The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CIVIL COURT PILOT PROJECT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I will be introducing for first reading this afternoon the Provincial Court, (Civil Division) Project Act, 1979. The purpose of this bill is to establish in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto a pilot project court where methods of reducing expense and delay in the adjudication of civil action can be implemented on an experimental basis and evaluated.

The pilot project involves the establishment in Toronto of a civil division of the provincial court for a period of three years. This project is proposed for Metropolitan Toronto because that municipality already has most of the resources necessary to handle the case load that will come into the civil division. It is my hope that if the project proves successful it can be extended to other parts of the province.

The newly created civil division will assume all the jurisdiction of the small claims courts in Metropolitan Toronto. In addition, the civil division will have jurisdiction over civil claims up to $3,000. The bill provides that rules may he made to govern procedure in the project court. Although the details of the rules have yet to be worked out, they will be based on a form of simplified procedure where innovative measures may be tried and assessed. Particularly in the pre-trial and pleading stages of a civil action, there is room for new approaches and a more streamlined structure for civil litigation.

An individual will be free to hire a lawyer to represent him in the civil division, but steps will be taken to keep legal fees down and to reduce the overall cost of litigation.

The judges presiding in the civil division will be those small claims court judges appointed by the province who are currently sitting in Metropolitan Toronto. The existing court offices and court staff will be utilized in the project. Some increase in resources will be necessary but, hopefully, the increase will not be great.

The bill establishes an advisory committee to advise and make recommendations on the establishment and operation of the pilot project court and on its practice and procedure. My ministry is committed to making the courts of Ontario more accessible to the average citizen and to providing less expensive and less prolonged methods of settling disputes. A number of initiatives in this direction have already been made, such as the unified family court in Hamilton-Wentworth. These efforts must be continued and expanded.

I am confident that the provincial court (civil division) pilot project will be a significant step in achieving the goals I have outlined and that the experience and insight gained by the project will prove to be invaluable.

OPP TRAINING CENTRE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would like to take this opportunity to announce to the House plans for a new training facility for the Ontario Provincial Police which, fortunately, also allows the government to further rationalize the rehabilitation programs of the Ministry of Correctional Services.

This announcement is of some interest and importance to the citizens of Brampton who have so compassionately assisted the staff of the Ministry of Correctional Services adult training centre in their progressive work with non-violent offenders in that community. As many will be aware, the need for this facility has altered as a result of the ministry’s development of creative community programs and the tendency of the courts to consider methods other than jail for dealing with the non-violent offender.

The Minister of Correctional Services will deal more specifically with some of these changes in the rehabilitation framework and the plans for the staff in snore detail later. The result, however, is that the adult training centre is now redundant as far as the programs of the ministry are concerned and the centre will be vacated on August 31, 1979. At the same time, the Ontario Provincial Police have been seriously searching for quarters more suited to the wide-ranging programs of the Ontario Provincial Police Training and Development Centre presently located in inadequate quarters on Sherbourne Street in the city of Toronto.

The officials of the OPP have examined the 97-acre Brampton site and have concluded that with some modifications it will satisfy the force’s need for expanded training facilities. It is anticipated that the centre will provide accommodation for 150 students and an increased administration staff. It is, therefore, a pleasure for me to announce that the Ontario Provincial Police Training and Development Centre will commence moving from its location on Sherbourne Street on September 1, 1979.

Brampton is an excellent location for the new training centre.

Mrs. Campbell: You are so right.

An hon. member: Tell it to the Premier.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It offers easy access to the force’s general headquarters and to the students who will be attending from across the province in that it is close to Toronto International Airport and highway 401. The site will also facilitate all anticipated expansion needs.

Mr. Sweeney: How can you smile when you are talking about so important a matter?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The new training centre will provide year-round courses to members of the force and will include all academic subjects related to police science as well as motorcycle and physical training instruction. Supervisory and senior management courses will also form an important part of the curriculum and an indoor firearms range and swimming pool will be constructed to instruct force members in the use of police weapons and scuba diving.

An hon. member: Don’t tell Tom Cossitt about the swimming pool.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The OPP training centre programs are not intended to supplant the curriculum offered by the Ontario Police College in Aylmer, Ontario. Rather, they are supplemental and aimed specifically at the needs of members of the Ontario Provincial Police.

Although I am certainly pleased to announce the Ontario Provincial Police will locate in Brampton, I am somewhat saddened at the need to close Brampton Adult Training Centre. This correctional facility opened in 1947 and was the forerunner of many advanced, community-oriented programs for dealing with the young and non-violent .offender.

CLOSURE OF BRAMPTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Correctional Services will co-operate with the Ontario Provincial Police to ensure the smooth transition of Brampton Adult Training Centre from its present use as a minimum security correctional facility to a training and development centre for OPP staff.

Brampton ATC will close its doors as a correctional facility on August 31, 1979. Transfers of inmates to the centre have been terminated. The limited number of inmates who will not have completed their sentences at the centre by the end of August will be transferred to other correctional institutions or community facilities.

All permanent civil servants currently employed at Brampton ATC will be offered alternative employment in the Ontario public service. In the majority of cases it will be possible to place these staff members in vacant positions in other institutions located within reasonable commuting distance of their present homes. In this regard, five other major correctional facilities are situated within a 25-mile radius of Brampton. Commencing today, representatives of the personnel branch of this ministry will be on site to interview all staff members regarding future employment possibilities and to assist them during the transition period.

The phasing out of Brampton ATC is another indication of the progress which has been made by the Ministry of Correctional Services in the development of community-based programs as an alternative to incarceration for well-motivated, non-violent offenders.

When the centre first opened its doors in February 1947 it represented an entirely new concept in the province for dealing with young offenders between the ages of 16 and 24. It was the first correctional facility in the province in which offenders were not under constant supervision. There were no bars on windows and no security fences surrounding the grounds. This situation encouraged inmates to develop a sense of trust in themselves which, in turn, contributed to their positive response to the training and treatment program.

The open setting philosophy of the centre gained wide acceptance in the community to the point where many young inmates began working at gainful employment in the community or attending classes in the community educational facilities. It is certainly worth noting that the temporary absence program which operates in Ontario with a 98 per cent success rate had its beginning in Brampton. The first four inmates to be permitted to attend classes in a community school during the day while completing their sentences at a correctional centre were residents of the Brampton ATC. That was in 1968.

Ironically, it is this very success of the kind of community programming pioneered at the Brampton ATC which has provided the community alternatives that will now permit the phasing out of the Brampton setting as a correctional facility. This new emphasis has included extensive use of community supervision, temporary absences to work or receive academic and vocational training, and the establishment of 34 community resource centres of which all except two are operated by private agencies and individuals for this ministry. In addition, the courts are sentencing more people to perform community service, or, are recommending immediate temporary absences to allow offenders to retain theft jobs in the community.

Thus, the needs of many of the individuals previously classified for Brampton ATC, are being met in the community by CRCs, the House of Concord which is operated by the Salvation Army, or by placing them on parole. Those offenders requiring training in a correctional setting can be accommodated at such facilities as the Maplehurst Adult Training Centre, which has an excellent educational training program.

The success of the Brampton ATC program over its many years of operation can be attributed to two main ingredients: an outstanding and dedicated staff, and a community whose citizens provided acceptance, understanding, and a willingness to become involved in the challenge of assisting offenders. I wish to express my personal appreciation and that of the ministry for the tremendous contribution made by staff of the Brampton ATC to the development of pioneering correctional programs in this province. Certainly the correctional facilities to which these staff will now be reassigned will benefit immensely from the experience and knowledge these employees have to offer.

On behalf of the Ministry of Correctional Services, I would also like to thank the citizens of Brampton for theft valuable support and theft immensely important contributions to the program at this adult training centre over the past 32 years.

Mr. Kerrio: You guys would do anything to save that seat.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I know they will continue to participate in the programs at our two other Brampton facilities next door -- the

Vanier Centre for Women and the Ontario Correctional Institute -- and they can be counted upon to extend the hand of welcome, as well as theft co-operation to the Ontario Provincial Police staff.

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Today I will be introducing a bill which contains a number of amendments to the Municipal Act. Many of these amendments are the result of consultation and requests from municipalities, while others are of a housekeeping nature, designed to improve or clarify certain sections of the present legislation.

I would like to take this opportunity to outline briefly the amendments being introduced today for your consideration. Following the 1978 municipal elections, representatives of several municipalities indicated they would like to be able to administer the municipal oath of allegiance and declaration of office in either French or English.

This bill will authorize the minister to provide all forms required for the purpose of the Municipal Act in a bilingual version. These forms are currently provided in English only. The choice of forms to be used will be left to the discretion of each municipality. Use of the bilingual version will enable a municipality to administer the oath of allegiance and declaration of office in either English or French.

A number of the amendments will expand the authority of municipal councils. Councils will be able to lease or license the use of untravelled portions of highways in areas zoned for residential purposes. They will be authorized to allow municipal sewer inspectors to enter onto private, commercial and industrial property, but not a residence, without a search warrant for the purpose of examining industrial discharge into municipal sewers.

[2:15]

Councils will be authorized to extend the deadline for making the oath of allegiance and the declaration of office for reasons council considers to be valid. The current minimum and maximum fines for leaving a motor vehicle unattended will be repealed, and councils will be able to prescribe fines in amounts not exceeding $1,000.

The existing reward provisions will be expanded to enable municipalities to provide rewards for information leading to the location or return of missing persons or property, and the requirements for the approval of the Minister of Housing for municipal roads of more than 30 metres in width will be deleted.

Several changes will be made to the provisions dealing with financial matters. Councils will be able to set their minimum tax bills at any level up to $10 or another amount prescribed by the minister. This will particularly assist smaller municipalities where the incidence of tax bills for smaller amounts is highest.

The requirement in section 224 that municipalities make public their financial statements will be extended to counties. Councils will be required to deal themselves with applications for tax reductions because of sickness, extreme poverty or reassessment, rather than delegate this responsibility to the assessment review court.

Loans provided to municipalities under the Main Street Revitalization Program and the Ontario Downtown Revitalization Program will be exempted from the requirement for obtaining the assent of the electors. The permissive upper limit for tax penalties will be increased from one per cent to one and one quarter per cent per month. Such a move should avoid financial hardship for municipalities, while encouraging taxpayers to pay their taxes on time.

The bill will authorize a provincial court judge to issue an order to prohibit a person guilty of contravening a bylaw from continuing or repeating such contravention.

In line with a recent amendment to permit municipalities to invest in credit unions, as well as in trust companies and chartered banks, municipalities will be authorized to permit the payment of municipal taxes through credit unions and caisses populaires. At present, such arrangements can only be made with chartered banks, trust companies and the Province of Ontario Savings Offices.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Niagara Falls on a possible point of privilege.

DIOXIN IN FISH

Mr. Kerrio: Some weeks ago, I made reference to the fact there was enough dioxin in dumpsites in Niagara Falls, New York, to poison the population of North America. That statement was erroneous and I wish to correct it.

The minister then referred to the amounts that are dangerous as a shot of vermouth in a 28 million ton martini. Now I would like to read into the record the correction:

Dioxin is in the same megapoison category as botulism and shellfish toxin. With up to 2,130 known pounds in dumpsites used in the 1960s by Hooker Chemical Company, there is enough within leaching range of Lake Ontario to wipe out the world. US authorities, however, are now actively working to contain or, where possible, to remove them.

Though parts per trillion sounds harmless, dioxin in five parts per trillion is known to cause cancer in test rodents and such microscopic measurements are destined to join nuclear rems in the lexicon of a pollution-conscious public.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment would like to add something further by way of correcting the record.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I really don’t think the member opposite had any disagreement with anything I was saying. The reference to various illustrations of parts per trillion was an illustration to bring to the attention of everyone the very, very small portions that can do harm. At no time did the member or myself disagree with the infinitesimally small parts of dioxin that can be harmful.

Mr. Mancini: Changed your tune now, eh?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the member’s privilege was one of disagreement with myself as much as he wanted to correct the record and on that we agree.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order or a point of privilege that I, as chairman of the select committee on Hydro affairs, want to raise with you and through you, with the House. A rather strange situation has developed. Normally it is handled by the House leaders but in this instance it has been frustrated by the House leaders.

Last Thursday, you will recall, I brought in a report -- no, it was during your absence so you will not recall. I brought in a report from the select committee, as a result of a resolution passed the previous day by a majority in the committee, requesting the House to endorse the proposal the Rolphton plant should not be put back in operation -- it is now down for maintenance -- until the committee had an opportunity to explore that great and growing concern with regard to nuclear safety.

At the House leaders’ meeting on Monday, when the acting House leader, in the absence of Honourable Mr. Welch, was there, the argument was made that since the business for this week had been decided and announced last Thursday, there could be no change in that business -- an argument, Mr. Speaker, I think you will regard as being not wholly accurate, since we have changed business to conform with the needs or the requirements of the government, or sometimes the opposition, many times.

The situation is this station is going to come back into operation at the end of this month, which is the end of this week. Therefore, a debate on that motion from a majority of the committee is meaningful only if it takes place before the end of this week. It could be scheduled on Thursday, but the acting government House leader has blocked it. It seems to me, as the chairman of a committee having brought back a report from a majority of that committee, I have an obligation to draw to your attention and to the attention of the whole House that an opportunity to debate that whole matter has been frustrated by the position taken by the acting government House leader at Monday’s meeting.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, many times business has been changed from what is a tentative scheduling of business for the coming week, when new circumstances arise. Thursday night of this week, when we may have time to go back to budget debate, I am told, after two or three relatively inconsequential bills, would be the appropriate time to debate this resolution. Otherwise, it becomes a meaningless debate.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, if I may attempt to be of some assistance to you as you consider this matter, you might recognize that members of our party on the select committee wished to have the Rolphton matter dealt with as follows: We felt the station should remain closed until the safety matters had been looked into by the select committee. We furthermore felt the logical thing to do was to take advantage of the fact it was down for maintenance and have the select committee immediately seize the matter of the Rolphton referral and bring in those witnesses pertinent to the matter so they could understand as quickly as possible whether or not the safe operation of that reactor should be re-undertaken.

Interestingly enough, the votes of the other two parties on that committee rendered the following situation the case: They accepted that the Rolphton reactor should remain down until the matter was looked at, but then turned around and refused to look at it until the month of July. That to me is utterly nonsensical. The committee should have looked at it then. They should have taken the earliest opportunity to look at it. Why the members of the other two parties decided not to remains to this day a mystery to myself. I would suggest that rather than take the time of the House to debate Rolphton, the committee should immediately sit down and look at that precise reference, which is what we wanted in the first place.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, just to put the sequence of events in perspective for the House, as the member for York South has pointed out, the committee did meet last Wednesday. After hearing a petition and some other information brought before the committee by the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes), and then after a very short discussion -- an hour or an hour and a half -- they decided to vote on the resolution before it.

Subsequently, in the ordinary course, the House leaders met on Thursday at noon to conclude and agree upon, as is always the case, the order of business for the following week, which is this week. At that time, the matter was not only not agreed upon, but not even raised by any of the House leaders present; that is a full 24 hours after the committee had passed the resolution. There was also no secret at that time about the intended reopening of the plant in question.

Subsequent to that, at two o’clock last Thursday after the House business had been agreed upon for this week, my colleague, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld), rose in this House and set out the definitive government position upon the situation with regard to that plant which, I would remind the House, is a fairly complete statement. It indicates, as far as the ministry is concerned and, I believe, so far as the Atomic Energy Control Board is concerned, that there is no problem with the reopening of that plant.

