s running federally.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are 28 minutes and 39 seconds left in the question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ANACONDA LAYOFF

Mr. Lewis: I will try to be brief. I have a question for the Premier. Given the accelerating pattern of layoffs in Ontario, of which Inco is only the most dramatic symptom, is it possible for the Premier to summon the energies of his office to intervene in the case of Anaconda, which, it appears at the moment, may die within a matter of days, causing unemployment for 870 workers.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The minister and the Ministry of Industry and Tourism are already dealing with that potential problem. We will keep the House informed as those discussions continue.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Is there any realistic possibility at all of Atlantic Richfield selling the entire plant to someone else? Has the Premier heard whether or not the parent company has agreed to grant an extension, keeping the Canadian operation open while the ministry is in the process of negotiation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will be delighted to get as much up-to-date information as I can. I don’t want to deal in rumour or speculation. As the leader of the New Democratic Party points out, this is not of the same size or magnitude as Inco, but it still involves the welfare of some 875 people.

Mr. Foulds: It is still pretty devastating.

Mrs. Campbell: It is symptomatic.

Hon. Mr Davis: The member for St. George can say it is symptomatic. I’m not going to argue that; nor will I be provoked by her, because I’m never provoked by her, but I could reply in a way that could be provocative.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier is certainly waylaid and distracted by her, however.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Premier come back to the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would never acknowledge being distracted, that would not be the right way to phrase it.

Mr. S. Smith: Attracted?

Mr. Wildman: We can see it, we don’t have to be told.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What was I saying?

Mr. Martel: Where were you?

Mr. Samis: Would you prefer to be distracted or deceased?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have now been distracted by the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Samis: You are worse than the Argonauts.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will get as much information as I can for him. The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) --

Mr. Foulds: Do you remember who it is?

Mr. Nixon: Do you remember where he is?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, yes. Not only do I remember who it is, but I tell you, thank heavens we have somebody working hard, at least at the provincial level, trying to stimulate the economy of this country and province abroad.

Mr. Sargent: Especially in Paris; that’s not in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now you’re going to ask me about the new Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Order; just answer the question please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the hon. member would like to address a further question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism to the extent that he is in a position to --

Mr. Kerrio: The only action we’ve seen so far is to increase our debt.

Mr. Sargent: Send him back to Japan.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- share the information with the hon. member, I’m sure he would.

An hon. member: Send him somewhere.

Mr. Samis: In other words, you don’t know.

Mr. Speaker: A new question?

Mr. Lewis: I think perhaps we should pursue this, because it’s pretty imminent. I’ll take the second question on this and drop the other I intended. Can I ask the Minister of Industry and Tourism what are the reasonable prospects for the survival of Anaconda? How many days are left for those 870 employees?

Mr. Breithaupt: It shouldn’t affect the market much.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will be meeting this afternoon with the president of the Canadian operation. I expect later on, if we have been able to confirm the meeting with the union representatives, to discuss jointly with management and union the prospects of this particular firm, Anaconda, staying in production.

I met yesterday with the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Horner, and discussed with him the problem. He has been in touch with the president and chief executive officer of the parent company in the United States. We have not, at this time, secured a definite position -- as I understand from Mr. Horner -- by the parent firm. Mr. Horner was to be speaking with them again this morning, after they had a board of directors meeting to deal with the request that he’d been making as the federal minister.

I hope that tomorrow I might have something further to report to this House on this firm. May I only go on to say that there is a very great chance that a Canadian firm, or a consortium of firms, could very well come in to purchase Anaconda and its assets. We have no definite word on it, but there have been several inquiries. I understand that as recently as yesterday, and again this morning, they were negotiating the possibility of sale to two different firms.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore has a supplementary.

Mr. Lawlor: A few days ago I asked the minister in this chamber as to whether he is prepared to lend his good offices to the formation in this country of such a consortium in order to keep that company alive.

Mr. Speaker: There is no question there.

Mr. Lawlor: What has he done about it?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Very clearly, the ministry has for some period of time been working with various purchasers from the province of Ontario, men who are presently in the automotive production industry and are some of the substantial purchasers of the copper and brass coming from that firm. We have worked very closely with them.

I have worked with Mr. Horner on the situation, as I indicated, yesterday. We’ll meet with the union and with the management of the firm today, trying to arrive at some understanding as to the long-range potential for this company.

Mr. Lewis: What’s the short range?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me not hesitate to say very clearly to this House how important this firm is to the automotive industry. If it goes out of operation, the copper and brass supply stops coming from Canadian companies --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- and it will revert entirely to an American operation. So it is important from a long-range point of view that it remains here, both for the manufacturing of the product -- brass and copper -- and also for the 800-odd employees who are presently retained by this firm.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Algoma has a supplementary.

Mr. Wildman: Will the minister comment on the statement that has been made that perhaps the parent company doesn’t want to sell the subsidiary because they don’t want the competition for their upgraded plant in Buffalo?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I do not believe that statement to be correct at all. My understanding is that they’ve also set a price on the firm; which at the moment has not been made public, but in their negotiations with two or three firms they’ve indicated what the price would be,

Mr. Speaker: We’ll have one final supplementary. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: The government has set a precedent in going into a consortium with $100 million towards Syncrude. Why couldn’t the minister take the same approach for these failing industries to set up $500 million of our funds to protect the labour market of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, there’s no indication at this time that there’s any need of the government going in financially, because there has been a very apparent interest by others in the private sector who would like to purchase the assets.

May I conclude by saying in respect of the parent company in the United States, to answer the member’s previous question, there are no conditions, to my understanding, which have been placed on the sale that would restrict whoever purchases the company, to limit them from exporting into the United States.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing has the answer to a previous question.

OHC LAND SALES

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) asked a question on Monday last concerning land purchase in Kitchener. He inquired as to the price paid by Ontario Housing Corporation for 307 acres of Kitchener land, the cost of developing the land; and the prices we expect to charge when the land is placed on the market.

The land was purchased in three parcels between 1969 and 1971 for a total price of $1,001,162 -- $3,261 per acre.

[3:15]

We propose to develop the land in two phases. The first phase is currently being serviced in preparation for the marketing of the first 200 lots for construction in the spring. The land and development costs for the 126-acre first phase are as follows: Raw land, $410,575; appraisal, legal and other costs, $14,817; interest paid to August 31, 1977, $286,437; additional interest until all lots are marketed, estimated at $140,000; for a total of $851,829.

Development costs of $4,350,000 include internal services, park improvements, utilities, engineering costs, municipal imposts, OHC contribution to external services, et cetera. The combined land and development costs for the first phase amount to $5,201,829, the book value.

Based on today’s market situation in Kitchener, but subject to the changes of the market over a two- or three-year period, we anticipate a return of about $8 million on this land. This will represent a difference of about $2,800,000 between book value and market value; and I remind the hon. members that we sell our land at the lower end of the market range. A private developer would expect to get a greater return on his land.

A number of members have criticized the fact that the government may benefit from the sale of this land; I am surprised they would attack a program that is not only self-sufficient but makes home ownership possible for a wider range of buyers.

It is anticipated that nearly half the first offering of the 200 lots will be made available for construction under the AHOP home-ownership program. In Kitchener, the maximum house price under this program is $37,000, so it should be apparent to our critics that the land is being made available at prices that will result in affordable housing.

I think it’s also important to note that any financial benefits accruing to the government from this program help to offset the costs of other housing programs. OHC’s net operating loss in 1976, for example, was in excess of $74 million.

I would also remind the hon. members that the federal government is our partner in some of these land transactions, and in some instances is certainly entitled to as much as 75 per cent of any benefits resulting from sales. I am unable to comply with the request for development cost figures relating to the second phase of development, which is still years off in the future.

We have not done an engineering design for the remaining land, and until this is carried out any estimates of cost would be purely speculation. I also wish to point out that we would not move to develop that land until such time as the municipality were prepared to incorporate it into its planning process.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary: Could the minister clarify for us; first, how much of the profit money will go to the federal government as opposed to the province of Ontario; and secondly, how he intends to clarify how that profit will be used for housing programs; or will it go into general revenue? Does he have an agreement from the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) to use that amount of money for specific housing programs?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: First, Mr. Speaker, I have not got a detailed breakdown as to what the federal involvement is in that particular land. I am not sure whether it is involved in all of the parcels or in one or two of them; I would have to get that. Secondly, the discussions I had with my colleagues when this program came into being suggested that money realized from the sale of land would certainly be applied towards housing projects.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary has two parts to it and concerns the answer the minister just gave. First of all, if we use the minister’s figure of $4.3 million as the cost of servicing for 126 acres, that would work out to $33,000 an acre. How does he match that with the fact that all of the other developers in that area are paying approximately $19,000 an acre to service land in the same vicinity? His ministry’s figure is almost double. That’s the first question.

The second point is that the minister gave us a range of sales per acre of $75,000 to $95,000. If he is going to sell 126 acres -- we will use his lowest figure of $75,000 -- that comes to $9.5 million. Where does he get his $8 million figure?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member is well aware, I think, of the fact that the price of land, as you go into the market, will depend upon what the zoning is, what sort of densities can be applied to the use of that particular land. When I answered the question of the hon. member on Monday of this week, I said to him at that time I was guessing as to the particular figures because I didn’t have them with me. We do anticipate that the lower end of the market, as it relates to single-family unit development on the type of lot size we were talking about, will be about $75,000.

Those prices are not going to stay in the same range throughout that whole development. They may certainly come down. When I say $8 million, I am estimating the total price at $8 million. I said that at the beginning. I can’t tell the member what those prices are going to be; they may fluctuate considerably in the market over the next two or three years. Our estimate is roughly $8 million. That is the figure we are working on; and considering our costs, we are going to realize from that around $2.8 million in profit.

As far as the price per acre is concerned, all I can give you, sir, are the figures that I have had provided for me, including all of the costs that were involved in the acquisition of the land, the interest charges, plus the costs that have accrued to the Ontario Housing Corporation in the development of that land, remembering that we, as a corporation, do make considerable contributions in communities in the way of land, in the way of road allowances, in the way of parks, in the way of school sites -- all of which have to be totalled into what the total cost of that particular development would be.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary, if I may: How many lots does the minister expect to get in that first $8 million; what will it cover in total?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Two hundred.

Mr. Lewis: Just 200 applies to this $8 million? Two hundred lots out of 125 or 126 acres? I am sorry, I am seeking clarification. Maybe I can phrase the question another way, which will stimulate an aggravated response and, therefore, an accurate one.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My apologies, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member. I said 200. What I was referring to is that the first offering will be 200 lots. I don’t have the exact figures as to how many total lots there will be in 126 acres. Our first offering, in that first phase in the spring, will be 200 lots.

Mr. Lewis: The minister can’t estimate the number of lots?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I can’t. I can get the figures for the member.

Mr. Sargent: Why not have a liquidation sale; you are going out of business, anyway.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Take off your mask.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Colleges and Universities has the answer to a question previously asked.

NUCLEAR OPERATORS

Hon. Mr. Parrott: On Tuesday of last week the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) asked me if I would agree to: “1. Convening a meeting between the ministry, Ontario Hydro and Canada Manpower to accurately determine the manpower needs of the nuclear program in the next 10 years. 2. Institute a crash program to train chemical operators.”