At six o’clock last Thursday, the government House leader rose, as he always does, to read out the agreed-upon order of business for this coming week. At that time, almost a day and a half after the committee had met and dealt with the issue, the matter had still not been raised.

What I indicated at the meeting yesterday was that there really was no managerial change in the circumstances from the time the resolution was dealt with by the committee last Wednesday until yesterday, which would bring the statement of the minister of last Thursday into any doubt whatsoever. It goes without saying that the committee is free to meet at any time to deal with the various matters it wants to deal with regarding this plant. At any time it wishes to do so, it is so authorized.

The plant will continue to undergo ordinary maintenance -- I emphasize this point -- and reopen in the ordinary course in accordance with AECB's permission and the approval of Ontario Hydro which operates that plant If, at any time, the committee wants to meet and pass its own judgement on whether the plant is a safe one, then so be it.

Ms. Gigantes: I have a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We could continue this all day. Is it in connection with the one raised by the member for York South?

Ms. Gigantes: Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear you.

Ms. Gigantes: Last week in the press the leader of the Liberal Party was quoted as saying that the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs had voted no -- in other words, the NDP and the Conservatives had joined and voted against having immediate hearings. He has repeated that today in the House, and that is incorrect. There was no such motion.

I put one motion after discussion, Mr. Speaker. I feel obliged to bring it to your attention, as it is very important. There was one motion after discussion. It was discussed, and it was the motion which came out of the select committee. I call upon the leader of the Liberal Party to withdraw that incorrect statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is obviously a difference of opinion or a difference of interpretation as to what transpired in the meeting.

Mr. Mackenzie: It’s a question of the truth.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The purpose of the member for York South in rising was to seek my intervention with regard to the ordering of the business of this House. I want to remind him and all other members that it is not the responsibility of the chair to order the business of this House or the committees of the House, which are creatures of the House. The ordering of business is the responsibility of the government House leader in consultation with the other two House leaders.

Following on the sequence of events as they unfolded, as related by the acting House leader, you wouldn’t want the chair to be forcing its position on the ordering of the business of this House or its committees. It must be resolved by the proper authorities. There is nothing I can do about it.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order with regard to an inaccuracy in the statement of the acting government House leader.

Mr. Speaker: In any event, I have heard the position of spokesmen for all three parties. I want members to appreciate that it is not the responsibility of the chair to order the business of this House. That must be done by other people who are well known to you.

Mr. J. Reed: I have a point of privilege to correct the record, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear it briefly.

Mr J. Reed: The acting, government House leader suggested that the information concerning the Rolphton matter had been brought to the select committee by someone other than myself. I should like it to go on the record that I, on behalf of my party, was responsible for bringing that information to the select committee.

[2:30]

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a new point of order with regard to an inaccuracy in the statement of the acting government House leader.

Mr. Speaker: An inaccuracy really doesn’t offend the privileges of the member unless he or she is personally affected. If this is the case, I’ll hear it.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, you have stated that if there’s an inaccuracy and one wants it corrected, one should do it on a point of order immediately it’s been said.

I brought in a report at three o’clock on Thursday afternoon last week. That indicated a desire on the part of the majority of the committee for a debate. The business of the House wasn’t announced by the government House leader until six o’clock.

Our procedure is that reports from committees are dealt with on the following Thursday evening. That is a standard procedure we’ve been following for some time. Therefore, for the acting government House leader to say they hadn’t been informed and that I didn’t rise and raise the matter is a gross misrepresentation of the situation.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously, the member is asking the chair to intervene or to rectify something that is beyond his power to do so.

Mr. MacDonald: No, I am just correcting the record.

Mr. Speaker: I think the member knows the avenues he has available to him if he wishes to prevail upon the House leaders to change the order of business.

Mr. Martel: But he was misleading.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the intervention of the member for Carleton East with regard to her matter of privilege, because her privileges are involved here, if I might, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Very briefly.

Mr. S. Smith: The member for Carleton East pointed out that in fact there was not a vote on the question of whether the Rolphton matter was to be taken up immediately.

Mr. Mackenzie: Why don’t you get the facts straight, for once?

Ms. Gigantes: Why don’t you read the Hansard?

Mr. S. Smith: I may say there was neither a motion nor a vote. She is correct in this. But the Liberal member, the member for Halton-Burlington, representing our party, sought the agreement of the other two parties to have the matter dealt with expeditiously and immediately --

Mr. MacDonald: Why don’t you move it?

Mr. S. Smith: -- and such agreement was refused by the other two parties. Let that be on the record.

Mr. Mackenzie: You haven’t the courage of your convictions. Twisting the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. S. Smith: Read the Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: All honourable members of all parties know what their terms of reference are with regard to select or standing committees of this House. If their will is frustrated in the committee they can’t seek recourse by coming and asking me to intervene.

That ends the matter. It’s beyond the purview of the chair. It must be resolved either in committee or through consultation between the House leaders. That’s the end of the matter.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I want to draw to the attention of all honourable members that we have two very important guests in our gallery, as guests of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld). They are the Honourable W. F. Birch, Minister of Energy, National Development, Science and Technology, for New Zealand, and Mr. Philip Harland, the Consul General of New Zealand.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RADIATION FROM X-RAYS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Health. The minister has said that people of Ontario should always accept X-rays rather than refuse them and run the risk of a poor or improper diagnosis. I would like to ask the minister what he would advise, as Minister of Health, for those people who are subjected to routine back X-rays for the purpose of being accepted into employment or for the purpose of continuing in employment.

Is the minister familiar with the procedure whereby applicants for a job, if the job involves lifting, are sent for routine back X-rays, even if they have no symptoms to indicate back problems, and are told that without an X-ray of this kind they will not be hired. The ostensible reason is to reduce compensation claims, and so on and so forth.

Should citizens be forced to take X-rays as a condition of employment? Should they take those X-rays, even if there is no indication of illness from the clinical examination?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I want a few days to consider that and discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), as it pertains to employment standards and the rights of labour in employment application situations.

I’m not familiar with that type of situation. If the member has details of any specific company or a particular type of industry where it’s come to his attention that this is happening I would appreciate having that information. It would help in my discussions with my colleague.

As regards diagnostic radiology, that of course is a clinical decision, as the member knows; it is for a physician, a dentist, a chiropractor or whomever to decide, using his best judgement, what is in the interests of the patient.

Mr. S. Smith: I would certainly appreciate it if the minister would confer with the Minister of Labour and report to this House, since it appears to be a common practice that people are asked to undergo these X-rays as a routine before taking heavy jobs.

Since the minister has just mentioned again the question of chiropractic X-rays, is he now prepared, upon reflection, to state to the people of Ontario that they should accept or refuse the full-length X-rays which are frequently recommended by chiropractors? If he recommends acceptance, will he tell us what the risk is to the patient of not accepting it? Will he also compare that to what the radiation dose is? Could he give us the latest figures in his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I had some figures with me a few days ago, as a matter of fact, on a comparison of exposures of typical radiological views in chiropractors’ offices and hospitals. I am sorry; I have misplaced them, but I will find them in a couple of days. Again, however, that is a clinical decision of a person registered under the laws of Ontario, under the Drugless Practitioners Act, and it is one which he makes in the best interests of the patient in his office.

Mr. S. Smith: They should accept?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I do not for a moment -- nor would I countenance an X-ray for the sake of an X-ray. But if I am with my doctor, or with whomever --

Mr. S. Smith: Or with a chiropractor.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and he recommends it as part of my diagnosis, then I will accept it.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Since it is now more than two weeks since the minister indicated he was prepared to offer more funds to Dr. Taylor’s group in the task force that was designed to reduce the dangers of excessive radiation through X-rays, can the minister report whether his ministry has concluded discussions with Dr. Taylor’s task force, how much extra money is being given to that task force and by how much time their program of work is to be shortened as a result?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in meetings with Drs. Hobbs, Taylor and Johns, I indicated to them that, if they were to submit a proposal for a program that would accelerate the development of these radiological standards and improvements in the delivery of radiological services, we would be prepared to fund it. To date, they have not submitted such a proposal. But we still stand ready to do that; in fact, we are in regular contact -- indeed, I would say daily contact -- with this group, because it is important that we know what they are doing at every step along the way and that, likewise, they know the day-to-day activities of our branch.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: I would like to ask the Minister of Health what he thinks of the ethics involved when an applicant signs a form giving a company the right to look at his medical records and submits to an X-ray examination, the results of which are then compared to X-rays that are on file in a hospital. Would he care to comment on what he thinks of the ethics of that situation?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that falls within the ambit of the original question on the apparent practice -- of which I had not been aware until today -- of some employers to ask for, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, an X-ray. It seems to me that falls within the ambit of what I want to discuss with the Minister of Labour. As well, it seems to me that is the sort of thing that the royal commission, under Mr. Justice Krever, is examining as part of the whole question of access to medical information.

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker. Since he is undoubtedly aware that Interflow and K-D Enterprises, against whom he has laid something like 138 charges, is now succeeded by a company which is essentially the same but with a new name -- namely, Frontenac -- can the minister explain why Frontenac appears to have the approval of the ministry in setting up a transfer station in Welland, the apparent aim of which will be to blend various liquid wastes and to then ship them for burning in Mississauga? Why would the minister be interested in continuing to expand the operations of this particular firm, given its pitiful record in Hamilton and the fact these charges are still pending; and how does he think he can establish such a transfer station in Welland without an environmental assessment hearing?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t think the latter is necessarily so, although I’m not sure of that, Mr. Speaker.

I think one of the things we have come to realize is that regardless of how we treat our PCB material here in Ontario we are going to need some transfer of waste from municipalities, perhaps even across the border both ways -- I want to make that very clear: both ways, both coming in and going out -- so we have the proper mix of material in order to destroy it adequately. I am informed that you just don’t take pure PCB material and burn it; you need an adequate mix. Of course, as the member knows, right now there is a more fantastic dilution than anything that has ever been done before. I think the dilution at the moment is one gallon to 5000 gallons. But always. I am told, you need to dilute materials like PCBs in order to incinerate them.

Mr. S. Smith: Perhaps the first question was excessively lengthy and complex, but part of it was not answered. Does the minister intend to have an environmental assessment hearing of some kind prior to the establishment of this transfer station in Welland?

Is he saying the reason we have a possibility of PCB-contaminated material being imported from New York for waste disposal is we don’t have enough oil here to burn our own PCBs? Is that why we have to import PCB-contaminated oil from New York? What is the reason we have to import PCB-contaminated material from New York, as reported in the New York Times of Sunday, May 20? It says waste oil from Queens, New York, will be coming all the way up to a cement kiln near Toronto and incinerated, obviously referring to the St. Lawrence Cement situation. What is the reason we have to import the stuff?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t think I ever said we needed to import PCB-laden material. I said that to burn PCB-laden material we may very well need to import other oils and chemicals because it’s extremely important to have the proper mixture to destroy the material completely, 100 per cent.

If it’s going to be a permanent station, yes, there will be a hearing. I think we made that very clear some time ago. If the station is to be there on an interim basis, there may not be a hearing.

The experience at Smithville gave us very clear indication so we are not going to talk of transfer stations as something that would allow a continuous storage operation. A transfer station, from my point of view, is one where the material is in today and out tomorrow. Normally, with liquid wastes that isn’t the way it is; it’s on a continuing basis. Therefore, a public hearing will be held. We have had that policy for some time.

Mr. S. Smith: If I may ask one more supplementary, Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence: Would the minister explain why he is still doing business on an expanded basis with the Interflow and K-D people operating under a new name while the other charges are still pending? Can he explain why any kind of transfer station which will be blending fuel, however transient the station may be -- although one has serious doubts about that -- should be established in Welland without a proper hearing?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I didn’t say that at all. I’m sorry, but the Leader of the Opposition is twisting that a little bit. I think while the charges are before the courts we have to respect that aspect of it. I think we also have to respect the fact that if a company makes a significant change, it is legitimate that they be permitted to continue in business with new personnel.

Mr. S. Smith: There is one new person. They are the same people, one person is new.

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think the member would agree there has been a very significant change in that company. I am not going to stand here today and defend the company, not at all; that isn’t my duty nor my responsibility. But I think the member should be aware there has been a significant change in the management aspect of the company. Whether or not be accepts that, the fact remains it is so.

Mr. S. Smith: One guy from New York.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Quite a new management team has been put into place, one from the States which had a good deal of experience in this particular subject matter. We will deal with this company on the basis of the evidence we have presented and that we can obtain. We will not prejudge a company and say because it has once been in conflict of our orders it will forever be banned from business. That would mean the many convictions we have had in the province would forever put out of business all of those companies. This would hardly be a fair and equitable way of dealing with the law.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Energy arising out of the report we had on the radiation incident at the Bruce nuclear plant and the report which was received yesterday.

Since that report confirms evidence which was before the select committee a week or two earlier, can the minister explain why it is neither of the two workmen who received excess doses of radiation, both came from the Bruce heavy water plant, had any training in handling this kind of radiation situation in which they were working, and that even the workers with green qualifications who were meant to be supervising these two mechanical maintainers did not have training that included the radiological safety aspect of incidents with damage to irradiated fuel?

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, I can’t, but I would assume that is one of the questions that will be addressed tomorrow when the committee is dealing with the report.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: What credibility should we put in the ministry’s claims about the safety of Ontario nuclear power plants in view of the fact this report contains a summary with two and a half pages itemizing the failure of Ontario Hydro to protect the safety of the workers who work in a radiation environment?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think all these reports were tabled, as I understand it. The question of safety at the Bruce plant is one the select committee is looking into.

It would seem to me from reading the report that Hydro is aware and is carrying out the recommendations that were made about further training and further equipment, communications and so on. I assume the select committee is going to be inquiring further into whether the plans of Hydro are adequate or not.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact there have been many reports in the United States about the problem of human error jeopardizing safety or security at nuclear power plants; and in view of the fact the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning had a study last year which said essentially the same thing and warned of the problems of operator error or human error in nuclear power plants, can the minister say why it is that Hydro was not taking action in order to eliminate this many errors and problems in its safety procedures for cleaning up a radioactive accident? Can the minister say now how we can put credibility in Hydro’s attempts to say that it is going to be safe from here on in?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think it has been said before by Hydro, by myself and by my predecessors as Minister of Energy that the operation of the nuclear plants is one of constant postulating of incidents, of changing procedures, improving procedures and improving equipment. I would imagine that will continue forever because people are not perfect. I think the system they have adopted must be, compared to elsewhere, a pretty good one, inasmuch as they have an extremely fine safety record.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. On April 30, the Minister of Natural Resources told the Ontario Mining Association that effective last year the cabinet had implemented an overall policy of accountability to require an evaluation of the economic impact of all new proposals. He said that the cabinet is going to be required to know whether any new program duplicates existing programs and the impact on jobs, on investments, on the private sector and on the civil service.

Can the minister confirm whether it is the government’s policy to do economic impact analyses on new programs in legislation, and will he undertake to table those documents in this House?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The ministries are requested to submit economic impact analyses when they are introducing legislation. I think that the tabling of those should be up to each individual minister, if he or she so desires.

Mr. Cassidy: If I can direct this to the Chairman of Management Board, since he is the person who apparently sees these impact analyses, can the minister tell the House if the government has done formal economic impact analyses on the abolishing of succession duties, the connected increase in OHIP premiums or on individual grants under the Employment Development Fund, and will the minister undertake to see that those documents are tabled in the House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can tell you the answer to all three without any doubt, and it will be totally contrary to what you people want it to be. It is in the budget.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been directed to the Chairman of Management Board.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It has indeed.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The items to which the leader of the third party refers are budget items. No, we did not have economic impact analyses of those prior to the budget.

Mr. Makarchuk: What did you do? Use a dart board?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes. It has your picture on it.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister say then how is the government planning on major fiscal measures if economic impact analyses are not being done on those particular programs? On those programs where economic impact is being analysed, can the minister explain how is this Legislature meant to deal in a reasonable, informed kind of way, if those analyses, saying what the effect will be on taxes, on investment and on jobs, are not make available both to members of this Legislature and to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The leader of the third party should be able to dream up his own questions. That very subject was the subject of quite a fine bill that the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) introduced last week in private members’ business. At that time, I gave an extensive answer to the very points that the honourable member is raising.

FOOD PRICES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, following the information received in report number one of the food price monitoring program. Is the minister aware that the statistics showing the results of price changes in the major cities of southern Ontario all show that the Toronto market had higher prices?

Since Toronto is a much larger market and in all probability should have lower prices generally, can the minister explain how the review board conclusion was received by the ministry and if the ministry is looking into the reasons behind that apparent shift of expectations of prices?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would have expected that because of the scope of the market the Toronto prices would be lower. The interesting thing is that increased competition in the markets other than Toronto are the reasons for the lowered prices. In addition, there is also the fact that prices in Sudbury are much lower. I think that is a direct result of the fact that stores have really chopped to the borderline because of the prolonged labour dispute which has cut down purchasing power in the area.

Mr. Breithaupt: In any review which the minister may make of the monitoring going on under this program, is be aware there is still a problem with respect to metric conversion? There are some price differentials resulting where quantity may have decreased even though the price may not have increased for the same product. Has there been any review of metric conversion to determine whether that decrease in size of packaging might have an effect on the price monitoring program which he is undertaking?

Hon. Mr. Drea: We are in constant consultation with the federal government. The federal government has assumed the role of monitoring the changeover to metric specifications, both liquid and solid, to make sure there is no price increase just because of the different containers.

Let’s go back to Carnation milk. Carnation milk maintained its unit price so therefore it dropped its total price when the smaller metric can was used. That can now is back to the same price as the former large can because the federal government increased its support price for milk products. So the two aren’t necessarily a price increase. One was done fairly within the metric situation. The other one was a change in federal government support prices.

Some weeks ago I was told there would be hundreds of metric complaints forwarded to me here by just one member of the third party. Since then I have received five. None was from that member. All have gone to the federal government and in no case was there really a price increase dictated by the switch from North America standards to metric.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Would the minister tell us if he’s doing any follow-up where he finds there is an unreasonable price increase or where there’s a wide discrepancy between prices in one area compared to another? There is an example in beef, which is about 60 cents a pound more in Ottawa than it is in Toronto. Is the minister notifying the companies of his displeasure when he finds unjustified increases and asking why there are these discrepancies?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, my people quite often talk not only to the retailer, but to wholesalers, to processors and, indeed, in the case of a farm product like beef, to the cattlemen’s association. As a matter of fact, the cattlemen’s association is a very good provider of information on just exactly what is happening today, what’s likely to happen tomorrow and next week.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) I would like to ask the Premier why his government is forcing yet another Windsor hospital to go through court procedure to secure adequate resources to meet health-care needs in my community? Further, I would like to ask why he is doing this in view of the fact that Dr. Fry, Dr. Echlin, Dr. Lee and Dr. Baryluk, all doctors on staff at Metropolitan Hospital, have clearly indicated in affidavits that the needs of that hospital and health-care needs are not being met because of cutbacks in budget and closing of beds.

Why is the Premier forcing them to go through the court process? Why doesn’t the Premier come to terms with the problem on his own?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t get the last part of the question but dealing with the first part, I will be delighted to find out that information for the honourable member from the Minister of Health,

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, on this very important issue, which surprisingly enough he has absolutely no facts on, maybe the Premier would also find out why yesterday in the social development committee the Minister of Health stated there would not be a closure of beds, simply a conversion of beds in Ontario, yet in Windsor 109 active treatment beds are being closed and only 85 chronic care beds are being opened. This gives a net loss of 24 beds as of April 1 this year.

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Davis: With respect, I really think that is the kind of question that should be discussed during the estimates, but in that the member wants this information or further explanation --

Mr. McClellan: If he would stick around we could ask him.

Mr. Breaugh: He keeps running away.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, if the member for Oshawa wants to ask a supplementary question, I have never sensed that the Minister of Health would run away from him in any physical or mental sense, I have to tell the member --

Mr. Breaugh: He ran away yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and there is no reason on earth why he would ever need to. If there is one member over there who wouldn’t inhibit me it would be the member for Oshawa in the health field. I say that with kindness.

I will get the answer for the honourable member if he doesn’t get it during the estimates.

Mr. B. Newman: May I ask the Premier if he is aware that the establishment of the burn unit at Metropolitan Hospital took over facilities or space that meant approximately 16 beds were eliminated; and also that they do have a cancer unit, which means that unit can no longer be used for emergency eases; and that approximately 40 per cent of the emergency cases in the city of Windsor use the facilities of Metropolitan Hospital and, as a result, would the Premier not reconsider the bed allocation for that hospital?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am only going by memory, and I am sure the member for Windsor-Walkerville has a better recollection than myself, but I think that the health council within that great community had some part in making these determinations. Knowing the support the member for Windsor-Walkerville has always publicly given to the health council in that community, as he does so many other public-spirited bodies, I don’t think he would want to contradict the recommendations they have made.

Mr. Cooke: Your government set the ratios.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Surely the member for Windsor-Walkerville would expect us to accept their recommendations, because I sense that that was the origin of this particular decision. If that assumption is in error, and I will check it with the Minister of Health, then I am sure he would be quite prepared to discuss it further with the member.

DIOXIN IN FISH

Mr. Kennedy: This is in respect to the first question of privilege raised by the member for Niagara Falls. We couldn’t hear down here. I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment, did the member provide the source of the statistics and the information which he read into the record in allegedly correcting an earlier point of privilege or statement that he had made?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: In answer to the honourable member, if he did, I didn’t hear it. I have no doubt that the member for Niagara Falls will tell us whether that was a scientific journal or a news magazine. I don’t know what it was. Perhaps you would give him that privilege now, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Playboy.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Hush. Flash.

Mr. Speaker: If the member for Niagara Falls wants to volunteer that information, I will allow him to do that.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will enjoy getting into the habit of answering questions; I think we should do that.

Mr. Speaker: Just the source, please.

Mr. Kerrio: Yes. The information that I read into the record was taken from this month’s Maclean’s, and --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Will the honourable member please table that document?

Mr. Kerrio: I really understand what it feels like over there now, I really do.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very full and complete response. Thank you. That is the way all questions should be answered.

ABITIBI PROSECUTION

Mr. Gaunt: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment, in regard to the province’s prosecution of Abitibi Paper Company Limited over pollution by its Iroquois Falls paper mill, which has now been halted by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Why did the ministry officials privately, in correspondence, lead Abitibi engineers to presume that it would not be prosecuted provided it completed its improvement program, and then publicly turn around and lay 22 charges under the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources

Act, which prosecution, in the words of the provincial court judge, was “an abuse of the court process”?

Mr. Roy: Oh, shame, shame.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I appreciate having had some alert to this. I believe it was in 1976 -- some time ago -- when that correspondence took place. Then the appeals and counter-appeals took place. We won one and we lost one. At the moment, I understand, we are contemplating whether to go to the Supreme Court of Canada on that particular issue.

Mr. Gaunt: The charges were laid two years ago.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That’s right. We have had an appeal and we won the appeal. They appealed that decision and won it. It is now up to us to decide whether or not to take it to the Supreme Court of Canada. We haven’t made that decision yet.

Mr. Warner: Shades of Dow Chemical.

Mr. Roy: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: As to why that was in the correspondence, I can only look at that correspondence of some two or three years ago, and I am prepared to do so.

Mr. Roy: It sounds like another Dow Chemical.

Mr. Gaunt: The minister really hasn’t answered my question, but let me pose a supplementary. Since this is another example of what appears to be an emerging pattern -- we can think of Reed, Dow, and now Abitibi -- where the ministry says one thing privately and then does another publicly, when is the ministry going to develop some consistency in making the polluter pay, and why hasn’t the ministry brought in a system of automatic fines in a number of cases of non-compliance with control orders?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think if I have ever heard a misnomer, it is “an automatic fine.” I really do believe that for automatic fines to apply, if there is such a possibility, first of all, one has to be sure one has monitored the situation correctly and accurately. That has to be proven. That isn’t exactly an automatic fine. It is another illustration of where one has to make one’s ease. So there is no easy way of assessing an industry just by reading the meter. That just doesn’t work. I think that should be on the record.

Mr. Warner: You paint yourself into a corner.

Mr. Roy: Why is the minister not consistent?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am glad the member reminded me of that and I thank him. I think we are very consistent. The truth of the matter is that many of the prosecutions --

Mr. Roy: The minister is consistent in his inconsistency.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If the member will be quiet for a second --

Mr. Speaker: Why does the member for Ottawa East have to be so consistent in his interruptions?

Mr. Roy: You don’t want me to embarrass him, do you?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Not as much as the honourable member is embarrassing himself.

One of the things we are considering in our ministry is how much we should brag about our prosecutions. If memory serves me correctly, in the last nine months between 30 and 50 charges have been laid, many of which have been successfully prosecuted. We don’t, as a matter of policy -- and there are valid reasons for this in law -- go out and tell the world about what we are going to do relative to charges and how successful we are in the prosecutions. There is some denial of natural justice in so doing.

Perhaps that does in a political sense and a policy sense make it somewhat difficult for the members of the opposition who are genuinely interested in this issue -- not necessarily the member for Ottawa East, but I am sure the member for Huron-Bruce -- to know of our record in this regard. I would be more than pleased to supply members with those numbers of charges that have been laid, say, in the last six months.

Mr. Warner: And how much the fines were.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think members would be impressed, not only with the quantity but with the quality and the broad cross-section of people who were brought to the courts to answer for their misdemeanours, relative to the concerns of the environment.

Mr. Samis: Were they even fined? Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think our enforcement policy is far better than perhaps the public is now aware. That concerns me a great deal. To make it better, we are going to have to appear to be bragging about prosecuting, not just the big offenders, because that offends my sense of natural justice, but we have to put the whole record here for members to see, from the very large corporations of this province to individuals.

Mr. Samis: Hawkesbury is a great example.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That record is there. If members would like it, I would be glad to supply it. It is a very consistent record and members would be impressed by it if they saw it.

ELECTRICAL IMPORTS

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the fact that we import 55 per cent of Canadian purchases of electronic goods and 28 per cent of the consumption of electrical products; and in view of the fact that annual imports of electrical goods alone, amounting to $2.3 billion, are costing the people of Ontario approximately 52,000 direct jobs and about 150,000 jobs if one considers the spinoff job effect, will the minister tell us if he has received the report of the task force on the industry which he set up last year and, if so, if that task force report recommends the urgency of a program of import replacement?

Will the minister also tell us when he will release to the House the foil recommendations of that task force report and begin a serious program of import replacement in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I indicated during estimates, I am expecting that report in June. Soon after I get it, I will make it available, as I indicated in estimates, to the members of the House and to the public at large. Obviously, we will be responding to the recommendations of that task force.

I should also add that any study of our “shop Canadian” program will indicate that this government above all governments in this province was first into the “shop Canadian” program. It was our idea.

Mr. M. N. Davison: There is only one government in this province.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A major component of the “shop Canadian” program is import replacement.

Mr. Laughren: The minister has a funny way of showing his concern when it comes to this industry by the time he is taking to respond to the need there.

Since the minister promised yesterday he would carefully monitor foreign direct investment in the fruit and vegetable canning industry in order to make sure that decision-making and ownership remained in this province in that particular industry, will he make the same commitment for the electrical industry, which is already 65 per cent foreign-owned? Will he assure us that he will reject any applications that will lead to increased foreign ownership of this industry, which is of critical importance to Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can assure the member on the first count. Of course, we always carefully monitor all the Foreign Investment Review Agency applications with a view to the best interests of our province.

Mr. Laughren: You agree with them all.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On the second count, I think it is overly simplistic to pretend that all applications should be either approved or rejected.

Mr. Laughren: You don’t care about jobs.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no question about the fact that the member’s party takes a philosophical position that all FIRA applications, whether they create a lot of employment or not, ought to be turned down.

Mr. Laughren: It’s costing us jobs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If we followed what you fellows think, there wouldn’t be any jobs.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Our party, and I think most parties that think about it for a moment, will agree that one can’t prejudge all FIRA applications. Obviously there are other tradeoffs to be concerned about.

Mr. Laughren: We’re talking about 150,000 jobs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You would stop the world.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: For example, I want to make it quite clear to the member that if we got an application from a large firm in the electronics industry which would create a lot of long-term jobs with local decision-making and a sufficient degree of innovation so that we would have some assurance that the job flow out of that industry would stop, then the member is quite right, this government would look quite happily and positively upon that long-term, job-creating application.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member’s party, obviously, would say if it’s job-creating but foreign-owned, it doesn’t want it. We take a different position.

ALCOHOLISM TREATMENT

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have an answer to a question which was directed by the member for Ottawa Centre to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) on Friday, May 25, relating to the matter of halfway houses for the treatment of alcoholics across the province.

I would indicate, initially, that six years ago the Ministry of Community and Social Services was funding three halfway houses for persons with alcoholic problems across the province. Today we are funding some 25 halfway houses in Ontario, from Windsor to Kenora and Cornwall, for a total of 492 beds. I believe this is an indication of the seriousness with which the ministry has attempted to address the problem.

[3:15]

In Ottawa, we are already funding two halfway houses, the 20-bed Maison Fraternité and the 11-bed Serenity House. In Renfrew, we’re funding the 20-bed MacKay Manor. In Merrickville, we fund the 15-bed Buena Vista-on-the-Rideau, and in Cornwall, the 16-bed Friendship House. Those are the eastern Ontario ones at the present time.

Our approach, I believe, has been a very co-operative one with the Ministry of Health. Most of the halfway houses funded by the ministry would not have been funded if it had not been for the Ministry of Health’s seed funding, through their grants in aid committee, over a period of several years.

Funding by my ministry under the Charitable Institutions Act is 80 per cent, with the corporation having to raise an additional 20 per cent. We are funding 25 halfway house beds for women at the present time. As the honourable member noted in one of his questions, there are 17 beds in Grant House in Beaverton and eight beds in Pedahbun Lodge in Toronto.

We’re not funding more beds for women at the moment because during the four-year period when we had open funding, we didn’t receive further proposals for women, although they were welcomed during that period of time.

The above commitments do not count the literally hundreds of hostel beds which the ministry is also funding in which basic food and shelter and a comfortable environment is provided for persons with alcoholic problems. Moreover, we are finding that many of the halfway houses, on theft own initiative, are now developing financially self-sufficient room and board operations at no cost to government for alcoholics who have completed detoxification and the first stage of rehabilitation at the halfway house. By stretching out the time frame for the alcoholic person, there are now indications the rehabilitative results are significantly improving in some of those operations.

I would suggest to the honourable member with respect to his particular interest in the Amethyst Women’s Addiction Centre, he might encourage them to approach, through the municipality, the matter of funding under the hostel program. Although there is no funding at the moment for additional halfway houses, I would certainly be willing to look at any proposal that requested funding under the hostel program for that portion of theft program.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has admitted there is in fact, almost no halfway house accommodation for women alcoholics who are seeking rehabilitation, can he explain how it is that programs being shunted off and told to function like hostels are in fact going to work in a rehabilitative way, since the funding for hostels is really only enough to cover the room and board component and certainly not enough to cover any further services that may be necessary, such as counselling and those kinds of things to help alcoholics, female or male, get out of their sickness and get themselves better?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the perspective on that differs depending on who one discusses it with. I would point out to the honourable member there are a number of programs that appear to be operating with considerable success, at least relatively so.