I am advised, subsequent to my answer then, that such a meeting did take place on May 4 of this year. At that time, at least, my ministry was informed by Ontario Hydro of the need for chemical operators.

The meeting was attended by representatives from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, the federal government’s employment and immigration commission and Ontario Hydro. It was agreed by all parties that they would consider the situation and bring forward suggestions at a subsequent meeting.

That meeting was then held on May 27. My staff at that time explained that the 16 colleges of applied arts and technology offered programs that related to chemical operators and their training. A training program using the graduates of these programs was suggested for Ontario Hydro.

A crash program was also suggested; however, when the various safety factors connected with any nuclear program were taken into consideration, it was decided that such a course of action would be unwise. It was therefore decided that the federal agency would give Hydro the authority to recruit overseas, on the condition that they stepped up their own training program.

I want to reiterate the caution I expressed that day when I first answered the member’s question. The caution is simply this: in filling manpower needs of this nature we realize that some staff shortages do occur; frequently, however, not because of the lack of trained personnel, but because those personnel who are available to do such work have not the necessary experience to carry out the work that is available. It would be unwise, therefore, to assume that we must cope with the situation by training vast numbers of personnel, only to face the possibility of redundancies in future years.

As regards Ontario Hydro’s needs for chemical operators, I can assure the House that by 1979 Ontario Hydro’s own training program, together with the growing experience of the current junior operators, will meet their needs and eliminate the necessity for overseas recruitment.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Could I ask the minister what community colleges in the province are giving courses for chemical operators and how many students are enrolled at the present time? Secondly, has Ontario Hydro indeed fulfilled its commitment to step up its own training program in this respect? I suppose the second question should more properly be directed to the Minister of Energy (Mr. J. A. Taylor) but, since the Minister of Colleges and Universities has been involved, perhaps he could answer that.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The last question is of some technical nature, Mr. Speaker, and I would be prepared to submit the reply to the member in writing if he would concur with that method.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: We can assume, then, that at no point in the last five years has Ontario Hydro ever come to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities with a specific, concrete set of proposals for a definite nuclear training program within the community college or university systems in Ontario? That is a proper deduction, I assume?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, I don’t think that’s necessarily a proper deduction. But I think the member opposite probably should realize that Hydro has extensive training programs of its own and under normal conditions is able to meet the needs as it expects them, and normally proceeds in that manner.

Mr. Conway: Their program is called immigration.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I listened to the hon. member the other night in the House and I heard a bunch of trash when he spoke on this subject. I don’t think he should add to it now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: When he says it, you know it’s true.

Mr. S. Smith: The sun is setting on you guys.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: What are the specific programs that Ontario Hydro has brought to the executive council in general or to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities in particular?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I said to the hon. member that I believe that Hydro basically trains its own personnel. They have extensive programs.

Mrs. Campbell: No, they don’t.

Mr. S. Smith: They import them.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: At this moment I can’t give the hon. member an understanding of those programs for which Hydro has asked for help.

Mr. Sargent: They contract them out.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think that the hon. member opposite should realize that in any educational program, the essential component is to train people with generalized education. The specialization of those programs frequently should be done on site by any industry.

Mrs. Campbell: Or abroad.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: In this system of ours we are doing just that. We are graduating those with a generalized education and we expect industry to take upon themselves the fulfilment of specialized education which is rightly theirs.

Mr. S. Smith: Bringing them from England.

INCREASE IN EDUCATION ESTIMATES

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, my question will have to be directed to the government House leader in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) and the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough). I would like very much to ask whether there is an explanation that can be offered to this House for the increase in the Education estimates, which were debated and approved -- at least by committee; an increase, between the end of June and the end of September, of some $103 million? What does the government House leader have to tell the House on that amount of money?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I’ll take that question as notice and I’m sure the Minister of Education can respond to it when he’s next in the House.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary: It would appear to me that the exercise of debating these estimates is a lot of time spent futilely and, in light of this, therefore, I would ask if the cabinet is considering any change in the method by which it does its budgeting?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’ll add those comments to the reference to the minister. However, I would point out that the estimates are considered in the House and the rules provide for the tabling of Management Board orders and warrants and that sort of thing, for special expenditures in any ministry that are required over and above the estimates to provide some opportunity for this type of question. But I’m sure the Minister of Education will have some explanation.

[3:30]

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: If there has been any added appropriation to the estimates since they were considered by the committee, is that not to come before the House in a supplementary estimate? Isn’t that the normal procedure?

Hon. Mr. Welch: That doesn’t necessarily follow. I think there are supplementary -- really I think we should await the explanation of the Minister of Education to find out whether there has been anything like this.

Mr. Van Horne: I am not sure the last question I asked was properly answered; or if it was perhaps it wasn’t understood. Let me try again. I would ask, is the cabinet or the government planning any change in its budgetary process; that is, is it considering a new budgetary process, such as zero-based budgeting?

Hon. Mr. Welch: What has that to do with the original question?

Mr. Kerrio: Control your spending.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The hon. member has asked a question which I have taken as notice. I said I would refer it to the Minister of Education for response. I will do the same with all the supplementary questions to which he has made reference. The last one I heard was a very general question with respect to the budgetary practice of the House. If he wants to ask as a new question, I will refer it to the Treasurer for comment. That is the point I am making.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding his statement today on rent review. I want to welcome his reluctant and belated acceptance of our position last spring on the matter. I am interested to know, in coming to this conclusion, how did he solve all of those problems put by his predecessor? I believe he used the words that a six per cent guideline would bring about the destruction of the entire rental accommodation sector?

Mr. Lewis: Precisely.

Mr. Breaugh: How did the minister solve that?

Mr. Lewis: Precisely. How did the minister handle it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We plan to solve it, if the member will read the entire statement --

Mr. Wildman: Bought a lot of house insurance.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- by dealing now with some alternatives for the conclusion of the program at the end of 1978, so that the industry can have some indication of what lies ahead. Now that the party of never-ending controls has moved back out of the opposition, we plan to indicate to them that they can operate in some security that controls are not here for ever and that they won’t be choked off by this program or any other program unendingly.

As well, members will note I have taken steps to indicate that during the review process from now until the end of 1978, applications that are made will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, with special attention to those areas, that is small landlords, who are most especially affected by the continuance of the present program at six per cent.

Mr. MacDonald: Is that an invitation for them to catch up after the controls go off?

Mr. Swart: Expect an election in 1978.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary: Can I ask the minister to clarify, then, his directive? Does he in effect, mean he has directed rent review officers to set aside all other hearings, save and except those on small buildings, or does he intend to hire some more staff?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer is no, they will not be setting aside all other hearings in favour of the small ones. I have asked them to give some priority. Secondly, I hate to disappoint the member but, no, we won’t be hiring any more staff. We think we can do it within the existing staff.

Mr. Lewis: That is why the member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman) stepped down.

INCREASE IN CULTURE AND RECREATION ESTIMATES

Mr. Kerrio: I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Will the minister tell the House why, in these days of alleged restraint, his spending estimate is $29 million higher than what the budget said it would be, which increase appears to have occurred entirely between June 30 and September 30?

Mr. Lewis: He needs it personally.

Mr. Martel: It is in the bank in Switzerland.

Hon. Mr. Welch: As the hon. member knows, my estimates will be before the estimates committee shortly.

Mr. Lewis: Take a look at his clothes.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Is the member talking about the current estimates or the annual report?

Mr. Kerrio: You will find it in Ontario finances.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think the member will find most of that related to Wintario, the payment to Wintario, because it comes out through the consolidated revenue fund. I think most of that increase would be attributed to Wintario.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a point of information.

Mr. Speaker: There is no such thing as a point of information.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Do you want some or are you going to give some?

Mr. Speaker: You can give a personal explanation.

Mr. Sargent: I would be glad to.

Mr. Speaker: Try it.

Mr. Sargent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The alarming thing before the House is -- we have the greatest respect for the position the Premier (Mr. Davis) is in with all the economy -- but the fact is that he does not know --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: -- that there is a billion-dollar contract --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a personal explanation. It’s a personal opinion and you can express it at the opportune time. Will the member take his seat.

REPORTS

Mr. Havrot from the standing resources development committee reported the following resolution:

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

Ministry of Labour

Ministry administration program ....... $7,205,000

Industrial Relations program .............. 2,316,000

Women’s program ................................ 601,000

Occupational health and safety program

................................... 15,227,000

Employment standards program ......... 2,801,000

Ontario Manpower co-ordinating committee program .................................................. 230,000

Ontario Human Rights commission program

................................... 1,377,000

Labour Relations Board program ........ 2,011,000

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to remind hon. members that there are 20 private bills to be introduced today. In order that we do not take more than is necessary from the debate on the private members’ business, would it be agreeable to all members having private bills for introduction that they send them to the table and the bills shall be deemed to have been introduced and read for the first time and they will appear in Votes and Proceedings.

Can we have that agreement?

Agreed.

Ordered for standing administration of justice committee.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll just remind hon. members to send those bills to the table.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of Bill 84, An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, this bill is largely of a housekeeping nature. The one item which will have some direct impact on the public is in section 4.

At present, parties who have been injured in motor vehicle accidents must bring a court action in the jurisdiction in which the accident happened if the claim is based in any way on alleged failure to maintain the highway. This rule can result in parties who live in Toronto having to go to Kenora with their lawyers and doctors and other witnesses involving great inconvenience and unnecessary costs.

The amendment in this bill will permit the trial to be held in Toronto or other suitable location if the parties agree and an application is made to a judge to have the venue changed to an appropriate location.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of Bill 85, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains 18 items of essentially a housekeeping nature. This particular bill is not intended to deal with vehicle waste, which will be the subject of another bill which I expect to introduce shortly; nor is it in response to the final report of the Select Committee on Highway Safety, of which you will be hearing more in the near future.

One item of special interest in the bill is being brought forward by myself in association with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), namely the elimination of the gratuitous passenger rule, as recommended by the Select Committee on Company Law. This change is in line with this government’s objective of simplifying legislation and its impact upon the public. The amendment should eliminate or reduce unnecessary litigation and inequities in the law of motor vehicle negligence. It will also remove an impediment to the successful encouragement of car and van pools.

OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Samis moved first reading of Bill 86, An Act respecting the Official Languages of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Samis: M. l’orateur, le but de ce projet de loi est d’établir la langue française et l’anglais comme les langues officielles de l’Ontario. Le bill définit les mesures par lesquelles les deux langues officielles seront employées dans l’Assemblée législative, par le gouvernement de l’Ontario et dans les procédures judiciaires et quasi judiciaires.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cassidy moved second reading of Bill 68, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to speak for up to 15 minutes now and reserve five minutes for the end of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill 68 is to preserve the collective bargaining rights of employees of a business that relocates within Ontario. The bill also provides that employers must give reasonable notice of a relocation to their workers and that they must give workers a 60-day period in which to decide if they want to relocate with the plant or with the operation that moves.