I must say none of the programs being operated are spectacular in their results, as I’m sure the honourable member understands, as a result of the very nature of the condition that’s being dealt with.

I would point out there are a number of programs functioning quite well across this province under the hostel funding arrangement. Perhaps the honourable member might suggest to Amethyst House they re-examine some of their program proposals with respect to the cost implications to see if they could fit in with the other funding arrangements.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Ms. Gigantes: I have a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Could it wait until after question period?

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to do it right now, Mr. Speaker. I would like to get it on the record right now, while the leader of the Liberal Party is still in the House.

Earlier, the leader of the Liberal Party asserted that the NDP members on the committee had insisted that any investigation by the committee of the Rolphton nuclear plant and its safety should be held off until July.

I have obtained a copy of the Hansard report of that committee meeting, Mr. Speaker, and, for your benefit, I would like to read exactly what I said in discussing the matter.

Mr. S. Smith: Read what all the members said.

Ms. Gigantes: “We have a very special responsibility in Ontario to look at the public safety aspects of nuclear power and the Candu program. I agree totally with Alan” -- Alan Schwartz, our legal counsel -- “that to begin hearings on Rolphton tomorrow would amount to having the lawyers, perhaps, and the petitioners involved in the Rolphton action come before us and present their case. It would involve having Hydro and the AECB come into present their cases.”

Mr. Speaker: Order. What the honourable member is saying is that there is a difference of opinion or interpretation as to what transpired in the committee. That is quite legitimate. But I do not think it is a legitimate way of using the time of the question period in this House. There is nothing out of order. There is a difference of opinion. I do not think any of the member’s privileges have been abrogated, and I do not see any legitimate point of order or point of privilege.

Mr. Warner: He can twist and distort all he likes.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

STRIKES

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Would he report to this Legislature on the position of two strikes in my area, one being the strike at the Pyrotenax of Canada Limited plant in Trenton and the other being the strike of the Canadian Union of Public Employees against the city of Belleville?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the employees of the city of Belleville, the member will recall that I was in Belleville recently and had an opportunity to speak to the acting mayor about the situation. I have been advised, as recently as yesterday, that there may be a meeting of the parties this afternoon about the matter. I have no information to report on that meeting, naturally, but I think the fact they are getting together is very important.

As to the question of the Pyrotenax company in Trenton, it is my understanding that the mediator, Romaine Verheyen, has arranged for a meeting of the parties on Monday afternoon.

Mr. O’Neil: As a supplementary, could I ask the minister if it would be possible for him to speak personally to the people who are handling especially the strike at the Pyrotenax plant at Trenton, to see if they would approach it to try to get a quicker solution? They have been accused of not being too enthusiastic, or not trying to get the parties together to come up with a solution.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I cannot let that go by without a comment because, frankly, I think the mediators usually do a superb job, and everywhere they go they receive praise for the energetic way in which they try to mediate without meddling. Romaine Verheyen, the mediator who is going to be bringing the parties together on Monday, is one of our finest mediators. I will be pleased to reinforce the member’s concerns with him, but I would also like to reinforce the support that I feel I have for those mediators.

CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to give us the specific locations of the labour camps in northern Ontario in which comrade minister is proposing to incarcerate persons who are delinquent in their child support payments?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that today’s press release by the honourable member is one of his more colourful ones. I thought that he might refer to me as the tinpot demagogue, as he did in the --

Mr. McClellan: Okay; tinpot demagogue.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am sure that the honourable member realizes that, on occasion, people other than himself might engage in a little hyperbole and rhetoric.

Obviously the point I was trying to make was that, in my opinion -- and this is what I was trying to express -- there are certain limits to the bounds of appropriate behaviour in any community. It seems to me that when we, in this society, see about us fathers who have abandoned their children and their wives, and who are in a position where they could afford to continue to support those people, that is inappropriate behaviour. That is behaviour that I do not, and will not, condone.

Mr. McClellan: Everybody agrees with that. Let the minister tell us about his fatuous deductions.

Mr. S. Smith: This isn’t the first year it happened.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: Everybody agrees with that. Tell us about your fatuous suggestions.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Realistically, the member understands and I understand, and I believe everyone in the House understands, that there are other ways of enforcing those orders which were discussed here in the House yesterday. When I was asked how I felt about it, I obviously engaged in a little rhetoric --

Mr. Bradley: The member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy) had to chase you.

Mr. McClellan: Impetuosity overcame you.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- to try to point out that that was behaviour I really thought should be condemned by our society; and figuratively speaking, it’s the kind of behaviour for which one ought to be banished from our society. I stand by that.

Mr. Martel: You said northern Ontario was Siberia.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Obviously there are no such labour camps in existence or contemplated.

Mr. Bradley: You got the headlines; the member for Sarnia gave them to you.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: Leaving aside the Siberian solution, I don’t understand, and I would like the minister to explain, what is the big difficulty the government has in persuading the family court judges to issue garnishees or attachment of wages against people who are delinquent in their child support payments? What is the big problem here?

Hon. Mr. Norton: In terms of those specific aspects, I think that question might more appropriately be referred to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

Mr. Warner: Redirect it; let’s get an answer.

Mr. McClellan: I will redirect it.

Mr. Bradley: He’s about to leave the House.

Hon. Mr. Norton: But I would point out that I do believe the system of automatic enforcement is one possible answer.

Mr. Breithaupt: You could check out Minaki, it isn’t being used.

Mr. McClellan: What excuse is there for your failure to deal with the issue?

Hon. Mr. Norton: There is also, I think, an important responsibility upon all of us in this chamber, and others assuming certain responsibilities throughout our society, to clearly get the message across that with or without changes in the methods of enforcement --

Mr. McClellan: Enforce the law; never mind the lectures, enforce the law.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- there is such a thing as responsibility --

Mr. Warner: You’ve shirked yours.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and the fathers of those children have a responsibility. It should not be up to government in every case to expend money to see that people live up to the responsibilities they have assumed for their children and families.

Mr. Warner: You’ve shirked your responsibility.

Mr. McClellan: May I redirect?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

Mr. Bolan: Does the minister not think he owes the people of northern Ontario an apology for thinking they are nothing more than some kind of a cesspool for those people of southern Ontario who are not doing what they should be doing? It’s his ministry’s responsibility. Why doesn’t he hold up his responsibility?

Mr. Swart: That’s two of you, you and Stuart Smith.

Mr. Warner: He wants to close Windsor and you attack the north.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I now know who placed that anonymous and mysterious telephone call to my office first thing this morning.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member for Nipissing.

Mr. Bolan: I wish I had thought of that.

Ms. Gigantes: It’s really funny, eh?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Obviously there was no slight intended for northern Ontario --

Mr. Bolan: Apologize.

Hon. Mr. Norton: But having made a passing reference to Siberia, and having decided that probably the Russians wouldn’t want them, I had to find an alternative.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: With a new question.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, Bob.

Mr. Nixon: I’m not in default of any of my payments.

STRAWBERRY MARKETING

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food if he recalls the situation about a year ago when imported strawberries replaced those produced on our own farms, resulting in a financial loss to our own producers and the plowing over of so many acres of the producing strawberries, particularly in the Norfolk area? Whether he recalls it or not, does he have a program whereby we are going to see that our locally-grown strawberries are put into the stores at a price from which the producers would benefit as well as the consumers?

Hon. W. Newman: I didn’t know the member had planted so many strawberries.

Mr. Conway: Let Joe Clark have them in his cabinet.

Hon. W. Newman: Anyway, I would like to point out to the member that I recall very well what happened last year. If he will recall, in the final analysis as far as strawberries were concerned last year, most, if not all of the top quality strawberries, were moved onto the market and sold.

Mr. Kerrio: What you said was let them eat shortcake.

Hon. W. Newman: Because the member saw certain pictures and certain things happened -- but he has the background on that story now because he knows I told him what had happened.

Mr. Nixon: It was in my riding. Don’t tell me what happened. I was out in the fields.

Hon. W. Newman: Last year, I want to make it very clear, most Ontario strawberries were moved out. What I’m saying is that this year, through our Foodland Ontario program --

Mr. Gaunt: Tell us about Ontario food land!

Hon. W. Newman: Do you want to listen or not? Through our Foodland Ontario program, in co-operation with the chain stores, we are hoping that -- unfortunately, because of the way the weather is this year --

Mr. Roy: If there is a problem, it’s the feds’ fault.

Hon. W. Newman: It looks as though all of the strawberries could come on again at the same time this year, the way things are shaping up. We are making every effort to work with all those concerned to make sure the Ontario strawberry crop is moved onto the market and moved out so that the farmers will not suffer.

Mr. Kerrio: Can’t you bring some of them on sooner?

[3:30]

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Can the minister explain to the House whether or not “every effort” means having someone on his staff go to the big supermarkets and actually arrange for the crop to come in and be featured in the major urban centres? Does he recall that only Knob Hill Farms last year carried the strawberries -- maybe as a loss leader, I don’t know. That was the only concern that really moved any significant number of fresh strawberries in the Toronto market, the rest were all coming in from California and Mexico.

Hon. W. Newman: It is all very well to make statements like that, but --

Mr. S. Smith: Driving down the domestic prices.

Hon. W. Newman: The member knows so much. I am amazed he is there. He wouldn’t know a strawberry from -- I won’t get into that.

We will be working with the chains; we did get co-operation from them last year. There was a back-up at the first when US strawberries were coming in, but one thing these members forget is -- no, I am sorry, things have changed. If a certain party dropped tariffs in 24 hours and had they put those same tariffs on they said they were going to put on we wouldn’t be faced with a problem at all this year. We are doing our part, but they didn’t do theirs.

Mr. Makarchuk: In view of the fact the testimony that was given to the public accounts committee by representatives on the Ontario Food Terminal operation indicated they did not have a policy of giving preferential treatment to Canadian or Ontario growers, would the minister talk to them and ensure that Canadian growers of strawberries and everything else get preferential treatment? Alternatively, would he ensure there is a policy within that organization to ensure that Canadians get first chance at selling their crops vis-a-vis the Americans?

Hon. W. Newman: I doubt if the member has ever been out to the food terminal, nor does he have any idea how it works or even operates. Has he been there?

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes.

Hon. W. Newman: All right.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have a response?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. I would be glad to respond and point out there are many stalls out there for the farmers of this province.

Mr. S. Smith: There’s one right now.

Hon. W. Newman: There is one for that member too. There are many out there for the use of the farmers who bring their produce in to sell wholesale to all the buyers for all the stores across the province.

As far as the wholesale houses are concerned, they lease space on a long-term lease basis. I think it is a 30-year lease, renewable. They lease space and we have no control over what they handle.

As far as the others are concerned, farmers by the hundreds and thousands do bring their produce in there to sell each day. The member should go out there some morning at six o’clock to see it.

OHC EVICTION

Mr. di Santo: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Is the minister aware of the case of a North York tenant who was evicted last week by Ontario Housing? Subsequently, while the case was in court, the eviction order was cancelled by Ontario Housing. The OHC lawyer told the court on Thursday he was unaware of any action taken by the housing corporation to nullify the already-executed eviction.

Can the minister tell us if he has investigated and if he has found some responsibility in the spiteful behaviour of Ontario Housing officials and if he is ready to punish the responsible people?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am aware of the situation that developed last week and I believe it has corrected itself. Clearly there had been an experience with that tenant for some period of time in rent arrears. There had been a court order obtained by the Ontario Housing Corporation back in December, which was not acted upon, on legal advice, until later on in the year.

As a result of further discussions with that tenant, with her legal counsel and the lawyers representing Ontario Housing Corporation, to the best of my knowledge the problem has been resolved.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Ms. Gigantes: I attempted to cite a question of personal privilege earlier in the question period. The Speaker suggested that it was a question of opinion about what the facts had been in the case. I believe there was a misstatement of fact which may have been caused inadvertently by the leader of the Liberal Party because he was misinformed by members of his caucus about what had happened at the select committee. I would like to bring those facts back to your attention because I feel my privilege as a member of the House and as a member of that committee has been abridged.

Mr. Speaker: Is the honourable member suggesting that her privilege has been infringed upon because somebody disagreed with her?

Ms. Gigantes: No, Mr. Speaker. I am suggesting that the problem is not a difference of opinion about what happened, but rather a difference of fact. The facts as presented by the Liberal leader, however inadvertently, were misleading to this House and were an infringement on my privileges as a member. I would like to read the section from the select committee deliberations in which the question of whether we would consider the Rolphton safety question before July was discussed. The Leader of the Liberal Party said that the NDP members had not been willing to discuss the matter before July. What I said on page HA-1535-2, Mr. Speaker, was: “We have a very special responsibility in Ontario to look at the public safety aspects of nuclear power and the Candu program. I agree totally with Alan” -- Alan Schwartz -- “that to begin hearings on Rolphton tomorrow would amount to having the lawyers, perhaps, and the petitioners involved in the Rolphton action come before us to present their case. It would involve having Hydro and the AECB come in and present their cases, but we would have none of the incident reports. We would have none of the documents we can obtain from Hydro concerning this particular plant, which would help us in our questioning on this matter. We must settle how we get hold of those documents, which ones we will have and when they will become available to us as a committee before we can undertake any satisfactory hearing of the question.”

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that these lines from Hansard indicate that it was my concern, as a member of that committee, that we have those documents, which are starting to be made available. The steering committee of the select committee is meeting with Ontario Hydro tomorrow to obtain the first documents. My only concern about starting the hearings early was that we would be proceeding before we had adequate documentation on which to question either AECB or Ontario Hydro. I therefore feel that it is incumbent on the Liberal leader to --

Mr. Speaker: Order! What the honourable member has said just confirms what I adduced from what was said: there is a difference of opinion as to what transpired, what was said, what was intended in the committee. Surely, it’s not an abrogation of your privileges as a member of this House. There is obviously a difference of opinion, but don’t ask me to adjudicate it.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved that notwithstanding the orders of the House, the order of precedence for private members’ public business be changed so that Mr. Epp’s ballot item be listed and called for debate June 14, Mr. Ruston’s ballot item be listed and called for debate June 21, and Mr. Reed’s ballot item be listed and called for debate on July 12.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 103, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 104, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes a number of amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, many of them requested by Metropolitan Toronto council. It will authorize the council to impose terms and conditions when delegating its powers to lease or license the use of sidewalks and untravelled portions of Metro roads to an area municipality. It will exempt the O’Keefe Centre from realty and business tax and it will authorize the O’Keefe employees to join the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, that is the OMERS pension system.

The bill will extend to the Metropolitan Toronto council certain powers given to local municipalities and counties in the Municipal Amendment Act, 1978, number 3. These are the authority to provide liability insurance for members of council and local boards to invest in credit unions, to accept historic documents and to control parking on municipal property.

It will enable the metropolitan corporation to control the effluent discharge from area municipal sewers into Metro’s trunk sewers and treatment plants, and finally, it will increase the maximum rates of interest that the metropolitan corporation may charge an area municipality for failure to pay its levy from one per cent to one and a quarter per cent per month.

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 105, An Act to amend the Condominium Act, 1978.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The proposed amendment to the Condominium Act, Mr. Speaker, is to delete the requirement in section 53(3) for a proposed declarant to pay interest on the moneys received on account of the purchase price prior to delivering title to the purchaser. The amendment is necessary because of the addition in the new act to section 51(6) which sets the limit on the amount of rent or occupancy charge which a purchaser may be required to pay prior to receiving title.