This bill is presented in a non-combative spirit, as a constructive proposal to plug a loophole which now exists in the Ontario Labour Relations Act. At present, if there is heavy turnover in a plant over the life of a contract -- say over a couple of years’ period -- the bargaining rights are kept, despite the fact that 70 or 80 per cent of the employees covered by the bargaining unit have changed in a period of two years.

If a plant is sold to a new employer, then section 55 of the Act, which is amended by this bill, provides for successor rights, so that both the collective agreement and the bargaining unit are preserved; and the new employer must honour the agreement entered into by the old employer.

There are provisions for melding by the Labour Relations Board where a takeover results in two unions having jurisdiction, and this melding is echoed in subsection 4 of my proposed amendments.

[3:45]

There’s another loophole which we intend to plug during the course of this session of the Legislature, and that is where an operation now carried out by the Crown is transferred to another employer; or where an employer transfers an operation to the Crown. Under Bill 4, transfers of undertakings to or from the Crown will also involve a succession rights provision to protect bargaining rights and to ensure the maintenance of existing contracts.

The situation is that if a company is sold, if it’s transferred to the Crown, if it’s transferred from the Crown, the bargaining rights which employees have fought to win get transferred. The situation, however, in the case where a company gets moved outside of the boundaries of the municipality where the union certification applies, is that there is no such protection. The workers lose the protection of having a trade union, of having a bargaining unit and of having a collective agreement.

Normally, when the Labour Relations Board defines a bargaining unit, there is a scope of contract provision, a geographical definition of where the bargaining unit lies. This is, for example, the boundaries of a particular plant or of a particular municipality. They say, for example, that all the employees of ABC manufacturing company within Metropolitan Toronto are covered by this particular bargaining unit and by this particular collective agreement. If the company moves outside of those boundaries, then the collective agreement of the bargaining unit stops; that’s the situation that this bill is trying to correct.

There’s nothing wrong with the existing law but it leaves the loophole which some companies, I’m afraid, have exploited -- in certain cases inadvertently and in other cases in a deliberate way -- to get away from their responsibilities to unions which have organized under the law of this province and exercised the right to collective bargaining, which is a right to which all parties in this province subscribe.

I want to give a few examples because this is a problem which is widespread and has existed for a long time. A friend in the labour movement recalled to me that back in 1965, Perfect Circle, the people who make piston rings, transferred from Toronto to London. They closed on a Friday and reopened the following Monday in London, giving no notice at all to their employees. There was a clause in a collective agreement, with the Steelworkers in that particular case, whereby the union would have the right to transfer its workers if the company ever moved, but that was abrogated unilaterally by the company. They moved to London. One hundred workers were affected. Only a year later, through arbitration, was the union able to win any redress. They won redress in dollars, but no redress in getting people to the jobs that had been transferred. That was the beginning of this kind of situation.

Not long ago the union was knocked out when Ajax Plastics moved the great distance from Whitby to Scarborough. Just over one municipal line, but the union contract was knocked out and the protection the workers had in that case was lost.

The former member for Peterborough, Ms. Sandeman, has raised a couple of recent situations. One was the transfer of jobs from Regal Stationery in Omemee to the company’s plant in Toronto, which took place over a period of about a year and which seemed to have come as a consequence of the certification of employees in that plant in April of 1975. About 100 jobs were taken out of the bargaining unit because of that transfer and the people involved could do nothing about it.

There was another case in Peterborough where a company named Tellus Instruments informed its employees on a Friday afternoon that it was moving and they would have no jobs; it gave them all of one week’s pay in lieu of notice under the Employment Standards Act. There were seven female employees. They had just been certified under the United Electrical Workers, when lo and behold the company disappeared off the face of the province -- or so it seemed. That company had a contract for 6,000 smoke detectors a month from General Electric in Peterborough, but they moved out of Peterborough in order to break away from the jurisdiction of the union.

It seems to me that the feelings of all parties is that that is not something which should be tolerated in the province at this time.

Not that long ago, Miami Carey company, which is a subsidiary of a multi-national based in Florida, moved its plant from Rexdale to Barrie. There were 120 production workers laid off in that case, and 50 office jobs. The union, electrical again, lost its bargaining rights. That meant the workers lost the protection of a union. Not one of them was moved to the new location in Barrie. The company refused to transfer the workers, the unions, or the pay rates they were paying in Toronto. The move was a deliberate one to get away from an organized situation.

It’s been suggested that if a company is acting in order to do its union in, there are provisions under existing law which would cover the situation. It would mean that the amendments that I have presented today are not required.

My experience. Mr. Speaker, is that, at the very least, that’s questionable. In fact, there’s a case which I will cite in a minute which indicates quite clearly that the Labour Relations Board is both a difficult and expensive remedy, and also one that is not always efficient.

There is a case of Humpty Dumpty, the potato chip people, who had a central warehouse in London, Ontario, from which they distributed potato chips to the surrounding area. One day they informed their employees, who were organized, that they were planning to decentralize to six satellite warehouses in Middlesex county and the surrounding area. The consequence of that decentralization was that the union’s agreement would be abrogated and they would be back to a non-union situation.

The union complained to the Labour Relations Board, and in that case the Labour Relations Board found that the company had deliberately and consistently been trying to break the union. It found that this was a lockout and a form of industrial action by the company; it ordered the company either to return its operations to London or to extend the bargaining unit to these new satellite warehouses.

In that case, although it was very expensive, there was protection under existing law. However, in March of this year, the Labour Relations Board ruled on a comparable case that affected 100 service men working for the John Inglis Company here in Metropolitan Toronto.

In early January of this year, John Inglis announced to the workers, without even working through their union, that it was transferring its operation to Mississauga and to the township of Vaughan, which are just outside of the Metropolitan Toronto boundaries.

The operation for these service men consisted of a radio dispatch office and a parts depot, but the people involved in the bargaining unit, who had been organized under the Steelworkers for 30 years and had had the protection of a union for 30 years, worked doing service calls within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto on a radio dispatch system and they checked into their office once a week or thereabouts. The company moved their radio operation, just the dispatch office, to Mississauga and to the regional municipality of York, and thereafter, it acted as though the union agreement was dead.

The union complained and said that the company was acting in a fashion to try and break the union. However, the Labour Relations Board considered the case very carefully and decided -- despite the complaints of the union, despite evidence that included the fact that the union stewards and union officers who were among these 100 service people had not been invited to work for the company when the radio dispatch office was moved -- the Labour Relations Board found there was no binding contract there. The bargaining unit did not extend outside of the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto and, therefore, these men no longer had the protection of a union.

I say this to all members in the House -- I’m glad that several are here -- that this is the kind of situation that these amendments to the Labour Relations Act would cover. They would ensure that if John Inglis moved from Toronto to Mississauga, the bargaining unit would travel with it and the men would be able to have the collective agreement they had before, rather than being forced to start again from scratch.

In this particular case, the Steelworkers signed up the workers again, got them ready for certification and, just as they were about ready to go to certification, the company intervened directly, in a fashion which certainly appears to have been illegal, and asked the service people if they would take this particular set of offers the company had and petition against certification. I’m afraid that the workers in that particular case did. They were open to that kind of interference by the company. I don’t think that’s a good way to carry out labour relations in the province.

This bill has been circulated widely in the labour movement. I have not consulted to such an extent with business organizations, but I have been in touch with several of them in the last day or so. I am telling my friends if they have a bill which affects a number of parties, a number of interest groups in Ontario, we should all make sure on private members’ bills to consult widely, because these things will have a chance of becoming law.

The bill has been supported strongly by the labour movement. For example, I have had a letter from Local 89 of the Canadian Paperworkers Union saying: “We feel that this bill is in essence so logical we are surprised it has not yet been incorporated in the Labour Relations Act.” The Steelworkers and the Auto Workers have both indicated support, as has the Ontario Federation of Labour. I had a telegram today from the rubber workers union, Local 113, in Hamilton. The international vice-president for the Service Employees International Union of Canada, Mr. Albert Hearn, has written to a number of government ministers in support of the bill.

The reaction from business organizations has been a bit more mixed. One would expect that. They may want to make some comments on certain parts of this bill when it goes to committee. However, in general, they accept -- I am talking about people like the Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Manufacturers Association -- that it’s responsible to ensure that where a company is transferred and has a union, then the bargaining rights of that union should be transferred and should not be destroyed because the company relocates. They also accept that it’s responsible practice, it’s reasonable to put it into law and it makes sense that employees should have reasonable notice of a relocation and that employees should have the right to a transfer to a new location if a company happens to move its shop.

I have talked with a number of members in the Legislature about the bill. I think the reaction in general has been favourable, although several people have said some of the concepts in the bill need to be looked at closely in committee. I agree with that. I hope the bill is sent to committee so that it can be studied and so that some of these groups can consider it in more depth, since it was only tabled in the Legislature a couple of weeks ago. It has been suggested to me that the concept of relocation is vague and needs to be better defined. That’s something I think the committee could do.

I have had questions raised about the amount of discretion granted to the Labour Relations Board under this bill in the case where there are certain matters to determine, like the nature of a bargaining unit. However, that provision in this bill parallels what is in the Labour Relations Act for other situations already.

I repeat that I think some of those matters that people may not agree completely about are matters of detail and can be ironed out in committee where we all will have our say. But it seems to me the basic point of the bill is one with which nobody in this Legislature can disagree, that employees should have a reasonable notice if there is going to be a relocation or plant transfer; that employees should have a reasonable chance to decide whether or not they want to transfer with their plant -- that’s particularly so when we are at a time of very high unemployment, as at present; and that where employees have fought to have bargaining rights established under the Labour Relations Act they should be able to have those bargaining rights moved with the company, rather than being into the position of having to start from scratch, getting a certification and first contract, just because a company has happened to move across a municipal border.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Cassidy: I see my time has expired. I hope very much that members on all sides will see fit to support this bill and to send it to committee. It’s a good bill, it fills a loophole which should not have existed for as long as it has.

Mr. Pope: I would like to thank the hon. member for some of his clarifications on the consideration of this bill by the House.

As I understand it, the bill provides three major points. What I would like to do is deal with the concepts and suggest for the hon. member’s consideration some problem areas I might see in some of these concepts; and perhaps these may be more aptly dealt with in committee, I don’t know, or perhaps the hon. member may want to deal with them in his reply.

As I read the bill, I think it provides that, where a union shop is relocated, the bargaining unit description in any Ontario Labour Relations Board certification, as well as the recognition clause in any collective agreement, is deemed to be amended to include the new location. I believe the bill also provides that employees are entitled to reasonable notice of the relocation and the right of first refusal to accept employment at the new location; and that’s a 60-day right. I believe, also, that after relocation any person may apply to the board to determine the appropriateness of the new bargaining unit; to amend the certificate, if any; and to certify a trade union applicant.

[4:00]

There are other aspects of the bill. One of the principal problems that we may be faced with -- and perhaps the hon. member could consider this problem -- is how to deal with an extraprovincial relocation and how to deal with relocation to different parts of the province where, for instance, there may be different unions representing traditionally the same nature of workers in one area and not in another. We have that situation in Timmins, for instance, with some of the miners being represented by certain unions, some of the trades being represented by certain unions, and perhaps not the same nature of representation by the same international union or any local thereof in southern Ontario.