The original intention of the requirement for payment of interest was to ensure that a purchaser of a proposed unit was in no worse position than a purchaser of an actual unit who received title. The limitation on the amount of rent to be charged contained in section 51(6) ensures this continuance. The additional requirement for payment of interest is inequitable.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Epp moved first reading of Bill 106, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

[3:45]

AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE ACT

Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 107, An Act to provide for disclosure of nonresident investment in agricultural land in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Riddell: The purpose of the bill is to establish a means of ascertaining the nature and extent of non-resident ownership of agricultural land in Ontario. The bill requires every non-resident person, as defined in the act, to submit a report to the Minister of Agriculture and Food concerning each purchase of agricultural land. The bill also requires land registrars in Ontario to inform the minister about every conveyance of agricultural land registered by the land registrar that bears an affidavit indicating that the transferee is a non-resident person.

The minister must report to the Legislative Assembly on an annual basis concerning the nature and extent of non-resident ownership of agricultural land and the report is then referred to a standing committee of the assembly for consideration.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 108, An Act to amend the Public Accountancy Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The present section provides for a $25 maximum on fees. This maximum has remained unchanged since the act was first passed in 1950. The amendment permits a counsel to set the fee, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 109, An Act to amend the Evidence Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The amendment to this legislation permits the use of the official translation of statutes in French-language proceedings.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 110, An Act to amend the Administration of Justice Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The purpose of the bill is to authorize the fees payable in court proceedings for the services of court officers to be fixed by regulation made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Fees are now fixed under the rules made by the rule-making body for each court. The amendment will create the machinery to fix a more realistic tariff of fees.

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 111, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this legislation contains a number of amendments of a routine nature, including an amendment to complement the proposed changes to the Administration of Justice Act with respect to tariffs arid fees payable to court offices.

As well as a number of routine amendments, there are several substantive amendments, which are as follows: Section 4 provides for interest to be payable on judgements at the prime rate. Section 5 provides for the divisional court to sit as a single judge in certain instances. Section 6(5) permits the rules committee of the Supreme Court to fix a rate of interest to be applied in determining the capitalization value of an award in respect of future damages.

COUNTY JUDGES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 112, An Act to amend the County Judges Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to remove the term “junior judge” from the amended act and related acts. The term “junior judge” has no significance as far as jurisdiction is concerned, but the amendment has been brought in because the term “junior judge,” although it may well have been appropriate at one time, no longer accurately reflects the nature of the office and the duties performed.

PROVINCIAL COURT (CIVIL DIVISION) PROJECT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 113, An Act for the Establishment and Conduct of a Project in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for the Development of Improved Methods of Processing Certain Civil Actions.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this legislation refers to the statement I gave earlier establishing what might be termed more succinctly as the Provincial Court (Civil Division) Project Act.

SCHEDULING OF BUSINESS

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to obtain your assistance in the matter that was being debated this afternoon with respect to the way in which the business of the House is conducted.

I realize the Speaker cannot thrust himself into ruling whether or how things will be debated, but the impression the acting government House leader is trying to convey to the House is that once the order of business is scheduled on Thursday of one week, it cannot be altered under any circumstances during the next week. In fact the minister today already went against his own suggestion when he moved the change in orders for the private members’ bills. That was not discussed with anyone, although I did not raise the matter at the time.

If the government House leader is going to play that type of game, which he tried to imply this afternoon he was prepared to play, then he should not be allowed to introduce a motion such as he just introduced saying we are going to change the order of business.

I can give you at least five illustrations, Mr. Speaker, where the House leader had arranged an order of business on a Thursday and the government was forced to change it the following week. I remind the acting government House leader that the government introduced three bills on a Tuesday evening which were not scheduled for debate. I can remind him of the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) who decided he would withdraw from the private members’ debate on the spur of the moment last Thursday. I can remind him of the fact that the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) didn’t come into the House because he was fogged in -- it’s not unusual, but he was fogged in that day --

Mr. Laughren: It has nothing to do with the weather either.

Mr. Martel: -- and the order of business had to be altered. In this case they are hanging their hat on that because they don’t want to debate the matter; they don’t want to sit down and discuss it. Yet when it is convenient to change the order of business, long days after the order of business has been read for the following week, the government prevails on everyone else around here to change that order of business.

They can’t have it both ways, Mr. Speaker, and I am asking you, sir, if the government is in a position where something which was scheduled cannot proceed are we in a position to see the House adjourned, as was the case when the member for Prince Edward-Lennox did not proceed with his bill, or when the government introduces three hills because it had run out of business?

Am I to assume that in the future when something occurs which changes that order of business we simply return to our offices? From what the acting government House leader said today, the order can’t he changed once it had been debated last Thursday. It is etched in stone when it is convenient for the government, but it can’t have it both ways. I have no objection to a change in the order to accommodate the member from Fort Frances, but there was no discussion.

What they are playing over there is a little game that can’t be tolerated. It’s either what’s announced on Thursday at 3:30 p.m., or it’s not. If they want to change the order of business as a matter of accommodation then they have to do the same as the Liberal House leader or myself when we have problems that arise. I think what they are attempting to do is simply nonsense, If they want to proceed that way, there is no way this House can work with any type of harmony

I would ask your intervention, Mr. Speaker, on that basis.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if I may quickly respond, to correct the record, I really didn’t say earlier that the schedule as agreed upon was etched in stone. The system is that the House leaders get together and try to agree, so that everyone will know what the order of business is for the following week.

In deciding from time to time whether we are going to accommodate certain things that happen which more or less are unforeseen, obviously, the history of how these things came about is quite relevant to the considerations that the House Leaders have to make. What I was pointing out to the House earlier was that nothing had changed from Wednesday afternoon to today, and nothing had changed from Wednesday afternoon until Thursday when the House leaders met and could have gone through all of the matters that have been raised today.

All the circumstances were known at that time and, clearly, lest the impression be that the NDP House leader has been badly dealt with by the other House leaders, we should make the record quite clear. The items he is complaining of were not in fact discussed at the traditional tribunals and meeting places and times established by the three House leaders.

He then comes to the House this week and suggests that he is being unfairly dealt with because matters which were foreseen by him, fully known to him and his party last Thursday at noon, now they have decided they are unhappy with the decisions they made, so they are appealing to this House, alleging that someone is saying the order is etched in stone, or that someone is being unco-operative. In fact, the very harmony the member refers to depends upon all these matters which he is aware of being discussed at the regular meetings on Thursday so that the House can be informed on Thursday afternoon on the basis of all the facts which everyone has at hand at that time.

To come in this week and to suggest that there is now something that is urgent or pressing that wasn’t known about last week is to attempt, by the very nature of that allegation, to destroy the very harmony the member suggests he is so anxious to preserve.

Mr. Martel: That’s not quite factual, because --

Mr. Nixon: Don’t we have any business to do here?

Mr. Martel: -- I went to the government House leader Friday morning. I didn’t wait until this week. The report my colleague moved was moved Thursday afternoon after the House leaders’ meeting. The statement by the Minister of Energy was in fact made Thursday afternoon after the House leaders met. So he can’t play that game. I simply ask the acting government House leader how he moves a motion today about switching the order for private members’ bills in consultation? When did that occur?

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker: Obviously there’s a difference of opinion as to the process between the House leaders. As I indicated earlier, when it was raised during question period, it is not within the domain of the chair to order the business of the House. The matter is closed.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answer to question 185 and the interim answers to questions 182, 183, and 184 standing on the notice paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might confirm that with the consent of the opposition House leaders the votes on these matters will be stacked to 5:45 this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman: Is the committee agreed to that suggestion?

Agreed.

NIAGARA MUNICIPAL HYDROELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

Consideration of Bill 29, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Niagara.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, the members of both of the other parties will have received an amendment from me some time ago on section 4 of this bill. I would like to move that motion now.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swan moves that section 4(17) of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

“(c) may direct, before the first day of October 1979, the commission established by section 2 in respect of the municipality to commence on a day specified by the bylaw the distribution and supply of power in some areas of the municipality that Ontario Hydro served immediately before the coming into force of this act and on the specified day subsections 10 and 12 to 16 and section 7 shall apply with necessary modifications to the assets and employees of those areas of Ontario Hydro in the municipality.”

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I think the intent of this amendment is clear to all members of the House, but perhaps I should point out the general part of subsection 17 which reads as follows: “The council of each of the towns of Grimsby, Lincoln, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Pelham and the township of West Lincoln, with the consent of Ontario Hydro and without the assent of the municipal electors, by bylaw,...”

There are two clauses following, the first of which may direct the commission to service the whole municipality and the second which may dissolve the commission. This adds a third section which would provide that the municipality, before October 1, may review the commission boundaries within their municipalities and pass a bylaw which would establish boundaries which would be different from those which existed 10 years prior to this time when the municipal Hydro commissions were frozen.

It is my hope that the parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), will reconsider and accept this amendment. I suggest that it is a logical amendment, after the steps which the government has taken to change the general program for restructuring hydro in this province. The member for Durham West will remember that the original intention of restructuring hydro was to provide for hydro authorities to be established at the regional level where regional governments existed. Subsequent to that, the government changed its policy so that local municipalities could be the authority for providing hydro within that municipality.

Mr. Haggerty: Isn’t regional hydro what the government wanted?

Mr. Swart: Subsequent to that, the government backed down once again and decided that it would permit two authorities within a municipality to provide hydro, one the rural hydro and the other a hydro commission to serve a given area.

This amendment would not be before this House today if the government hadn’t taken that last step to permit two authorities to provide hydro within the local municipality. But that step has been taken. I suggest to the government and to the other members of the House that if we are going to have two authorities within a municipality, the local hydro commission basically to serve the urban area of the municipality and then Ontario Hydro serving the rural section of the municipality, there should be a logical division between those two areas.

I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that that logical division in the Niagara region is not the urban boundaries which existed 10 years ago. There has been, as he must be aware, although he lives quite a way from the Niagara district, an expansion of those urban boundaries. Incidentally, I’m dealing here with a situation that doesn’t exist in my riding in the municipalities of Welland and Thorold because by this act the whole municipality is put within one commission.

Mr. Haggerty: Is there not a problem in Thorold though?

Mr. Swart: There may be a problem in Thorold but the amendment that I’m introducing will not deal with that problem. In fact, the council of Thorold has determined that it will go ahead and have one hydro commission to serve the whole municipality.

What this deals with is the problem that exists in Niagara-on-the-Lake, in Lincoln, in Grimsby, in West Lincoln and in Pelham. In at least four out of five of these municipalities, the old boundaries of the hydro commission, which were the old boundaries by and large of those small urban municipalities which were amalgamated with the neighbouring rural municipalities, no longer represent the urban boundaries in those municipalities.

For instance, in west Lincoln the unincorporated village of Smithville had a hydro commission to serve it before. It was a police village at that time. By this bill, the government has re-established the same boundary area, but four new subdivisions which had been built at that time continue as the old urban area of Smithville and they will be left on the rural hydro system where rates will be 10, 20 or 30 per cent more than those within the municipal hydro commission boundaries.

It is so absurd, in fact that half of one subdivision there will be served by the West Lincoln Hydro-Electric Commission and the other half will be served by rural Hydro. A population of about 700 in the Smithville urban service area of West Lincoln will be served by rural Hydro.

The situation is very similar in Pelham, where about one quarter of the population around the old village of Fonthill -- again in a contiguous urban area -- will be left in the rural Hydro system, yet their neighbours right across the street will be paying the lower urban hydro commission rates.

The same holds true in Niagara-on-the-Lake. In fact, the member for Lincoln is now here and, although he does not represent Niagara-on-the-Lake, he represents three of the other municipalities where there is concern. In Niagara-on-the-Lake they have officially requested that the subdivision area of Mississauga Beach be included within the Niagara-on-the-Lake Hydro-Electric Commission boundary. This, of course, will prevent that.

Grimsby is in much the same situation; there has been substantial growth outside the old urban municipality of Grimsby, and that contiguous urban area should be taken into the new hydro commission.

I would think that the government, represented here today by the parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham West, in a bill which in effect is establishing hydro commissions, would want to establish them on realistic boundaries. When he rises to speak on this, I hope he will explain what he expects to happen in the future with regard to these areas. He must be aware that the Niagara Peninsula, like much of the rest of Ontario, is not growing at the rate at which it grew previously. He must be aware that some of the municipalities, such as the Smithville area, have very real limits on how far they can grow because of the services which can and cannot be provided in that area. He must also know that in some of those municipalities, the West Lincoln area in this century, and perhaps for many decades after that, it is unlikely that the municipality will be able to take over the whole hydro system, which is an option provided in this bill.

The alternative, unless my amendment carries, is that we must carry on with half of the urban area being served by the West Lincoln Hydro-Electric Commission, a municipal commission, and the other half of that contiguous urban area, inside the same urban service area, being served by Ontario Hydro’s rural system.

I suggest to the government that it makes no sense whatsoever to have those kinds of conditions existing when a bill is now before us to establish hydro commissions.

I also say to the parliamentary assistant that the reason given in the debate on second reading of this bill for not extending these boundaries almost amounts to blackmail against the municipality and totally misrepresents what I said in this House at that time.

[4:15]

After I spoke, in his reply he said: “I think it’s also fair to say that there’s no doubt, leaving it this way with the existing boundaries with the ultimate choice -- and the choice will be local to expand to the boundaries of the municipality -- yes, it would ultimately put, I would think, some pressures on the council to look at that, and possibly ultimately make a decision. But if they always knew that they could just expand it another street or two would they really ever take on that task and take on that responsibility? No, they would turn around and blame it all on Ontario Hydro for raising their rate levels higher than the local percentage increases, which as I mentioned in terms of numbers has to be inevitable.”

First of all, he infers that my amendment which I had spoken to would give the municipality the right at any time to take in another street or two, and of course that is not the case. Once this bill is passed and once my amendment is passed, as the parliamentary assistant well knows, there will be no further changes in those boundaries unless this government, or the government that happens to sit here at that time, brings in further amendments. There will be no changes. This is not the old system. All we’re proposing here is we set realistic boundaries at this time on those hydro commissions within the basically rural municipalities.

Second, when he states that he thinks it would put some pressures on councils to look at that and possibly ultimately make a decision, ultimately make the decision to go out to the limits of their boundaries, he must be aware that several of these municipalities will never get to that state, at least in this century, and as I have said before perhaps not for many decades after. Would the honourable member suggest -- does he know the Smithville area -- how many decades he would think it would be before that municipality could afford to take in all the rural hydro systems? I don’t know whether the honourable member has looked at this report, but if he looks at it and reads the estimates of the costs to that municipality if it did that, where rates would have to increase by 30 or 40 per cent even above the rural hydro rates, he must be aware that they cannot possibly do that anytime in the foreseeable future. With the slower population growth generally, this is going to be true of all of those five municipalities within the Niagara region.

So I just say to the parliamentary assistant, and to the members on my right, that it does make a lot of sense if we are establishing, within a rural municipality, a commission to service the urban area that it should take in all of the urban area as it exists today, not just half of it or two thirds of it.

Certainly if we were establishing new commissions now and there were no commissions in existence, he wouldn’t think of drawing the hues where he is drawing them under this bill. He couldn’t possibly think of doing that. He would take a realistic look at it, consult with the municipalities and says “What portion of your municipality should be within that hydro commission boundary?”

I say there are going to be real problems and real resentment if this amendment is not passed, because people who have looked forward to getting within those urban hydro serviced areas when the freeze was lifted, now find they are going to be left out, now find their I rates will continue to be 20 or 30 per cent higher than those across the street from them; even though they are paying the same sewer rates and the same water rates and they have curbs and gutters and are totally urbanized for all other purposes. They are still going to be connected to the rural hydro.