What I am worried about is both territorial jurisdictional disputes and jurisdictional disputes between internationals. I understand that may be the reason the member has included in his amendments “that any person may apply to the board to determine the appropriateness of the new bargaining unit.” If that is to resolve jurisdictional disputes, it may be that the determination of appropriateness should take place before any automatic deeming. In other words, in a relocation perhaps there should be an application immediately to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a decision of that nature before deeming automatically a jurisdiction upon the existing local.

I don’t know if that’s the answer, but it may be a way to avoid the kind of jurisdictional disputes that I can see forthcoming from the bill that the hon. member has proposed. The application should be made immediately.

Secondly, I am also wondering if the application should not be made immediately in terms of an actual certification vote proceeding. I am worried, for instance, about the consequences of a plant not only relocating but expanding. For instance, if a company were to construct a large plant in another location and then to hire additional employees -- I am aware of the double-breasted company and that kind of problem, but in the context of those problems --

Mr. Cassidy: The what? A double-breasted company?

Mr. Pope: -- if another company, a related company, establishes a plant in another location, assumes some of the existing purchase orders and hires new staff, should those new staff automatically be covered by the existing collective agreement without the right to a certification vote?

Mr. Martel: That happens anywhere when you take on new employees.

Mr. Pope: I perceive it as a problem, and I think that the whole nature of the right of new employees to determine whether or not they shall be represented by a bargaining agency, namely a local of a union, is one that should be considered very carefully in terms of the possible consequences of his bill.

Another problem that I see is that the bill may completely negate the single trade union status of various locals within a single national or international trade union, and again could provide some problems with internal jurisdiction: for instance, if the labourers’ union local operating out of Sudbury was suddenly usurped in its authority by another local from another area. That’s the kind of problem I can see evolving. Perhaps the hon. member could address his remarks to those kinds of problems.

The hon. member referred to the Humpty Dumpty case. It was my understanding from the ruling of the Ontario Labour Relations Board that I saw, that given the history of the bargaining relationship between the employer and the union, the board was satisfied that the move to relocate was motivated by the desire to compel or induce its employees to refrain from exercising their rights to collective representation. I believe that is the most recent case available. In that case the Ontario Labour Relations Board has indicated that if it can be established that there was that kind of intention behind the relocation moves, that it would intervene and either force -- as it did in this case -- the employer to return his distribution warehouse to London or to amend the recognition clause of the collective agreement to cover the employees at the new location.

I understand that an application for judicial review was made by the employer with respect to that case. The information that I have is that within the last week that application for judicial review was withdrawn and the company has opened up its plant in the old location.

So I take it that the Humpty Dumpty Food case is now good law or a good precedent in terms of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Cassidy: It is contradicted by the Inglis case, though.

Mr. Pope: I understand that that was what the hon. member said. The only thing I can say is that the Humpty Dumpty Food case is the current precedent that now exists, the one that the Ontario Labour Relations Board has to take notice of. If that is an established principle and their ruling of July, 1977 is now the established principle under which it will make rulings on relocations in the future, the Inglis case may, in effect, have been overruled by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

It may be that an application for judicial review will be taken at some future date, and that may be what is concerning the hon. member. The only protection that can be given there is that the Ontario Labour Relations Act has recently been amended to give wide remedial powers to the Ontario Labour Relations Board with respect to unfair practices. I assume this was the reason the application for judicial review was withdrawn and a settlement finally arrived at.

So those are some of my comments. They’re meant in a constructive light. Perhaps the hon. member could have a look at these matters and address himself to them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. O’Neil: I also am pleased to have a few comments to make concerning Bill 68, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, and I was very interested in some of the comments that were made by the member for Cochrane South.

We also have a few reservations concerning some of the aspects of the bill, but in the true intent of private member’s bills, I think that several from our party will speak concerning it, and, as it should be, I think we’ll have a free vote of members rather than a party stand on it.

As far as some of the background goes, we’re aware -- as I think everyone is -- that the Labour Relations Board normally certifies industrial unions with respect to all employees of a given employer working in a given municipal area. We’re also aware that should a unionized employer sell his business, the purchaser generally remains bound by that collective agreement.

An employer who relocates outside the municipal area covered by the collective agreement is no longer subject to that particular agreement. Also, as I think we’re aware, in a few cases unions have negotiated clauses requiring employers to grant union recognition if a plant is moved or expanded within so many miles of the original location.

Under the present rules or regulations, as in one of the recent cases before the Labour Relations Board, it was held that where an employer relocates solely for the purpose of evading of collective agreement the agreement will be amended to include the new employment site.

So as I say, there are provisions under the existing Labour Relations Board that I think cover some of the problems that the member for Ottawa Centre has anticipated. We have consulted fairly widely, both with members of the labour movement and the business association. There are some major problems, we feel, first of all in the drafting which would have some consequential implications.

It may be, as the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) mentioned, that if this does go to committee some of these things can be dealt with at that time. But as I mentioned, not all of our members are in total agreement with the bill, nor are we all against the intent of the bill.

Further discussions have revealed additional problems with the interpretation and the possible effects it might have as far as the bill goes. Also, the proposed section 55(4) would give the Labour Relations Board the discretion to determine whether the employee of any employer who relocated, whether or not previously unionized, should be certified. This would result in a considerable change from the existing practice, whereby a proportion of employees must indicate their desire to join a union before the Labour Relations Board can make a determination; and would reduce the voice of the individual in determining the question of union representation.

Even if the bill were limited in its implications to unionized employees, problems could arise. In some cases the majority of employees might choose not to move, yet the entire labour force at the new location would be bound by the existing collective agreement, at least until it expired.

Also, we have some worries concerning the concept of the word relocation, which we feel is vague. If an employer opens a new facility with new employees and it is considered a relocation, employees would be organized without their consent; or could be.

It appears also that an employer relocating, from say Toronto to one of the other areas of the province, would be bound by a Toronto wage rate and vice versa. This could possibly have some really important implications, and possibly might mean that some of these industries might expand outside the province.

As far as can be determined, no other jurisdiction in North America has a provision in its labour relations such as this new bill would propose. So, as I say, there are many things that would lead us to lean in favour of the bill; there are some that would certainly tend to make us lean the other way.

Some of our other members will be making some comments on that. I look forward to hearing both those comments and some of the comments from the members of the New Democratic Party, and also some of the other Conservative members.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I rise, of course, in support of this bill presented by my colleague from Ottawa Centre.

It is simply a bill which says that when there is a relocation the employees will have an opportunity to relocate, and because this is an amendment to the Labour Relations Act, and therefore speaking of organized employees, that they will carry their benefits to that new location with them.

This, of course, has been obtained in master agreements before in the province and for quite some time. The Ford company, in its move from Windsor to Oakville back in 1953-54 had that already in the master agreement so that employees moved directly, having been offered the chance to move; and more important, when they did, retained their seniority. This has been true of other operations; for example various operations of Chrysler Corporation. Back some four years ago when another UAW plant, Duplate, moved from Windsor to Hawkesbury they carried their seniority, their pensions and so on.

However, not all unions have these provisions, or have been able to get them in their contract provisions so that when a relocation occurs the employees move with seniority retention and with pension, and other provisions intact. What happens is that there are instances of companies relocating, purely and simply for the reason of getting out of their unionized contracts at the location which they are in.

It is for those reasons that a bill like this is very badly needed. In the case of Rockwell International in Windsor, whose operations were closed out last April, at three other locations in the province in which they operate -- Parry Sound, Bracebridge and Tilbury -- they were under no obligation, because it wasn’t covered in the union contract, to offer any sort of jobs to those unemployed workers in the Windsor area. They indicated they would offer some preferential hiring to those workers who were thrown out of work by the closure of the Windsor plant, but of course were under no obligation to offer it to them all as the openings arose over the months at those other plants.

[4:15]

Those who were offered jobs, of course, went there at the rates that applied there; and even though they were organized in some of the other locations, they lost their seniority entirely because they started as new persons in those other plant locations. Those few that were offered a job invariably went. A job is a job these days. Irrespective of their seniority at the other Rockwell plant, and even though they were moving into another organized plant, their seniority was zero at that other organized plant.

This does not occur when you have it in the master agreements and there is a relocation of plants that have those agreements, as with the Ford, Chrysler and Duplate agreements. This it is simply saying to a long-term employee that when there is a relocation you can move and at that new location you have the seniority you had previously. At that new location, if there are new hirings they will start, of course, at the zero seniority; but this should not apply to the person who is being transferred there, who in some cases has vast seniority.

In connection with some of the remarks of the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), I would say that the proposed section 55a (4) of the Act is, I think, designed to cover precisely some of the points he raises. If it is an entirely new plant, which has not as yet been organized by the union and the members move from an organized plant to that location, which is what this bill talks about, that’s what the new subsection is there for. At some point the Labour Relations Board must take a certification vote at that plant; but until that vote is held the people transferred will hold their seniority rights and still be part of that union.

If it’s a case of a different location, mixing of the employees from two unions, that, again, is what the subsection is to do. The board simply sorts out that situation and ensures, if it is necessary, that a vote be held. That’s what the subsection is there for.

Subsection 2 of the proposed section 55a simply lays out a reasonable length of time for the company, which has announced a relocation to expect to hear from its employees that those employees are willing to accept a relocation when the company relocates. The employer will then have a very good idea as to how many employees will be moving to the new location.

It’s a very straightforward bill, very worthy of support, so you simply don’t have unionized employees in the work place, when a plant relocates, simply thrown out of work as has occurred in the past, and to a certain degree has occurred in the Rockwell International situation in April of this year in Windsor.

It’s an amendment to the Labour Relations Act and therefore we are dealing only with unionized employees. Really, what we would like to see would be another bill, or a wider bill. It wouldn’t be dealing with seniority rights and so on. It would be a bill which would say that whenever an employer relocates a plant, including the non-unionized sector, he must follow provisions of this bill and offer relocations to the employees at the previous location and continue the same benefit provisions, pension funds and so on, that exist in that unorganized environment. There wouldn’t be perhaps very many privileges which a non-union employee would take with him, but whatever small ones do exist those would carry over with him to the new location. That should be what’s operating in the province of Ontario as well, and I strongly urge all members in this House to support this bill.

Mr. G. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking to this piece of legislation which the member for Ottawa Centre has introduced. I’ve listened to the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil) who has outlined the background of labour relations to this point in time. The member for Quinte has suggested that there appears to be a body of legislation that takes care of the situation to date. Is this, then, plugging a loophole, as the member for Ottawa Centre says; or is the law that way because that is its desired position?

The negotiating of contracts is there, and as they have mentioned there are many agreements of labour unions and management that include this particular item in their contracts. Are we, then, just inserting more government intervention into the free marketplace of management and labour negotiations, by inserting for them a portion of the contract that they are now negotiating? So what gives me concern in this bill is that such and such is being done under the guise of plugging a loophole, but is it not there by intention? Is this not, therefore, something that should continue to be negotiated, and that should be there to leave the parties with the opportunity to exercise their own free will?