The final point, Mr. Chairman, a final argument that I want to make for this, is that it makes eminent sense not to set up two systems side by side, two full systems to serve an urban area which is divided. It makes good, economic sense to have one transformer station, one system serving that area. So I would ask the members to give favourable consideration to an amendment which simply gives the option to those five municipalities to take a look at the urban areas within their municipalities and see what is the logical hydro service area for each municipality.

There’s no compulsion in my amendment, as you will recognize. They can determine, if they wish, to stay with the old area. I suggest none of them will, and that’s one reason they should be consulted. But it gives them the option to stay with the old area, to move out to what is a reasonable service area or to take in the whole municipality.

I am thoroughly convinced this is what the municipality wants there. I am thoroughly convinced it makes sense. I am thoroughly convinced that when the government has backed down on the position it has, that it is going to allow two authorities to provide hydro within one municipality, there should be some regional division of the area that is going to be served, not the rural hydro serving a rural area plus half the urban area and then the urban hydro commission just half that urban area. It makes no sense whatsoever and that’s the reason there’s an amendment before you to make a logical division in those five municipalities.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to address myself to the amendment proposed by the member for Welland-Thorold. The new section included is section (c) and I make reference to section 17(a). The only change I see in this amendment is that under (a) it is “may direct the commission established by section 2 in respect of the municipality to commence on a day specified by the bylaw distribution and supply of power in all areas of the municipality.” The amendment that has been proposed is “may direct before the first day of October, 1979, a commission established by section 2 in respect of municipalities to commence on the day specified in the bylaw the distributions and supply of power in some areas of the municipality.”

There may be a difference there, but the intent of the bill could indicate we want the regional reconstruction of Hydro there to remain status quo. I suggest to the member for Welland-Thorold perhaps he should move an amendment in reference to the explanatory note that the customers in Wainfleet will continue to be served by Ontario Hydro until the council of the township of Wainfleet establish a hydro-electric commission for the township. Until the commission is established, that council is required to review the distribution and supply of power and the township at least once every three years. I suppose there are difficulties in a number of municipalities that have been mentioned -- Grimsby, Lincoln, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Pelham; perhaps there are even other areas -- West Lincoln for example, there is a problem.

I think it was mentioned in one of our discussions with the minister in Thorold where there may be some difficulties in extending the hydro utilities out into the rural areas. That could cause considerable cost, providing that service out there by the local utility.

I would go along with an amendment to the whole bill in the sense that if you are going to move in that direction, then perhaps we need further assessment and review of the situation in these outlying areas. I don’t think the bill should be held up on the basis that this amendment is going to solve the problems. After all, if you look at the purpose of regional government it is to enable municipalities to become more viable.

I suggest if we are going to use that term “more viable,” then municipalities should be able to handle the adjustment as it relates to restructuring hydro utilities in the community. Sure, it is going to be an additional cost to many customers in these areas. If you go back to the establishment of regional government, Mr. Chairman, we had what was called proposed uniformity in water and sewer rates -- that does not take place because a different cost is assessed to each municipality and cost may vary at a considerable charge to that locality.

No matter how we move into restructuring hydro-electric utilities within the region as proposed under this bill, we are not going to have uniformity in the cost of electrical energy to the customers because there is a different need, a different environment, from one municipality to another. We will never attain that goal under a single tier or under the proposal in this bill that it remain at the local municipality level.

I am not quite clear on “some areas.” I think the mover of the amendment should spell out just what municipalities he is discussing under “some areas.” “Some areas” could refer to almost every municipality because it means there is going to be an additional cost to these areas.

As I discussed in the original debate, in the second stage of the debate here, I was concerned about the cost of adjustment, the capital debt cost to these municipalities. There are some cases I where municipalities may have difficulty in financing the scheme. I look to the member’s assistance there. Perhaps this is one area we should be taking a close look at, whether some of these municipalities can afford the change from rural Ontario Hydro to a public utility hydro commission. I suggest they may run into some difficulties hut I don’t think it is any reason that the bill should not be moved forward. Maybe the member for Welland-Thorold will consider including these municipalities with the township of Wainfleet which was excluded from this particular bill pending review in one or two or three years. Maybe we should be looking at that as a possible solution if these municipalities are going to be severely hit on cost.

I don’t like to see customers charged too much for the use of hydro-electricity in the area. My secretary in Toronto tells me that her Toronto bill is similar to mine in rural Sherkston. I am a customer of Ontario Hydro and there isn’t much difference between the cost of my hydro and the cost to some hydro users in Metropolitan Toronto. I wish the member would be more specific as to the meaning of “some areas.”

It is unfortunate that perhaps through poor planning over the past number of years, we have allowed urban sprawl to take place in a number of communities. It has happened in almost every community within the region. Through that type of planning, or no planning at all, we have to suffer the cost today; somebody has to hear the cost, particularly that municipality, I guess, until the matter can be corrected.

So I would like to have further explanation of just what the member means by “some areas” of municipalities. Does he with it to remain as status quo? Are we going to have two hydro commissions in a municipality, such as the local utility and Ontario Hydro, continuing with their present program? I interpret this amendment to mean it would maintain the status quo.

[4:30]

Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I spoke at length on my opposition to the principle of this bill on second reading. I do not intend to go over old ground again. The member for Welland-Thorold has proposed an amendment to the bill which is a substantial amendment. It is my impression he supported the bill in principle when it was put forth, but now wishes to make a major change in it.

In my earlier comments I said would it not be more fair to provide an option to local municipalities to adjust local boundaries. I certainly felt there was some logic in the member’s comments along this line and I share some of that logic, bearing in mind boundaries and these commissions were frozen many years ago and a lot has happened since that time. Yet, in the bill as proposed we are sticking either to the option of the boundaries that existed prior to the 1970 regional government or, indeed, a commission which would take over the whole of any given municipality.

For those in the House who do not see the import of this, if they are not in a constituency of a regional nature, municipalities have of course grown tremendously in size and they are not the same municipalities to any extent they were in 1970. Therefore, they are not being given very good options under this bill, as was mentioned in the discussion on second reading.

I feel the small municipalities and the Hydro restructuring committee tried to identify this problem and, without being parochial, finally opted for a two-county system accepting a regional system on which the government nevertheless turned its back. I made it quite clear I feel an injustice has been done to the smaller municipalities which, because of many constraints placed upon them in the last 10 years, including a higher standard for water and sewers and urban area boundaries in the Niagara region, even if they were growth minded, do not have the options for growth they had prior to regional government and when they were able to fund their own sewage and water systems which now have to be funded, processed, approved, administered and owned by the region.

While I say I feel badly for the rural areas in my riding, it disturbs me to want to be a part of making things worse for rural areas all over Ontario by setting a precedent which I fear might be set here and held up for display, if indeed, the member for Welland-Thorold had his amendment carried. Actually, in the final analysis, maybe the only fair way to treat such a basic commodity would be to have equal rates all over Ontario for Ontario Hydro, as we now try to do with heating oil and gasoline. We do this by licence breaks and by any means we can, so basic essentials such as these are provided fairly and at equitable cost to everyone in the province.

The government obviously picks up the tab for a lot of these special costs. They seem to have a great difficulty making the mental leap of providing this basic service on an equal cost to everyone in the province. The government, in my view, particularly in regional Niagara, has abandoned it's concepts and principles of broad sharing of basic costs over a large area for the benefit of all.

As I pointed out earlier, the small extra cost it would have meant to the urban areas in Niagara to have permitted a regional structure would not have amounted to much. But the burden placed on the smaller municipalities as a result of this two-tier setup is substantial in the areas with less income, greater distances to cover, and all sorts of difficult municipal costs to face in this time.

I would like to see a whole redressing of this matter. I think Ontario Hydro, to its credit, in the earlier years recognized that electricity was so basic it should be available to all. Indeed, great efforts have been made to have it made available to all. We don’t give cheaper power just because you are close to a hydro-electric site, or because you are near to a nuclear site. The basic rate structure across the province is, at least, equalized now. I suggest that hydro is in the category of those other items that are indeed needed to keep us warm and to permit us to travel in this province.

Electrical energy may be a much more important aspect of travelling in this province as the electric car becomes a reality in five, 10 or 15 years from now. At that time, will the government say that the fellow who lives in a small town should have to pay three times as much to run his automobile as the person who lives in a city?

There is not equality in this bill, and therefore I am not happy with it. However, I don’t want to make it any worse for the rural areas than it already is, because of the concern for areas that have not faced restructuring, and for obviously what would happen under the member’s amendment where one community after another would reach out and seize land, to the detriment of the rural areas surrounding it.

For my part, I think the whole thing has been poorly handled but I can’t support the amendment for broader reasons.

Mr. Kerrio: I have to think that when we talk hydro, Niagara Falls might immediately come to mind. Historically, one of the major power plants in North America, perhaps in the world, was at Niagara Falls. While some members might discuss and debate the equality of costs to various people, when Hydro was first structured the rates were much lower in those areas immediately surrounding the generating plants in Niagara Falls, Ontario, and in Niagara Falls, New York.

There was, therefore, a great influx of industry to those areas, which meant many job opportunities as well as other opportunities. But, by the same token, the people in the area were subject to much inconvenience, with the canal cutting right through the centre of the city, and with other tax problems on very, very costly land used by Ontario Hydro.

I am bringing these matters into focus, because it becomes very obvious that when you equalize the rates and leave those people in a given area with all of those inconveniences, while the rates may be one thing, if you equalize it right across the province there are those people who would suffer the consequences of all the inconveniences in one locale.

I don’t know if we could ever talk about having equalized rates across the province. One way or another, there will be some digression from proper equalization of the rates. It also may lead to the problem governments are having, and that is, when one tries to be all things to all people it is going to cost us more to do everything we do in everyday life. While on the one hand it might be very important that we try to equalize the rates across the province, there may be some impracticalities.

There are those people who prefer to be living out in rural areas -- and we all know it costs more money to string lines to take power out there. If those people have some advantages we do not have in the city, it may not be worth our attempting to make such equalization of rates that we would give all these services to those people who move out from centralized areas, because in that way sewers, water, electricity, whatever one mentions, could cost fourfold or fivefold, and ultimately we would not have an equalization of rates; we would have the people in the central area subsidizing those people who want to live that nice life in the country. Therefore, I am not going to support the amendment to the bill.

I would like also to suggest that it is quite obvious there are those from different parts of the peninsula itself who, for different reasons, look at the bill through different eyes. I, for one, had proposed an amendment, which had been supported by the city of Niagara Falls, both the rural area and the urban area. I had brought that support here for an amendment.

Mr. Chairman: But that amendment is not before the committee.

Mr. Kerrio: Subsequently, the city has seen fit to change and now would support the bill as it stands. I thought I should say that so the Chairman would understand that I am talking to the bill and to the amendment.

In any event, I would like to read into the record one thing that was mentioned by the member for Welland-Thorold on May 1. He said, at page 1484 of Hansard: “Regardless of whether amendments are adopted in the House in the committee stage or whatever takes place, we have to pass this bill this spring and get on with the job, regardless of how the structure is set up.” To expedite that kind of thinking, we would be very wise not to support this amendment and to get on with passing of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Erie asked for clarification of one word. I think the word was “some.” I am sure the member for Welland-Thorold could do that briefly.

Mr. Swart: I can, Mr. Chairman. I would have thought the amendment was fairly clear. The word “some,” in “some areas,” leaves the decision with the municipality as to which areas they would attach to the hydro commission boundaries. Normally, we would expect that this would be the urban area, which is now in rural Hydro, surrounding the urban area served by the commission. But that would be left up to the local municipality to determine.

Just one final word: I would point out that this is all subject to the approval of Ontario Hydro, as provided in the first part of this bill.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate generally the support received from various parts of the House. I would like to touch upon and respond to some of the points made by the member for Welland-Thorold in his proposed amendment.

As I think everybody knows, and as was discussed quite widely in second reading of this bill, the amendment is completely contrary to the principles of restructuring.

As we have already heard in this discussion and debate today and in the discussion and debate on second reading, there are arguments on both sides as to whether restructuring should have taken place on a regional basis. I think it is safe and probably fairly accurate to say that from a straight rational, economic point of view a regional utility was probably the best.

Having said that -- and some people did recognize and support that view -- it was the government’s feelings, which I would suggest was strongly supported by many members opposite as well as many members on this side, that stretching regionalization that one step further was not acceptable to most of the elected representatives, whether they were provincial or municipal representatives, or to the people they represented. On that basis, the government changed the restructuring guidelines to accommodate lower-tier restructuring, which is accommodated and reflected in Bill 29, which is before us today.

As for the particular amendment before the House, the member for Welland-Thorold suggest they have a shot at this only once; they may or may not do anything. We’re only taking about five municipalities and it’s neither here nor there.

[4:45]

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members, that that’s not really the point and I think we all recognize it. If it were allowed in this particular piece of legislation, even on a once-only basis as put forward by the member, we would have very great difficulty denying that same request if it came forward from the multiplicity of municipalities in this province, both within regional areas as well as outside regional areas, which now have a public utilities commission.

I don’t know what justification we could use to say “No, we did it for a few municipalities in Niagara, but they’re a little different because the member for Welland-Thorold said they were a little different, and we can’t do it for you.” That’s not logical at all.

I think the member made some reference to points I made on second reading. I stand behind those statements. I won’t make them again. They’ve already been summarized and read into the record for a second time. But he did make some reference to “blackmail” to the municipalities -- to the municipal council at some future point in time, as a matter of fact in three-year intervals, looking to the economics, to the justification, to the feasibility of expanding their then-contained area to their municipal boundary. That’s not blackmail, it’s protection for the rural hydro users, both then and for the future. If at some point in time the municipal council sees that it is feasible, economically and otherwise, to expand to their municipal boundaries, they will do so.

Mr. Swart: What you’re saying is, we won’t let you have it the way you want it; you’ve got to take it the way we want it or nothing.

Mr. Ashe: It’s amazing, Mr. Chairman, that the member didn’t make reference to another municipality he represents, the municipality of Thorold. He approached that municipal council and said, “I’ve got an amendment here that might serve your purposes too. Perhaps you don’t want to expand to your boundaries.” I’m very pleased to say that that municipal council expressed the view that they were representing a community and wanted to create interest from boundary to boundary within their jurisdiction.

Mr. Swart: They felt they could afford it but some of these others can’t.

Mr. Ashe: They indicated to the member that they were quite aware of the economics involved and were standing by their original decision, which I would suggest to him was a very fair and a very equitable one.

Mr. Kerrio: Who represents that area?

Mr. Ashe: It received pretty fair coverage in the news media and I hope that all residents in that area saw what their local council decided --

Mr. Haggerty: They wanted a single tier.

Mr. Ashe: -- and what their local member was suggesting.

Mr. Kerrio: Do they have a member down there?

Mr. Ashe: Some would say so.

The thing that makes this particular amendment impractical and, in fact, impossible, has already been alluded to and touched on very eloquently by many of the members opposite. The member is talking about load skimming. Ultimately, he’s talking about further financial pressures on the remaining Ontario Hydro customers throughout the province. Keeping in mind his argument that we’re only talking about a few municipalities, which I hope I’ve discussed adequately, this is impossible. We couldn’t do that, because eventually we would end up with all the utilities expanding their boundaries to suit their convenience, leaving the rest of the system throughout parts of Ontario exceedingly on a growing costly basis.

Mr. Swart: Give the urban dwellers the same as everybody else gets.

Ms. Ashe: We all would be concerned if that could or did happen, but it shouldn’t happen and won’t be allowed to happen.