After we get by what the present legislation is, and then we insert this bill as it is, I get the same concern as other members in this House do, about the terms themselves. Naturally I concede that that is a part for committee discussion, but when you get down to “relocation of business” and the definition of relocation; and then when we describe “part thereof”; how do we determine what part thereof? As the member for Ottawa Centre said, there was one business that went from Toronto to Barrie. If he had continued the story, it ceased operation after it went to Barrie because of what it considered at that time union difficulties. They were trying to remove themselves and to get the favourable markets from the Toronto region into the Barrie region. They could not get those more favourable union-management relations, and then the firm departed to the United States. Will this increase that type of operation, where the firms will relocate elsewhere when we insert more into the labour-management relationship of free bargaining?

When you describe “part thereof,” what and how are we going to determine that? Does that not lead to further Labour Relations Board hearings and further litigation to discover what “part thereof’ is? We all know of situations where you start up a new unit and you nearly always send people from your existing unit -- one or two -- to start it up.

Is that going to be considered a relocation the minute you send somebody there; or is it going on be considered a relocation where you send a physical part of your plant -- be it machinery, bricks, mortar or other things? I can see great concern being given to what constitutes a relocation.

Then as we all know, we have today, in our system, bargaining for a geographic area. But there are franchising operations to be considered. If there happens to be one bargaining unit, will that apply to each and every franchise that opens up in that geographical area? We all know of many operations that fall into that category. Are we negotiating a state contract that is going to cover and eventually involve province-wide bargaining by this little insertion of a disguised cover, as we say a loophole? That gives me some concern when we put this forth.

Have we already got it taken care of in the existing legislation, where reasonable notice is given -- and again that term “unreasonable notice” bothers me. Where you have a termination, there is already the Employment Standards Act to take care of some of those provisions. When you get into reasonable notice -- another term that has to be defined -- is the 60-day period going to be sufficient; or are we going to have further litigation to discover what reasonable notice might be?

These are the problems I put forward to you on this bill. I fear that it may produce more problems than it is trying to stop in trying to plug the loophole. So that when you get into areas where you cause more grief than that which you are trying to compensate for, would we not be better to take a very definite, very precise look at the legislation when it comes before committee?

It’s laudable, that which the member for Ottawa Centre is trying to cover, but is it something that is just a shade ahead of its time because of the provisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Act as it presently stands, and the Labour Relations Board and present jurisprudence on the subject; is it not already taken care of? Has it not already been looked after, and can the present situation not take care of the problems that this legislation appears to be trying to correct? Can we not let the normal process look after it?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise and enter into the debate on Bill 68 introduced by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre. I will start off by saying that I support the principle of this bill. I think it is a good principle. I think it is one that should be adopted by the members of this House.

I also have to agree that the bill does need some refining and it should go to committee. I think the purpose of the bill, which is to continue to give hard-won bargaining rights to the working class when they are forced to relocate, is a very good, sound and basic principle.

Secondly, I am in favour of the 60-day period which the employer has to give to the employee as a notice of relocation. I think it’s only fair. I see that some industries, like the automotive industry and also I believe Ontario Hydro, already do this type of thing. So I’m not so sure if it’s as new as some members are making it out to be.

I also respect my colleagues in the House who do not support this bill, being that is is a private member’s bill and it is a free vote.

Basically, those are my comments and I urge the bill to go to committee.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. I rise in support of the bill. I am a little bit surprised at the comments from across the way, that it might he a shade ahead of its time. It certainly is long past its time, not a “shade ahead of its time.”

I’m not going to go into the individual sections of the bill, but I want to deal with exactly what is happening in the real world out there. First I recall, and it’s been mentioned so I’ll just state that, talking of the workers at Ajax Plastics when they were moved from Whitby to Scarborough West, while there was not a lot of seniority in that particular operation, some of them did have better than seven years. When you sit across from people with seven years seniority who were offered the opportunity -- they were lucky, they were offered the opportunity to move to the new operation -- but to move as brand-new employees, without either the rates or any of the benefits they’d built up; when you realize that was the “opportunity” they were offered, you begin to realize what’s happening.

We have a slightly different twist, but I think a classic case, going on right now in the Hamilton area where a long-operating plant, Kennametals on Sherman Avenue, put up a notice on their bulletin board back in July which said, and I’ll read the notice: “To strengthen the position of our company in Canada and to provide better service to Canadian industry, Kennametals Incorporated has recently reached an agreement with John Brown and Company of London, England. Under this agreement, Kennametal will buy out all of the shares of A. C. Wickman Limited, Toronto. The acquisition is subject to the approval of the Canadian and British governments. Transfer of ownership is expected to take place on or about July 1.”

[4:30]

The first reaction of the employees was: “Well, we’re strengthening our company. We get an opportunity to have a better, a bigger operation. Sounds pretty good.” They began to smell the proverbial rottenness when, a couple of weeks later, another notice went up that said that the manager of the plant would be moving to the Toronto plant. Then, two months later, another notice went up on the bulletin board at Kennametal:

“Date: August 30, 1977; Effectively approximately November 15, 1977, Kennametal Tools Limited will cease to carry on its business. Under the Employment Standards Act, employees are entitled to notice in writing of the termination of their employment. The amount of this notice depends on the period of employment with a maximum of eight weeks’ notice to employees with a period of employment of 10 years or more. So that we can be fair to all employees, we have decided to give you this preliminary notice which will be formalized by individual letters to each of you. As you can see, we are attempting to give more notice than the requirements of the legislation.

“I am sure there will be many questions generated by this announcement, however, we do not have answers as yet but we’ll try to keep you informed as time passes.”

It’s a great pat on the back to the employees of that particular operation.

They went one step further in a further notice saying that they would allow an extra week -- or was it two weeks -- severance pay on the basis that the employees stayed until the very last day before the plant shut down.

At an open meeting they were questioned by employees -- some of the employees asking questions had had 25 years in the plant -- who asked, “If we get a chance for a job are we going to forfeit the one or two weeks?” They were told they certainly were. Some of them asked, because for some of them it was going to be difficult getting relocated, if there was any chance that they could go to the Toronto operation which was going to be producing exactly the same products. They were told at that meeting that there might be an opening for two or three of the some 50 employees involved but as brand new employees with none of their benefits, none of the security and wages that they’d built up over the years of operation.

That particular situation is under some pretty critical and crucial negotiating right now with the union involved. They have not been able to resolve it. There is no change in attitude as yet. And, as it stands now, they’re within their rights in doing that. If that’s a fair system, then there’s something wrong with our industrial relations system in this province.

Another example, which is a little different, it may or may not come exactly under the protection of this bill but Anchor Metal Products in Bramalea actually went belly-up into receivership. What did we find? They had never stopped operating. They’ve now moved to a smaller plant out of Bramalea into Weston. They’re back up to 60 or 65 employees, operating under some kind of a holding arrangement.

In the meantime, they’ve got rid of the union that was there. They’ve got rid of all of the benefits to the employees. The employees who are coming to me are largely Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and really don’t know what rights, if any, they had. And we have another real problem starting to develop because, I think, this is going to be a case the union is going to make a major issue out of in the province.

I think a bill like this, which is only a small step forward but does give protection through this amendment to the Labour Relations Act to employees who are moved, deserves to be passed. It is long overdue, not a shade ahead of its time, and I would urge the members of the House to support the bill.

Mr. Williams: When the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) had his name selected from among the members to have an opportunity to speak in the early stages of the private members’ debates here in the fall session, I think it aroused a great deal of speculation and expectation that, because of the stature and senior position of this frontbencher, we would have coming before us a meaningful bill, dealing with either social or labour legislation.

Mr. Mackenzie: This is not meaningful then?

Mr. Williams: While the member for Ottawa Centre may not be known for his wit and charm he is certainly well known for his verbosity and well-enunciated social views. I think there was a great deal of anticipation that he would come forward with a meaningful piece of legislation, which he appears to have done today.

While the bill is meaningful, what we have to analyse is whether or not, in its present form, it is also practical and constructive, as suggested by the sponsor of the bill. I think it is this that we have to objectively assess with great care.

The sponsor has suggested, I think fairly, that this is in effect almost a housekeeping piece of legislation that is set up to plug a loophole, which I think my colleague from Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. Taylor) also commented upon. If I were satisfied that was simply the case -- that here was an area in which an injustice existed that would be corrected by this piece of legislation -- then I think it would not only be a meaningful but also a constructive piece of legislation.

But what concerns me is that the bill is indeed more than a housekeeping measure. It is much more substantive and carries with it much more significant ramifications than one would anticipate at first blush.

Mr. Mackenzie: It protects people.

Mr. Williams: I am certainly anxious to hear the response of the member for Ottawa Centre, and have him point out where the legislation may not be establishing a whole new method of certification. I think that essentially is what subsection 1 brings us to. We have the traditional certification board procedure and the voluntary recognition, but here, by establishing what in effect is a provincial-wide bargaining process, we have opened up a whole new area or method for certification. If that is fair comment, then I think it gives a whole new dimension and perspective and importance to this legislation which may have been glossed over in considering it as simply a housekeeping measure.

So I think that bears a great deal of emphasis and consideration. I certainly have yet to be satisfied that it is less significant than what I’m suggesting.

In endeavouring to support his arguments the member made reference to a number of cases of which he had personal knowledge. He referred to the Perfect Circle situation, Regal Stationery, Tellus Instruments and, I think, in his remarks about those particular cases implied that the moves have been made with intent to circumvent the protection that was being afforded by the unions that presently have agreements with the companies, rather than by reason of any legitimate circumstance. In other words, I don’t think the member has spelled out to the members in the House, in using these examples, whether the companies were acting in good faith or with intent to break the union.

In the same way he made reference to the Humpty Dumpty case, which has been referred to by a number of members. Again it was what was left unsaid that gives me some concern, because the very thing that he suggests is lacking today in Ontario -- and by reason of which there is need for this legislation -- I think is refuted by the results of the Humpty Dumpty case. Even in the short period of time since it was dealt with, it has become a landmark in labour matters in this province as far as the board jurisprudence, as I think the member for Simcoe Centre alluded to it, is concerned. The sponsor did not point out that the board exercised its discretion and determined that the Humpty Dumpty company had in fact acted in bad faith. As I understand it, it ordered that the company therefore had to return to the London area where the facility had been located, and that they could not circumvent the union by simply going to other locations. I think that defuses the argument that the member makes that there is no protection under the existing legislation.

Another point is that the member did not point out to us what the ultimate long-term end result was with regard to those companies where some of their employees were put in a position of having to relocate because of moves by the company, or seek employment elsewhere when those companies move to other locations, if they had any difficulty, as far as the employees were concerned, in becoming newly certified with regard to the availability of other unions in the area to which those companies had moved.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I would point out to the hon. member for Oriole that we do not have sufficient time for him to have 10 minutes. We have to give the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) five minutes to sum up. You have about one more minute.

Mr. Williams: The last point, I think of equal importance, is that in my judgement the bill would also cause conflict among the unions themselves. Not simply conflict on a labour-management basis, but over the territorial prerogatives that exist with regard to local unions in different parts of the province where there are different economic conditions or where there are traditionally different working agreements that exist in some areas as contrasted to others. I think this could create a great deal of strife and difficulty between the unions.