The other member who took part in the debate, the members for Erie, Lincoln and Niagara Falls, discussed both sides of these issues. We’ve heard eloquent argument on both sides relative to regionalization versus local restructuring. We heard about the various equalities, both ways, of having one rate across the province and so having a different rate close to the source of generation. There is no easy answer, as I think all members would quite readily agree.

Basically, three different kinds of rates affect residential consumers. There is the wholesale rate to the utilities which then varies, depending on the level of service, municipality to municipality; then throughout the rest of Ontario there are the two levels of what are known as rural hydro rates.

Granted, some of those so-referred-to rural areas are indeed not rural areas; I do not think anybody is trying to suggest that they are. What we are saying is that when people move into those areas -- and I think this was alluded to by one of the honourable members opposite -- they know some of the pluses and minuses of choosing where to reside.

One of the pluses is the amenities that are there: the geography, the larger lots and what have you. One of the negatives in a particular municipality may be a higher hydro rate. I happen to be one of those who pays a higher hydro rate, I may say, in a very urbanized area. But I knew what it was when we went there. The particular municipality where I live is prepared to go the full route in creating a utility commission from boundary to boundary, because it is economically possible to do so.

I hope I have covered, at least to some degree, most of the points that were made. Again, I hope all members of the committee will vote against this particular amendment, because it would make a farce of not only this piece of legislation but also the future of the public utilities commissions, the boundaries and service areas of those commissions and, more importantly, the consumers in the province who are served by Ontario Hydro. It would just make an impossible situation.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Swart’s amendment to section 4 will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Sections 5 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 25, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two brief remarks I would like to make before we commence clause-by-clause review of the bill.

I would remind members that since the inception of the Labour Relations Act, and indeed of legislated labour law in this province, section 63 in particular has taken away the legal right of parties to a contract to withdraw services. In addition to that, under section 37(2), we have intervened and required that the parties shall have a grievance arbitration procedure within their collective agreements. Indeed, we have even specified that, if none is included in that agreement, a model grievance arbitration procedure shall be considered to be part of any collective agreement.

It therefore behooves us to follow the course of events and the effectiveness of that interventionist act. If we feel there is any suggestion of disrepute falling upon the grievance arbitration procedure, it is my view that we have an obligation to endeavour to correct it so that the procedure sets out to do what it was originally intended to do, and that it sets out to do what it was originally intended to do, and that it sets out to do without undue delay or undue cost.

By intervening with the proposed legislation that we have introduced today, that is not say there are not good grievance arbitration procedures in many collective agreements. I say in all candour to members of the House that I feel very strongly that those good and sound grievance arbitration procedures that exist in many collective agreements will not be changed by the introduction of this bill. Rather, it will encourage the parties to improve existing agreements that in our view are not responding satisfactorily to the needs that exist in the industrial society. During the course of the procedures today, I will be introducing two or three amendments and on those occasions I’d like to speak to them.

Mr. Van Horne: In response to the minister’s comments and also in deference to some predecessors from my party who were involved in the initial discussion of the collective bargaining process here in Ontario -- and I go back a few decades when I say that --

I would like to make some observations about this bill. I do so under the following headings: Past history; the perceived need; the events of the last month or so; and reference to some amendments that our party would like to put forward.

I don’t think there is any question -- and I’ll repeat the comment I made on April 24 -- that our party is in general agreement with the theme which supports the need for an arbitration process that is good for all sections of the labour movement. There is no quarrel with that. In so far as past history is concerned, I indicated in my first statement that our party was very involved with the introduction of legislation encouraging collective bargaining in Ontario with the Collective Bargaining Act of 1943. We are proud of that involvement and proud of what our predecessors did.

As for the perceived need, I have not seen or heard any ground swell of requests from the labour field. Rather, this bill was brought to us by a ministry which, in my view, is intervening in the process to a point where it is almost obstructing the process. We weren’t apprised of any great demand from those smaller unions or those people who were adversely affected by the Labour Relations Act as it now stands. So I would question the perceived need for this legislation.

The third point I would like to make is that during this past month or six weeks we have seen some interesting happenings. First, the bill was introduced; second, there was an indication that perhaps a second reading and no committee involvement would happen as a matter of routine, if all parties concurred.

As I indicated earlier in April, I was not that well versed in labour matters and determined to seek some input from professionals, i.e., from arbitrators, from senior management people, from professionals in the schools of law, and, not last or least, from those people involved in the labour movement, that is, in the ranks and at the administrative level.

We did inquire and, in reply, we got some 20 answers, either written or over the phone, indicating that nobody felt this legislation was needed. When I made reference to this on second reading, there was some criticism put my way from both of the other parties. I would submit to them that between that time and now I have sought more support information that would help to convince me that this is good legislation. To this point, I have received only two indications that this legislation is very sorely needed. On the other hand, I have received an additional 18 communications, making a total of some 38 communications suggesting that generally speaking, Bill 25 is not needed.

[5:00]

I provide that as information to the members. I am not using it necessarily to build a strong case against the legislation. It’s worth noting that the apparent intent of this bill, expressed by the minister in the statement he made when the legislation was introduced, to speed up the process and to reduce the cost -- those are the two main themes he presented to us -- is good; those are good intentions. We can’t quarrel with them. But the majority of people who have contacted me and with whom I have spoken in the labour negotiation business, both in management and labour, have indicated pretty strongly that they worked hard to come up with an agreement or agreements over the years, that they understand each other and are prepared to work out their problems themselves. They perceive Bill 25, in spite of its good intentions, to be further governmental intrusion.

So, Mr. Chairman, I repeat what I said in the beginning; while our party and I personally agree in principle that arbitration be speeded up and that costs be reduced, we seriously question further intrusion and therefore will make an amendment or amendments to try to change this bill to accommodate those feelings.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Will you put the first amendment? Actually, we are not debating the principle of the bill here as I believe you have just been doing. Perhaps I should have intervened earlier, but I understand you have an amendment on section 1. Would you please put that amendment?

Mr. Van Horne: I wasn’t sure, Mr. Chairman, if the amendments that were going --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: May I just find out the question being raised by the member for Hamilton East?

Mr. Mackenzie: I am wondering on procedures inasmuch as the minister has had brief comments and so has the Liberal critic -- is that the intent? Because if it is, there are a few words I want to say on the bill as well. I don’t think you can have two of them and cut off the third.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: You are quite right and I will not do so. I thought the minister was going to make a few comments about the amendments he wished to make and I have certainly allowed the member for London North to proceed and, in fairness, I must allow you the same privilege -- I hope not for the same amount of time.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, under section 1 of the Labour Relations Act I think you have a fair amount of leeway in any event and I certainly welcome this bill as a positive step in the right direction. I would have preferred the government to go all the way and adopt the construction union grievance procedures as in section 112a and I don’t think it would have been as costly as the minister seems to feel.

It is interesting to note that once that procedure was established, there was no great increase in the number of cases handled under 112a. Indeed, figures from the deputy minister indicate that in 1976-77 there were 273 cases; in 1977-78, 264; in 1978-79, 238. So the argument that we would see a tremendous increase in cases just didn’t come about. However, we are not getting 112a so I think Bill 25 is the best thing we can hope for, hopefully with some very minor changes.

It’s useful, in view of the long wait for this legislation and in view of the rather frantic and often misleading opposition to the bill, to go briefly into why this bill and the particular sections in it are before us.

Under the current system of grievance arbitration in Ontario, it is true that some unions have worked out a relatively good system, but many of them have not -- and justice delayed is justice denied. Justice delayed also leads to increased tensions on the shop floor and these, in turn, lead to further grievances. If one sees the pile-up of grievances in some of the major contract negotiations, in this province, one will know why this kind of legislation is desperately needed.

To use only the example that I am most aware of -- and there are any number of figures; I am not sure exactly who my friend from the Liberal Party was talking to when he said there was no need for a single arbitrator in 345 cases presented -- there was an industrial inquiry commission on arbitration for the very purpose of dealing with complaints of the labour movement. In my own union, the Steelworkers, the time from the date of the grievance to the award, for a single arbitrator, has been averaging 187 days, with the range being from 58 to 398 days; for a board it is 335 days, with the range being from 27 to 1,408 days; the overall average is 317 days. In discharge cases, 15 per cent of all appeals were decided in six months, 43 per cent took six months to one year, and 41 per cent took more than a year.

The chances of a worker’s reinstatement drop sharply the longer the time for the arbitration. Even the most cynical anti-labour person knows that the person who suffers more in a discharge case is the worker who has bills to pay, family to support and a house to keep; not the corporation that is involved. There are many more figures, but we do not need to go into them.

Apart from the delays, there is the question of costs -- and I with that had been outlined a little more clearly in the discussions we have had. If you are lucky, you might deal in the $350 to $400 range -- and that is if you are very lucky; in fact, $800 to $1,000 or $1,100 a day is more likely the cost.

There is no justice, even for small locals of a major union, if they cannot carry out their basic function of protecting the worker and seeing that he gets his day in court because they simply cannot afford the cost. I have had cases brought to me on that count; I do not know who is talking to my friend in the Liberal Party.

The arbitration system was designed as a fair replacement for the strike as no-strike provisions were made mandatory in collective agreements in Ontario. If we were going to have this, a need for means of resolving disputes was necessary as well as a means of justice in the work place, for the worker on the job.

The original intent and the specific provisions of this bill were that the arbitration system should be a relatively cheap, quick, simple and accessible means of resolving disputes. In the present state of affairs, that is not happening. The byproduct of the arbitration system that has evolved is that the arbitrators and arbitration boards are generally stating in lengthy details the reasons for the decision, often accompanied by a detailed review of the facts as well as the legal principles on which they base their conclusions. Dissents have been equally lengthy in many cases; the reasons for the dissents have often formed the basis for applications to the courts to quash or reverse the decisions.

While it is true that arbitrators over the years have stated that awards have no binding force on future arbitrations, the search for precedents was and is a constant one.

The basic concept that the arbitration process would provide a quick, simple and accessible means of settling disputes has been lost along the way in many cases. With more than 37 volumes of LAGs now, we need more expertise and more costs just to compete in this particular field.

All of this makes a mockery of the criticisms that we have been getting for this particular bill: the arguments that the bill allows the collective bargaining process to be bypassed, thereby reducing its efficiency and leading to a deterioration in employee-employer relations and increased public expense, or represents further government intrusion into an area where private interests are best equipped to make and manage the situation. None of these arguments holds true; indeed, the reverse is probably the case in almost every case.

One of the amendments I have seen -- I do not know if the same one is being moved; we will get to it a little later in the discussion -- is based on the argument that the bill should be put forward only as an alternative that the parties may jointly agree to use as they see fit. I do not know exactly where my Liberal colleague got the amendment, but he could find it in almost exactly those terms in the brief from the mining association.

I also know that, if that kind of an amendment went through, the people who would be hurt, who would bear the brunt of negotiated pressure to reject the bill, are the small locals, the people right now who need this kind of protection; and the real fight then would switch to that of trying to negotiate it into the legislation, and, boy, I can see the difficulties one would have in some cases like that.

I note that some of the labour arbitrators argue that some of the delays are as a result of interplay between company and union. I think that is true. Unions have to bear part of the blame for some of the delays. But I can tell members from personal experience that in many cases it is because the time costs and formalities are themselves such a deterrent and, because they have had so many bitter experiences with the long delays and the costs in achieving justice that they hold up the grievance procedure in the hope of reaching some kind of a settlement with management without going the arbitration route.

I think the briefs we are seeing avoid the fact that collective bargaining is an adversarial relationship and that at best a small local, even a small local within a big union, is not necessarily the match for a major company. I found it amusing when I read in one of the briefs that one of the companies said the grievance procedure clauses should not be interfered with as they were finally acceptable after 25 years of negotiations. If it takes 25 years to arrive at an acceptable method of handling something as vital as a worker’s grievance, then it bloody well should be interfered with.

I trust that the minister will not delay in producing the fee structure, which I regret is not available. I also trust we will have an assurance that he is prepared to bring in amendments, say a year or 18 months down the road, if we find some provisions of this particular bill are not working properly. I also trust we will see some concrete programs to train and supply an additional quantity of arbitrators, which is going to be one of the concerns of the people who are dealing with the bill.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to say we have one very short amendment to section 37a, following subsection 7. We will deal with that when we reach that point in the bill.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Van Horne moves that section 37a(1) of the Labour Relations Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out “notwithstanding the arbitration provision in a collective agreement or deemed to be included in a collective agreement under section 37” in the first, second and third lines and inserting in lieu thereof “except where a collective agreement states that this subsection does not apply.”

Mr. Van Horne: I would say a few words on this and in doing so give at least a partial rebuttal to the New Democratic labour critic, the member for Hamilton East. He indicated he was not sure where an amendment of this nature might originate. I would submit that in searching around within our caucus discussion and with the assistance of our research people we were able to find that in legislation passed fairly recently in British Columbia -- and I believe at the time there was a New Democratic Party involved with the government in British Columbia, so I am rather surprised the member is not familiar with this -- section 96 does permit an opting-out process.

In pursuing the legislation that exists in British Columbia, we were able to find out that the provision it has had in effect for the last five or six years has not caused too many problems, if any. On that ground alone, I think we are able to say there is a precedent and that if we wanted to add to it the Ontario flavour, we could equally support this kind of amendment. We therefore proposed this.

I would add, in supporting the amendment, it is viewed by some that the intervention that is proposed under section 37, although it may be effective in the short run, could perhaps be damaging or not so effective in the long run.

[5:15]

To refer to comments I made earlier about the process we have developed in Ontario, the process of arriving at a satisfactory collective agreement wherein both sides are happy and both sides are prepared to work out their problems, I have to wonder if this kind of legislation we’re looking at today won’t have some adverse effect on both sides.

The third question I have to ask is about the cost, if all parties to collective agreements across the province are going to have access to the new arbitration process which is really being suggested here. We obviously are going to have to have more and better trained arbitrators. How much is it going to cost? For openers, we don’t even know how many there will be. It’s pretty difficult to put a handle on the cost.

In presenting a private member’s bill last Thursday, a bill I thought about for two years -- that is Bill 69 -- I did take the liberty of looking through the library to find some evidence of compendium information on various bills the government was bringing forth. In the case of this piece of legislation the compendium information consists of a variety of booklets of information -- the Kelly report and other things. It’s so bulky that only one was provided and it was found in the Clerk’s office.

In looking through that I didn’t find any indication of how much this piece of legislation is going to cost the taxpayers of Ontario. There was no indication at all. Perhaps the minister could inform us, as he makes some replies to these comments, if any thought has been given to cost.

In summary I would have to think the amendment that had been put forward should be acceptable. It does allow opting out and would. in my view, see that those parties who are content with the agreement they’ve been able to reach over the years or over this past year -- those people who put their minds to the task -- would be unencumbered by Bill 25 and we would then see Bill 25 apply to only those who would see it otherwise as a process which might assist them.

I would leave my comments at that point, hoping to hear in reply from the minister.

Mr. Mackenzie: I’ll be very brief. We intend to oppose this Liberal amendment. If the parties are content and can reach that kind of an agreement there’s no reason why they can’t continue with their present procedures now, it’s a right that’s there if one of the parties feels aggrieved and feels it is not getting justice under the present system or feels it can’t afford the expense of going through, if the parties are not able to reach agreement, the arbitration procedures and costs.

I would like the right to opt out of a good number of pieces of legislation myself if I didn’t like them. I think it’s a very dangerous precedent. I think it has the effect really of gutting this bill. I think it’s important that it’s not supported.