Mr. Foulds: That’s a self-serving paranoiac statement if I ever heard one.

Mr. Williams: While it is suggested that there is provision in the Act to resolve those differences as set out in subsection 4, again I am not satisfied it is so simply resolved. I suggest that that seems to be a simplistic solution --

Mr. Foulds: Time.

Mr. Williams: -- but I don’t think it is necessarily a practical solution.

In conclusion, these are the significant concerns that I think the members of the House have to take into consideration, to determine whether the bill goes much further than that of being simply a housekeeping bill. While it is meaningful, I think it warrants a great deal more consideration.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre for five minutes.

Mr. Cassidy: I welcome the support for the bill the other members have expressed and the position taken by other members, because while they had reservations, they believe that the bill should be considered in committee.

I also welcome the fact that the member for Oriole accepts that the bill is meaningful, even if he has more differences with me about it.

Yes, the bill is a bit more than a housekeeping bill. But it seems to me that is of the same essence and the same nature as the successor rights legislation, which was passed in the Labour Relations Act -- in 1969, I believe it was -- to cover a case where a company was sold to a new owner; or, as Bill 4, the successor rights on the transfer of an undertaking to or from the Crown, which was going to be adopted I presume by this Legislature some time during the course of this session.

Both of those provisions are amplifications of the spirit of the Labour Relations Act and I suggest that this bill is also to simply put into legislation a further amplification of the spirit of the Labour Relations Act and ensure that the loophole, as I described it, which now exists is not exploited by employers, whether by inadvertence in certain cases and convenience in other cases, or deliberate anti-union intent.

The cases that we cited generally did indicate bad faith. As was pointed out by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), there is recent jurisprudence by the Labour Relations Board in the Humpty Dumpty case which would indicate that where bad faith can be demonstrated because of a pattern of anti-union activity by the company the union may, after lengthy hearings before the Labour Relations Board and an enormous expenditure of money, perhaps get some redress before the Labour Relations Board.

I don’t think that’s a good way to proceed, though. As I understand it, the Labour Relations Board is not bound by case law, in the way of the courts and the jurisprudence that preceded that.

The Inglis case was exactly the opposite. Because there, even though the union stewards and the union executive members had not been allowed to keep their jobs when the head office of that dispatching unit moved out to Mississauga, the Labour Relations Board found that there was no anti-union intent and therefore it refused to confirm the bargaining unit once it moved outside Metropolitan Toronto, even though the people were still in the same job in the same locations.

I would suggest, therefore, that the Labour Relations Board is unreliable and it is much better for us to decide, as legislators, what the policy should be, to lay it down in a way in which it can be interpreted clearly, and positively, both by labour unions and also by managements.

[4:45]

The member for Cochrane South asked about relocation outside the province. As he’s aware, that’s a real problem, especially these days. We can’t deal with it with legislation here, but only by interprovincial and maybe international agreements. I’d like to see those kinds of agreements, but for the time being we have to do only what we can.

Both the member for Cochrane South and the member for Oriole talked about the possibility of jurisdictional disputes or territorial disputes between unions. The possibility where you get two unions landing on one another obviously exists. That’s why subsection 4 is here, in order to allow the Labour Relations Board to determine what is the appropriate bargaining unit.

That would also cover the case which a couple of members have raised about what happens if a bunch of unionized workers move in and are added to a plant which has some non-union workers. In that case, the Labour Relations Board already has established procedures of melding or intermingling, which it has to have developed because of successor rights legislation. If one firm that’s unionized is bought by another that’s not and the plants are joined, then the Labour Relations Board normally determines on an application whether there should be a certification vote or whether the collective agreement should automatically be extended.

The question of having a certification vote at once on a relocation I think is very difficult. Suppose you get 50 people from Toronto landing up with 30 or 40 new employees in Barrie in a plant which has just been established. That’s a bad time to have a certification vote. It’s better for the employees to get to know each other. It seems reasonable that if there’s going to be that kind of thing, if anybody doesn’t really like the union, they can always apply for decertification.

I don’t think the burden should be put on the unions and continue as at the present time, that they have to get the bargaining unit established from scratch if the company moves. That is not a fair burden, it seems to me, and that’s why this Act is being put forward to amend the Labour Relations Act and make relocated firms act in the spirit of that particular Act.

I hope very much that this bill will go to committee where some of the detailed points that have been raised can be discussed in detail.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The time for debate on this matter has expired.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved second reading of Bill 33, An Act to amend the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

Mr. Kennedy: The amendment provides a change in the Proceedings Against the Crown Act. This is to plug a loophole in the legislation and in a way is housekeeping.

Mr. Mackenzie: Did you check with the member for Oriole?

Mr. Kennedy: Housekeeping is a word that makes everyone raise their eyes or tense muscles.

Mr. Lawlor: I think it is meaningful myself.

Mr. Ruston: There is a lot of that.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Kennedy: At the present time, civil servants who are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund are subject to having their wages attached by the Treasurer. For the record and for the members, I’ll put in a few remarks, quoting section 26 of the Public Service Act.

It provides in essence: “Where a debt or money demand of not less than $25 is due and owing and the wages of that person are paid from the consolidated revenue fund, then the Treasurer at his discretion may make an order ensuring the payment of that debt.” But it’s in his discretion that this is done. Information from legal services is that in the case of a community college employee who owed a debt an application was made to the Treasurer and he refused to make this order because it was not within his jurisdiction. Those individuals are paid from their own funds. Hence, this was not applicable. There are other agencies of government which also could come under this amendment but which are currently exempt; for instance, the compensation board and community colleges. Perhaps there are others; I didn’t check them all out.

Mr. Foulds: Hydro?

Mr. Kennedy: Hydro has its own legislation. I did check that.

I also want to mention Bill 59, The Family Law Reform Act, which received second reading a week ago. Section 27, subsection 3, provides for an execution or garnishee to be issued against the Crown for maintenance. This applies to family breakup and isn’t pertinent in this instance, except this might have picked it up under certain employee circumstances.

The intent of this bill is to ensure that everyone who is an individual employed by the government -- a civil servant -- or any of its agencies receives equal treatment.

I checked back, and it may be interesting to members, that garnishment proceedings were first started in 1854 at Westminster.

Mr. Foulds: A bad year.

Mr. Kennedy: Prior to that there was no method of collection, at least in law. Whether there were other techniques used, I wouldn’t know. But that is when it first came into being under Halsbury’s Laws of England. Over the years, of course, there have been many amendments and extensions of this until we have reached the present stage as it stands in Ontario now. Community colleges, of course, came into being just in recent contemporary times; consequently, they weren’t included in whatever legislation provided for those, and this again is an amendment to bring it into the 20th century.

There really isn’t a great deal more to be said. I do know of other instances, one of which was a very complicated matter. The person owing the debt was sheltered under the exemption that was provided, and the result was considerable hardship to his family. Such legislation as this would tidy up such things.

In the public sector, too, employees have more job security insofar as that goes -- not that it is too pertinent to those in the private sector; employees in the private sector, of course, have no such protection.

I think we should all be treated the same and all in the same bag, as long as we have garnishment proceedings at all; I know some people are opposed to that. But this bill really isn’t to deal with that. If there ever is a change made, let’s change it altogether; I think we could bring this all in and perhaps it would strengthen any change. Maybe we should go to that caveat, “Let the vendor beware.”

This leads me to the situation which I have known for many years; that is, federal Crown employees are exempt totally from garnishment. I had a case just a month or so ago where someone attempted to get a garnishee against a federal employee, and of course they couldn’t do it. I would hope that the federal people would have a look at this so everybody is treated equally.

It is a fairly straightforward amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to participation by other members and their consideration of supporting this amendment.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was introduced in caucus and discussed in caucus it was almost with the unanimous consent that this matter be consented to and supported.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill represents a closing of a gap that has existed in law, and particularly as a lawyer I have heard time after time of private businessmen who have been jeopardized, particularly in the economy as it exists today, trying to collect their debts. Although the proposer of this bill indicates that it is not really a garnishee bill, it in fact does close an area that has been open to much abuse. As the courts today are taking a harder line, particularly in the family division where a delinquent husband or supporter has built up a debt, and in the event that a judgement is obtained against such an individual, this bill will allow the department, or whoever, to collect the debt that is owing and is perhaps paid by the rest of the taxpayers.

I just wish one thing, that the proposer of this bill did have the courage of his conviction in extending the right to garnishee beyond just Ontario Hydro, for instance; that we be allowed to go against any Crown employee for the very reason that I stated -- that in today’s economy, except for those who are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, there is a built-in protection. It seems to me that we should extend it right across the board.

We support this bill in its principle, because I am a firm believer that before you can walk through a door you have to have it open. And in fact, this is exactly what this bill is doing. It’s opening a door to protect the business community. It’s opening the door to extending the principle that each person in his own private life cannot hide behind the veil of a Crown agent, and being paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, to prevent his being garnisheed and to prevent payment of just debts entered into by him.

So insofar as this bill represents a step in the right direction we have no hesitation in supporting it.

On that note, I do indicate my support of this amendment, as short as it is. It is worthwhile, and in principle it does require and get our support.

Mr. Warner: In response to the member for Mississauga South, he uses the term “equal treatment” in his presentation of the arguments of why I and others should support the bill. We could also describe it as being the equalizing of inequities.

For a very long time, it has always seemed to be much easier to attach portions of wages that are paid to workers as opposed to the worker trying to get his wages. Too often -- and I have had several cases at this point -- there are cases where a company goes out of business and the worker is left without wages. A few months later the individual -- the good old lively entrepreneur -- reopens under another name and the worker is still not able to get his money back. And the only way he can do it is to go through a long legal process in the courts involving a lot of money. But he is still without his wages.

I’ve got files where these individuals have been owed $700, $800, even $1,000 of their wages, which they worked hard for, but they can’t collect them. Yet the good old entrepreneur is back in business under another name and is doing quite well, thank you. Should that worker default along the line somewhere, on a payment on an automobile, whatever it happens to be, or Reader’s Digest or whatever kind of little goodies come through the mail now and then, it sure is easy to grab part of his wages.

So now to close the gap, and equal the inequities, we have this bill. The mover of the bill made mention of the fact very proudly that this concept of garnisheeing a portion of the person’s wages instead of using the legal process to collect any debts was introduced in 1854. That we would extend the thinking of 1854 into 1977 bothers me somewhat.

[5:00]

I had hoped that we got away from the business of debtors’ prisons and workhouses and the like. Maybe what this bill is doing is leading us back to that. I do have some questions that perhaps the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) can answer. I gather from his remarks earlier that there are Crown agencies whose employees are paid from the consolidated revenue fund and, therefore, their wages may already be garnisheed; that option is left open. I think perhaps that’s where Mr. Stong had it confused.

I take it that most of the Crown agencies already fall under that kind of description. What we are talking about is a very limited number of people, namely, those who are employed in the community colleges and by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I just hope that doesn’t include Mr. Starr. He doesn’t need any more breaks.

Mr. Foulds: No, this will get him.

Mr. Warner: Maybe this will get him.

Mr. Foulds: Is he liable for non-payment to injured workers?

Mr. Warner: Yes. On the other side of the coin, I’m very disappointed to hear that the mover of the bill didn’t go through the following argument, because I think it’s the one point in favour of the bill, that is, the case of the deserting husbands, those people who are supposed to be making maintenance payments. Because of the laxity of laws in the province of Ontario, if the husband chooses not to make the payments, then that’s exactly what happens. If anyone wants to pursue it, all he does is move to somewhere else in Canada, and let them try to get the money.

There are just too many women left with children to raise who have been abandoned by the husband and who are not able to make ends meet. The maintenance payments don’t come through and that woman has to find some way of getting the money. At this point in time, it’s difficult enough. I’m surprised that the mover of the bill didn’t put this forward. It’s the foremost reason that this bill should be in front of us because it seems to me to be the only redeeming feature of this legislation.

I hope the mover of the bill, despite the fact that he did not put forward the argument I’ve just outlined, none the less understands very deeply the situation that many women in this province face, namely, that husbands who do decide to abandon their responsibilities do so easily. Without an expensive legal procedure and without being able to find those husbands, the mothers are left without the necessary support payments. If the law begins to close in on the person, then all he needs do is to go somewhere else in Canada and he is freed from his obligations.

I’ve had too many of those cases, quite frankly. I’ve had them into my office. They are soul-wrenching experiences. What can you say to the mother who is there? “I am sorry but the laws of Ontario are inadequate.” “I’m sorry but this government just doesn’t seem to be terribly interested in your plight.” “I’m sorry but you’re going to have to struggle along as best you can. When you reach the very bottom, we’ll give you some welfare. We’ll hand out a few crumbs so that you and your family can try to survive.”

In the face of all of those inequities, perhaps it makes sense to equalize the inequities and add one more little bridge to it all. But I do so only in the case of it being for income maintenance. My suggestion to the mover of the bill is that if this bill passes second reading and goes to committee that the mover consider very seriously amending the legislation to read that it apply only in the case of income maintenance -- support payments for deserted mothers. On that basis, I would be very happy to support the bill, but on no other basis.

Mr. Williams: I am pleased to support the bill being sponsored today by my colleague from Mississauga South. This is legislation that is long overdue. It is meaningful legislation, it is constructive legislation and it is legislation that brings an existing situation, as the member has said, into the 20th century.

I’ve listened carefully to the arguments put forward by other members of the House and the view expressed by the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong) reflects almost totally the views of myself in this matter. As one who has --

Mr. Foulds: You are in trouble.

Mr. Williams: -- practised in the courts, I’m well aware of the fact that many people are unable to recover the money judgements that have been awarded to them in civil litigation because the judgement debtor has no visible assets other than his income. I think that is the perspective that has to be laid before us in making the argument for or against, that a garnishment proceeding is simply to provide the means by which a person who has been aggrieved, as determined by a court of law, can recover that to which he has been entitled by way of a monetary judgement and award in the courts of this land, so that a person who has been proven to be entitled to recompense, in accordance with the judgement of a court, now has a means of recovery from a person who does not have these other tangible assets, other than his or her income from his employment.

I must point out -- and this point, I think, has been missed in the debate so far -- that the garnishee order is one made by a judge bearing in mind all of the circumstances of the ability of the judgement debtor to pay. I have yet to have seen a case where the garnishee order has imposed an amount that exceeds that which a person could reasonably be anticipated to afford based on the other needs of that person to meet his basic living requirements, whether it be his rent, food, clothing for his family or whatever. It’s determined that under the garnishee order a reasonable sum will be set aside, that, in the judgement and discretion of the court, that person can well afford to pay, but which heretofore he has been avoiding payment thereon to a person who is entitled to that payment, as determined by a court of law.

What in the world is wrong with that? This discrimination exists only through historical circumstance, whereby the protection was given not to the Crown employee but to the Crown. It is history that back in the 1700s the Crown was determined to be above the law and could not be sued, nor could its assets be attached for any reason at law. Therefore, the protection afforded the government employee or the civil servant wasn’t for his benefit, it was because the Crown was deemed to be above the law in those days.

Mr. Foulds: Let’s extend it to the Crown.

Mr. Williams: Now we have come back to a more realistic situation and the province in itself over the years has enacted legislation that has done away with this fiction. The Crown too is subject to be brought before the courts and to account for its wrongs and errors that bring about civil wrongs to individuals or groups.

So why, under those circumstances should a person who is in the public service be given this particular protection, that was not devised originally for that purpose at all, but through circumstance? Why should that person have this type of protection when he or she owes a debt to another innocent person who has obtained a judgement under a court decision? Why the salary of an individual working in the private sector can be attached, and not that of one in the public sector, defies logic. Therefore, it’s long overdue that this type of legislation should be brought forward.

I certainly do support the point made by the member for York Centre that perhaps the only weakness of the bill is that it doesn’t go far enough and that it should cover any other Crown agencies or special-purpose bodies under the jurisdiction of the Crown which may not be covered by this legislation.

A glaring gap that still exists, as pointed out by the sponsor of the bill, is that no federal government employee can be garnisheed. There are thousands of people who are thereby enjoying this special privilege of freedom from garnishee when it has been determined at law that in fact they do owe a debt, if not to society certainly to their fellow man who they have wronged. Why therefore, should this fiction continue and give a certain privileged protection to one segment of our society and not to others? In fact, it’s a form of subversion of the laws that we have and the procedures under which a person can be rightfully compensated for the wrong that the person has experienced.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, it’s without hesitation that I rise to support this bill. It is good legislation and, in fact, it has a very strong social aspect to it that corrects an inequity that has existed for too long and should be corrected at this stage. I strongly support the bill.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support the bill. I want to make a few comments. I think one reason I have for making a few comments is that I wouldn’t want to go over the same ground the socialists did, because it didn’t make any sense at all. Suggesting the entrepreneur goes out of business and beats people out of wages, then sets up in business tomorrow, is so far from the truth that it’s ridiculous; and it’s a shame that it should be recorded in Hansard.

Mr. Foulds: They record your speeches too.

Mr. Kerrio: There are many instances where, when an entrepreneur happens to go bankrupt, there are many other entrepreneurs who lose a great deal of money as well. It’s not that I don’t feel sorry for the individual wage earner, but certainly any time there is a bankruptcy in small business, there are many people who are hurt.

Witness the fact that in Ontario this August we’ve had more bankruptcies than we’ve ever had in the history of this province. The people to my left might decide some time to realize that they had better start helping small business and not running them into the ground.

Mr. Foulds: How many of the wage earners got their full wages?

Mr. Kerrio: In any event, I’ll address myself to the bill in another fashion.

Mr. Foulds: How many got their full wages?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. He is adding nothing to this debate.

The point that I wanted to make already has been made by two previous speakers. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the same sort of thinking that prevailed in excluding Hydro exists here. Many small business people are confronted with at least two different sets of rules, one for the government and one for the businessman. In this particular instance, I don’t think anyone who is a wage earner should be excluded from the bill. I hope the member for Mississauga South will take that point into consideration and extend the bill to include everyone because, when we garnishee someone’s wages, in reality we are garnisheeing something that that individual has earned. It in no way belongs to the government. It in no way belongs to us in the Legislature or anywhere else. It’s something that we’re attaching; the debt has already been proven in court to be illegal and that it should be collected.

I support this bill wholeheartedly and I hope that the member for Mississauga South will see fit to consider that kind of an amendment.

Mr. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of difficulty in speaking to this bill, because I’m still not sure in my mind as to whether I’m for or against. I am against the practice of garnishments. As the member far Mississauga South pointed out earlier, there are those who oppose garnishments on wages. I am one of those because I feel that they are very demeaning and degrading to the person who is being garnisheed. Let me explain why I say that. I would say to the member for Niagara Falls that I am not going into the diatribe that my colleague did.

[5:15]

Mr. Kerrio: Go ahead.

Mr. Davidson: I am quite sure that even he is aware that there are those who are in the practice of lending money and selling goods, knowing full well that the person they are selling their goods to or lending their money to cannot afford to make any more payments out of the wages that he or she is earning at that time, and who continue to lend them money and continue to sell them goods on a payment basis. Then, when because of the actions of these people, the purchasers cannot afford to make the payments, they go and ask to garnishee their wages.

However, having said that and having to live with the fact that there is such a system in existence today, I suspect I will speak in support of the bill, at least on that point, because if you are going to have wages garnisheed, then it should be that everyone’s wages can be garnisheed. The one thing I am glad to see is that this bill brings in Crown employees who have, over the years, as has been pointed out by the member for Mississauga South, on some occasions been exempt from garnishee proceedings against their wages. If this bill does nothing else it at least puts Crown employees into the same category as the other working people in the province of Ontario, at least in this instance.

I, therefore, would like to follow along with what the member for Niagara Falls has just called for; that is, to ask the member for Mississauga South, if he would consider expanding this bill to include all Crown employees.

Mr. Pope: I rise very briefly to speak in support of the private member’s bill proposed by my friend from Mississauga South for the reasons that have been capably put by other members, namely, to have some equality in the enforcement of judgements and court orders in the province of Ontario, irrespective of the employer of that particular person.

I notice that there were some comments made earlier on on perhaps related topics. I think there are provisions for priorities under the Wages Act and Mechanics’ Lien Act of this province which do serve to protect workers to some extent. Granted there’s no guaranteed protection of anything any more, there are some provisions that do help the working man. I don’t think it’s incumbent or that we have the authority to review the provisions of the federal Bankruptcy Act in terms of the validity or applicability of some of the provisions of that Act and how they affect working men. This is simply an exercise of provincial jurisdiction.

There are, with respect, expeditious proceedings that are available and will now be made available through certain amendments to the Small Claims Courts Act to dispute garnishee proceedings and to bring the individual concerns and financial problems of a judgement debtor before the small claims courts and judgement summons proceedings. I think if those are exercised, and they will be exercised now in an informal way, some of the problems with respect to the extent of wages available for garnishee may be overcome. Certainly in my constituency office I always urge workers who are faced with that kind of financial constraint to appear before a small claims court to make that kind of arrangement.

With respect to the problem of deserted wives, I don’t think there is any way we are ever going to solve the problem of the husband who is owing maintenance payments escaping to another jurisdiction, other than trying to enforce our judgements in that jurisdiction. I would draw to the attention of members that the Deserted Wives’ and Children’s Maintenance Act acts as an order of the court. If payment is not made under the provisions of that Act, the individual can be summoned before the court for contempt.

Granted that does not always result in a financial settlement that is suitable, and it does not always answer the financial needs, but again these are other provisions that have to be considered in juxtaposition with what we are dealing with now in this private member’s bill.

I also feel that perhaps it is time this Legislature, as well as removing the privileged position of Crown employees with respect to garnishee provisions, also has a look at the problems of the Public Works Creditors Payment Act vis-à-vis the Mechanics’ Lien Act. Perhaps it is time that we settled that area of jurisdiction or dispute as well, because it has created other problems. However, we are dealing with an Act to amend the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, and I am pleased to speak in support of it.

Mr. B. Newman: I rise to make a few comments on Bill 33, An Act to amend the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, an Act presented by the hon. member for Mississauga South. I just wonder why it took so long for the introduction of such legislation, seeing that this did come from a government member. I would have thought that this would have been government policy quite some time ago.

Naturally, the recourse now is as a result of the new setup here, that the private members can introduce legislation and it can be voted on and eventually end up being accepted by this House.

The member for Niagara Falls is a man who has been in business for years and years, and he certainly knows the problems he has as far as employing individuals is concerned, and the difficulties he gets when various creditors approach him in an attempt to garnishee wages of those who have not met their financial obligations. I would assume that some of those employees may have been employees of the Crown.

I support the bill on the idea that it is the right type of legislation. It is overdue. I also support it because of the fact that it will present uniformity. I don’t see why we should be treating one class of employee any differently than we treat any other class of employee.

Mr. Foulds: This has been, in a peculiar kind of way, an interesting debate. I came into the House with an open mind on the bill -- in fact, I intended to vote for the bill. However, the debate has persuaded me otherwise, because no one in the debate so far has convinced me that the garnishment procedure is a procedure that we should encourage in the 20th century.

The member for Niagara Falls came closest to putting that case. But if I can articulate my concern, it is that he stated the case, but he did not illustrate it, or show me, or convince me. In other words, there weren’t illustrations from any of the members thus far that have convinced me that this is a procedure that should have universality.

Mr. Kerrio: You can take it either way. You can either take it right off, or --

Ms. Foulds: Yes. That’s the argument that I would like to put. I think, perhaps, we should be going the other way. Instead of extending it, we should be taking it right off. That is the principle on which I will vote against the bill.

I must say I have some reservation about that position, because I can see because of the way that current court orders are enforced -- or the way that they are not enforced -- in those cases of a deserted wife, that that is the one instance where I could see this procedure being a useful one. However, it is my information that in the percentage of garnishments that are in fact used in the province, that the percentage used to enforce support, is very, very small. In fact the garnishment procedure is largely used for other kinds of debts.

It does strike me that the procedure is a 19th century one, rather than a 20th century one. But I agree with the position that the member for Niagara Falls in particular put, that you’ve got to have it one way or the other.

I’d like to suggest, therefore, that one of the ways in which this very touchy area, where non-support occurs of a deserted spouse, is that perhaps, through another legal remedy, the court be the body that actually pays the deserted spouse and is responsible for collecting directly from the deserting person. In other words, the cheque would come regularly to the deserted spouse for the amount awarded and it would then be up to the court to recover that by whatever means it has at its disposal from the deserting husband, in most cases.

I was particularly struck by one of the arguments that was put by the member for Cambridge. There are, and they are rare I admit, but there are occasionally firms that are fly-by-night operations. In some instances, people who are encyclopaedia salesmen encourage families to overspend. I’ve had experience of this when I was teaching in a small northern community, Armstrong, Ontario. They sweep through the north occasionally where the resources, in educational terms or library terms, aren’t great, and families who have a great interest in having their children well educated are encouraged to buy a whole encyclopaedia on which they wouldn’t be able to make the payments in any logical sense. They get trapped into this position, then owe the debt.

Mr. Kerrio: Loan companies do it all the time.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, and this practice, it seems to me, is one that obviously there should be other legal remedies to stop. But it is one that occasionally the garnishment process is used to regain the debt, and while it’s a legal debt, it’s one that shouldn’t have been incurred morally and was enticed from the person, so to speak.

The other grave reservation I have about the garnishment procedure is that, despite a judgement made several years ago, it occasionally is used by employers to either harass or to sometimes dismiss employees. It is, as one person in the debate so far has said, a demeaning procedure. It’s one that I do not think should be extended and I would rather see it diminished.

Mr. Blundy: I rise to support this bill. I realize that most of the valid points in favour of the bill have been made and made quite well by previous speakers. However, there have been one or two points which I would like to reply to.

The point has been made by at least one and possibly two previous speakers of feeling great sympathy and attaching a great deal of importance to the position of the person being garnisheed and pointing out that this is really putting that person in a very difficult position. I have to admit that that is the case. But you have to look at the person who has provided the goods and services for which the garnishee is being made.

[5:30]

He or she or they have acted in good faith and have provided the goods or services that this person has got. I can put forth just as an appealing view of why they should be paid for their services or their goods. I just want to make the point that while none of us like a garnishee of wages, and I know that it is creating difficulties for people who are garnisheed and so forth, it is a fact of life and we have it with us.

Therefore, I come to my second point and that is that we can’t make fish of one and fowl of another. If we are employees of private enterprise or any private group, or the Crown, we must be considered in the light of these things as being all the same. Therefore, I support this private member’s bill and I hope that it will gain the support of the House. Because as long as we have a system of garnishee -- and as previous members have said, it may not be the greatest -- but as long as we have it we must treat everybody similarly under that system, and employees of the Crown should be included.

So I want to add to those other comments that have been made my support of this bill this afternoon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga South. I would like to inform the member that he still has eight minutes remaining in his time.

Mr. Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank all the members who made contributions to this amendment to the bill. It was a very good debate.

I perhaps didn’t make it clear at the outset and I should have provided a definition of a Crown agency, but I felt that this would be understood. Let me quote from the Crown Agency Act, and this is the key in answering some of the points raised, I think, by most of the members who participated.

Under the Crown Agency Act, a Crown agency means: “a board, commission, railway, public utility, university, manufactory, company or agency owned, controlled or operated by Her Majesty in right of Ontario, by the government of Ontario or under the authority of the Legislature, or the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

So those who ask that it be extended, this definition covers that very point. And it is across the board by virtue of that definition.

The other thing mentioned -- I think I raised this myself -- Hydro was not included. It is and it isn’t. I’ll define a Crown employee under the Public Service Act. Under this, a Crown employee means a person employed in the service of the Crown, or any agency of the Crown, the definition of which I have just given, but does not include an employee of Ontario Hydro or the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.

Why this is the way it is I am not sure, except that Ontario Hydro has the authority, within their legislation, to render garnishees against their employees. I am not sure of the Ontario Northland railway. I presume it is the same. But if not, under the definition of the Crown Agency Act, the individuals who are affected would be included. So this amendment would make the legislation fully equitable, without discriminating in favour of any person employed in the civil service, those who are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. All agencies are included.

I made reference in my opening remarks to the family law bill that received second reading, Bill 59, and in this quite a number of the family breakup situations are dealt with. I am not sure that it could be broadened under this bill to take in cases of deserted wives and so on. Certainly, an employee of one of these agencies who deserted and was not making payments, the wife can make arrangements to have a garnishee levied against him because he presumably would still be employed with that agency. If he takes off, of course, there would need to be some other piece of legislation take over, and this is what the hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere was bringing up. So I think it would take it beyond this. This deals with employees. Of course their wages can be attached under this. But the hon. member makes a very good point, but I doubt his suggestion would be an appropriate amendment to this piece of legislation.

I think those responses cover the situation. The member for Port Arthur mentioned encyclopaedia salesmen and such; and there was some concern expressed of the harshness of garnishee awards. But, as the member for Oriole stated and it’s been my experience as well, if the ability of the person to pay is taken into account especially under the present arrangement where a civil servant is involved. Under the Garnishee Act there is a certain rigid assignment of salary. In dealing with public employees there is a broader discretionary power, which is exercised, and thus that could be done, taking all the circumstances of the individual into account.

I thank the members for their participation. I didn’t know that it would evoke such a response and I appreciate very much hearing from all hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes debate on second reading of this bill.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour has assented:

Bill 4, An Act to provide for Successor Rights on the Transfer of an Undertaking to or from the Crown.

Bill 22, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Bill 34, An Act to amend the Public Vehicles Act.

Bill 35, An Act to amend the Airports Act.

Bill 36, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Bill 37, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Bill 38, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Bill 39, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Bill 42, An Act to amend the City of Timmins-Porcupine Act, 1972.

Bill 44, An Act to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to provisional order 35, I am required to place the questions before the House at 5:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker suspended the proceedings of the House until 5:50 p.m.

On resumption:

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 68, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Blundy Bounsall Bradley Breaugh Bryden Campbell Cassidy Charlton Conway Cunningham Davison (Hamilton Centre) di Santo Dukszta Epp Foulds Germa Gigantes Grande Laughren Lawlor Lupusella MacDonald Mackenzie Makarchuk Mancini Martel McClellan McGuigan Miller (Haldimand-Norfolk) Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) O’Neil Philip Ruston Samis Sargent Swart Sweeney Warner Wildman Ziemba -- 40

Ashe Auld Baetz Belanger Bennett Bernier Birch Brunelle Cureatz Drea Eaton Elgie Gregory Hall Handleman Havrot Henderson Hodgson Johnson Kennedy Kerr Kerrio Lane Leluk MacBeth Maeck McCague McKessock McNeil Newman (Durham York) Norton Peterson Pope Reed (Halton-Burlington) Rotenberg Smith (Simcoe East) Snow Stephenson Sterling Stong Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox) Taylor (Simcoe Centre) Turner Villeneuve Welch Williams -- 46

Ayes 40; nays 46.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 33, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Ashe Auld Baetz Belanger Bennett Bernier Birch Blundy Bradley Brunelle Bryden Campbell Cassidy Conway Cunningham Cureatz Drea Eaton Elgie Epp Gregory Hall Handleman Havrot Henderson Hodgson Johnson Kennedy Kerr Kerrio Lane Lawlor Leluk MacBeth MacDonald Maeck Makarchuk Mancini McCague McGuigan McKessock McNeil Miller (Haldimand-Norfolk) Newman (Durham York) Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Norton O’Neil Peterson Pope Reed (Halton-Burlington) Rotenberg Ruston Sargent Smith (Simcoe East) Snow Stephenson Sterling Stong Swart Sweeney Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox) Taylor (Simcoe Centre) Turner Villeneuve Warner Welch Wildman Williams -- 68

Bounsall Breaugh Charlton Davidson (Cambridge) di Santo Dukszta Foulds Germa Gigantes Grande Laughren Lupusella Mackenzie Martel McClellan Philip Samis Ziemba -- 18

Ayes 68; nays 18.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might just beg the indulgence of the House for a minute, before we break for supper, to take advantage of our turnout here. I would like permission to table the answers to questions 23 and 24 standing on the notice paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: In accordance with the rules, I would like to discuss next week’s work. The committee work is as outlined on the notice board with respect to estimates and private bills being considered by the justice committee, so perhaps I will just draw attention to Tuesday and Thursday of next week.

We should stand ready on Tuesday, that being legislation day, to deal with bills 60, 61, 62, 65, 25, 40 and 70 -- not necessarily in that order.

On Thursday afternoon, of course, in private members’ business, we have two resolutions to deal with, the resolution standing in the name of the member for York South and the resolution standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

In the evening we have agreed to take into consideration the final report of the select committee on highway safety and, if time still remains, we will go back to budget debate.

With that notice with respect to Tuesday and Thursday, the rest of the week is committee work as generally understood.

The House recessed at 6:03 p.m.