Mr. Bounsall: If I could make a very brief comment. This section is a permissive section any way. It’s of the type you can have in a collective agreement where they may request the minister to go to a single arbitrator. I don’t see that you need a clause allowing the parties to a collective agreement to opt out of something, which is a “may” request to the minister in any event. I would say it’s a most unusual amendment in that sense because the changes here are of a permissive nature anyway. As I understand it, an agreement needs to be reached by parties in approaching the minister asking for the single arbitrator, in any event. .I don’t see any sense of the opting out.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few brief remarks.

I’d like to preface them by re-emphasizing what I said in my opening remarks for the member for London North who is chatting with that sterling fellow from Haldimand-Norfolk, or whatever it is.

Mr. Roy: Great member.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Fine man. I appreciate some of the reasons he’s introduced this amendment. I can understand some of the concerns some people have. But I’d like to assure him, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that section 63 and section 37(2) already intervene in the collective bargaining process, first of all by requesting there shall not be any withdrawal of services during the term of the contract and, secondly, by requesting there shall be a grievance arbitration procedure in a collective agreement. If there isn’t, it inserts a model one. Surely that’s a firm example of intervention in the collective bargaining process to the most marked degree.

What I’ve said today to you is because of that intervention, surely, we have an obligation to assess how the grievance arbitration procedure works. With the greatest of respect for the member, and he knows I have that for him, I would submit he is in error if he thinks there aren’t problems out there. He is quite correct when he assumes many companies have grievance arbitration procedures that are working very well. Frankly, when they are working well and they’ve been agreed upon by the parties, I for the life of me cannot see why this bill, which provides a permissive alternative, will cause a bargaining agent to change his direction from the known pathway they’ve agreed upon to the unknown permissive pathway the minister has offered as an option.

During that collective agreement they have worked on for whatever number of years, they’ve agreed upon an arbitrator; and they may have agreed upon a great variety of other things. Why would the bargaining agent, the same person, be put under such unusual pressure to accept a ministerial option which, as the member said, is permissive that he would suddenly back out of something that they have negotiated freely and happily and with which everybody is pleased? I just don’t follow that logic. I am firmly convinced those companies that have sound grievance arbitration procedures will not feel the effect or impact of this bill for one minute. If they do, then I would suggest it’s time to get back to the bargaining table and renegotiate the grievance arbitration procedure.

The member made some reference to some British Columbia legislation. I don’t want to get into discussions about that because, frankly, if you’re going to take a little excerpt from the British Columbia Labour Relations Act, I think one should review the whole act because there are a great variety of things in the labour act in British Columbia which I’d be pleased to discuss with the member at any time. To take one single section and say that’s how they do it there, has to be taken in the context of the whole labour act.

As to the cost, as I mentioned in the act, the question of fees will be settled by regulation. It will be settled after consultation and input from all interested parties; the legal profession, the arbitrators, the labour movement, and management so we can endeavour to reach what is considered and agreed upon by all to be a fair and reasonable fee. As to the cost in terms of the government, clearly, that’s the reason we chose this, rightly or wrongly. I think it’s right not to get involved in the major public expenditure for this sort of problem. That is a problem with which we feel that parties should deal.

I can assure the member the costs presently involved in the Labour-Management Arbitration Commission will virtually be the same, barring the actual final figures which, of course, can’t be arrived upon until the costs are put to Management Board for review. This member and this House have my assurance the cost we now perceive will be very little above the present costs for the Labour-Management Arbitration Commission.

As for the presence or absence of arbitrators, Mr. Justice Kelly made it very clear, and I’ve made it very clear we see it as a very important part of this legislation that we continue to have available the services of that well-trained group of arbitrators who presently exist in the system. Approximately 60 are already there. To say we are suddenly introducing legislation which will confound a group of untrained people is really not fair. The member can go down to the Labour-Management Arbitration Commission today and review the names on the list of people who are arbitrators who have been selected by joint agreement between management and labour. They are a fine, outstanding, able group of people. I have heard of no fear I have heard of that I accept that there will be any dearth of able, talented people willing to continue to perform in the role of arbitrator.

I must oppose the member’s amendment because it robs the bill of its very guts. The essence of it is that if there is a good grievance arbitration procedure in place now this bill will not interfere with it. If there isn’t, then it will encourage the parties to bargain and get a better one.

Mr. Van Horne: I would go back to the question of cost for just a moment and dispute the minister’s suggestion there will be virtually no additional cost. In so far as the arbitrators are concerned perhaps this might be so, but we are not really sure of that. You are guessing, and quite frankly I am guessing. Beyond that, in this legislation we see a new creature, that is the settlement officer.

This is not speaking to the amendment, and if I am out of order I will gladly speak to it later, but we are talking about costs and they are related to this section. Did you intend, when you gave the answer that they would be the same, that the costs be related only to arbitrators, or are you talking about something else when you talk about settlement officers? Is there an additional cost there? You can answer that in due course but I think it is a valid point.

You also suggest there are many, many, many, many -- I don’t know how many “manys” you threw into your statement -- good agreements and many instances wherein this particular Bill 25 might not even be needed.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Several.

Mr. Van Horne: If everything is so good, you might ask the question why do we bother looking at this legislation in the first place? We have heard some arguments, but again expediency and cost are your answers.

The question I put to you again is are you not interfering with the agreements that have presently been established? Are you not interfering with the good relations that have been developed over the years through the honest efforts of those labour people who are representing their fellow workers and the management people who are representing their company? Are you not putting another avenue on stream for those people who may come along in the future? You are dealing with the present and the past, but I would like to take a look down the road to the future. Is there no possibility of some abuse in the negotiating process with this kind of legislation? Finally, I have to wonder when you question why we would bring this on stream, why there weren’t public hearings by the Kelly commission. Submissions were made, granted, but there were no public bearings.

When we deal with this bill it goes from second reading to committee of the whole House. I have to admit in the initial stages I thought this would be the best way of dealing with this legislation. Having received a fair bit of flak over it, I am wondering if it wouldn’t have been good to have a hearing through standing committee, rather than committee of the whole House, and let it all be put on the table. In fairness to both sides I don’t think that has really happened.

There is a suggestion too that this is sort of a pro-labour bill. I am not suggesting that I am not pro-labour, but I have to submit there are two sides in the negotiating process. I am sure you are aware of the feelings of many of the management people. I don’t have to list the 30 or so who contacted me.

[5:30]

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I hate to prolong this discussion, but let me assure the member once again. My first premise is that the act, by its very nature, already interferes in the collective bargaining process and by interfering we impose upon ourselves an obligation to review how it works. I said that before and I won’t bother reiterating it. It’s clear that in many situations it wasn’t working well and it behooves us to try and correct it.

It’s really that simple. There’s no nefarious scheme or plot; it’s not a pro-labour or an anti-labour bill. It’s a bill designed to improve the system, to improve industrial relations, and that’s the sole object. I think it’s improper and I would hesitate to view the bill as pro-anybody. I think it’s pro the system and pro improving relations in the work place.

As to the cost, I wasn’t referring to the costs of arbitration, As the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) mentioned, our experience with section 112(a), which deals with the construction industry, hasn’t indicated any increase or any significant increase in the number of arbitrations as a result of that process and I would be surprised if in the long run there are any increases here. There may well be some in the first year or two, who can predict? But I think it will get the parties to address themselves to the issue we should all be concerned about, and that’s the grievance.

The costs to which I referred are the costs within government. I can’t tell you what those costs will be in any finite detail because we still have to go to Management Board over it, but I would suggest that one of the amendments I have introduced will allow as to phase in the process and get a better understanding of it without rushing into any costly endeavours. It will allow us to gain some experience, add staff and do the things which we think would be appropriate in order to correct deficiencies in the system. I continue with my opposition to the member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Van Horne’s amendment to section 1 will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Van Horne moves that section 37a of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(8) Subsection to subsection 9, an arbitrator appointed under subsection 4 shall render his decision in writing without reasons to both parties within seven days of the conclusion of the hearing.

“(9) Where prior to the conclusion of the hearing either party requests reasons, an arbitrator appointed under subsection 4 shall render his decision with reasons in writing within 30 days of the conclusion of the hearing and that subsection 8 of the said section be renumbered as subsection 10.”

Mr. Van Horne: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the bill as proposed by the government attempts to deal with the problem of delay prior to but not following a hearing on the matter. The government failed to impose any limit on the amount of time an arbitrator must take to make an award. Our amendment is consistent with the findings of the joint management labour subcommittee of the Canadian Bar Association, which also recommends that time limits be imposed requiring arbitrators to render a decision within a fixed period of time. I say that in reference to the first of the two sections on which I made an amendment, and I would stop at that point if the other parties wished to reply.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps you would like to continue with the whole amendment.

Mr. Van Horne: I think, Mr. Chairman, that I will refrain from any further comments, because really they are almost identical in both instances.

Mr. Mackenzie: I would just point out, Mr. Chairman, that we will be opposing these amendments. Depending on whether you use ministry or some of the union figures, once a single arbitrator is appointed, from there to the decision averages either 22 or 23 days; I think this item 9 particularly may very well result in some of the decisions taking the full 30 days. In any event, I think it’s better to give the legislation a chance to see what will happen rather than put these kind of time restrictions on it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of remarks. I think the point the member for Hamilton East made is a valid one. The statistics we have gathered reveal that when a single arbitrator is seized of a grievance arbitration problem, in 81 per cent of cases the decision will be awarded within 30 days, and that’s quite a contrast to other situations where there are larger boards. There’s a lot to be said though, on paper, for having time limits down; but let’s look at other legislation where there are time limits.

For instance, the Police Act has a 60-day time limit. On one occasion there was a case that went to the Supreme Court because the arbitration award did not come down within that 60 days and the courts held that the 60 day time limit was a directive only. You could say we should make it a mandatory time limit. The problem with that is that of course if the arbitration comes back in 31 days with a decision it is null and void and the whole arbitration process has to start over again. In most situations single arbitrators have dealt with by far the greatest majority of problems within 30 days, therefore a reasonable time limit would be a directive only, but, if you make it mandatory you will force a few cases to go through the whole arbitrary procedure again.

In view of what we feel will be a closer relationship to the whole process once it’s a part of the ministry, I think it’s unreasonable at this time. I am not saying it won’t have to come one day, but I have faith in the process and the figures and the people involved and the facts that I have outlined. I would consider that those are two unnecessary amendments at this time and I would oppose them.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Van Horne’s amendment will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton East, on what section?

Mr. Mackenzie: Section 1 dealing with section 37a of the act; which, depending on how the vote goes on the other amendments, would involve a new subsection 7. The amendment that I would move is a very simple one.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mackenzie moves that section 37a of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

“(8) Upon the agreement of the parties, the arbitrator shall deliver an oral decision forthwith or as soon as practical without giving his reasons in writing therefor.”

The existing subsection 8 will be renumbered subsection 9.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of that amendment, Mr. Chairman, is simply that there are a sizeable number of agreements that could be resolved right on the spot at the hearing if the parties were agreeable to a verbal decision of the arbitrator and it might cut down some of the load substantially.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, it is a reasonable amendment, and it comes partway to meeting some of the concerns of the member for London North. I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. Van Horne: I have no objection, Mr. Chairman.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elgie moves that section 37a of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(10) The minister may establish a list of approved arbitrators and, for the purpose of advising him with respect to persons qualified to act as arbitrators in matters relating to arbitration, the minister may constitute a labour-management advisory committee composed of a chairman to be designated by the minister, and six members, three of whom shall represent employers and three of whom shall represent trade unions, and their remuneration and expenses shall be as the Lieutenant Governor in Council determines.

“(11) This section does not apply to a collective agreement in operation on the day this act comes into force but applies to every collective agreement that is renewed or made after that date.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I have some very brief remarks. The first part of the amendment really does what I intended to do by regulation, but I think it is important that it be spelled out that the selection of arbitrators is something that I feel requires the advice of a labour-management group, and I think that it is important that both of those groups know that I will appreciate their advice in the future, should this amendment pass.

On the second amendment, I think I have already mentioned the thrust of it. It allows us to phase in the act stage by stage so that we can gather together the valuable people who will be needed as we proceed rather than trying, in a rather hurried-up way, to gather together a staff. It will allow us time to do that in a very orderly and appropriate way. It also indicates some of our concern about intruding into the present collective agreements, and it allows the parties Ito bargain at the expiry of their present contracts to correct any deficiencies they may perceive in their existing grievance arbitration procedure.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, in so far as the advisory committee part of the amendment is concerned, I am pleased to support that, because I perceive it as a way in which parties may have more input into the process; it is as simple as that, and anything that allows more input is good, in my view.

[5:45]

The other part of the suggested amendment, that is, permitting this to be phased in, as it were, will allow both parties some time to consider revising their procedures so that it does not exceed the limits set out here; that, too, is good. Certainly I feel this is a bit of a concession, and perhaps the anxiety of waiting over these last four weeks and getting a little bit of flak has moved the minister to make this small concession. I do not think there is any question, as originally viewed, if this bill had come into effect, as it obviously would have because our party was the only one that was opposing lit in any way, shape or form, there would have been a very strong feeling out in the community that if it became effective right away with agreements that were sitting there it would have been very upsetting to them. This is a concession, I am happy to think, which we might have had some small part in bringing about.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have no problems with section 10 at all and would support it. We have discussed section 11 and will support this amendment as well. I should point out in all fairness that it personally causes me some rather severe reservations. A number of pieces of legislation take effect upon the proclamation. I am not sure that I buy the argument that you need time to phase in legislation. We have waited a long time for some legislation to reduce the delays that seriously affect many people in lengthy or costly arbitration cases.

However, I think this is a positive bill. It is one of the first bills -- and for this I commend the minister -- that has made an effort to deal with one of the longstanding and severe problems we have had In the labour field. Maybe there are some fears there in terms of the agreements we have in existing collective agreements and in terms of the kind of a panel of arbitrators we are going to have and how the bill is going to work and whether it gets a chance to be eased in or phased in.

It is not the way I would have gone. In frying to understand these fears, however, it may very well be the case that this particular amendment will force the parties that have not been able to reach satisfactory conclusions in the past in the arbitration procedures to sit down and come up with better methods and to do it in the time frame they have before the expiry of their current contracts.

I do want to point out, however, the reason I have some reservations, although I am willing to accept the amendment, is that there are some two-year and there are some three-year contracts around. I suppose at the time this legislation becomes law there is not going to be that large a percentage of the work force involved in three-year contracts, but it does mean if they are not happy with the current procedures, these workers are going to be waiting a fairly long time. I hope what we gain in terms of more acceptance of a rather substantial change in the procedures is worth the costs that may exist to some of those that are locked into fairly long contracts. Having said that, we will support the government amendment.

Mr. Bounsall: Here is where I give the game away. I just wanted to say that I too had some concerns about section 10, but I can understand that there may be some advantages to having a phase -- in period for the bill. I gather that more than half of the contracts do come up within the year in any event, so this will be effective for more than half of the contracts. With a bill that is an improvement, I do not like to see a waiting period for those persons who will not have the advantages of it at the same time others will.

In the selection of the list of arbitrators you are being advised by a panel under the other amendment as to who should be arbitrators. Maybe we could well afford to have some experience of the bill’s operation before it does apply to everyone in the province, even though I would like to see everyone covered by those positive amendments. It may well be that by the time most people would then use it any procedures or problems that come with introducing these amendments will have been worked out for them to avoid any delays that might come for some of those units in any event. While I am not particularly happy with it, I certainly would not oppose it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I have one further small amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elgie moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

2. Section 96(1) of the act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“96(1) Where a request is made under section 15, section 37(1), or section 37a(1), the minister may refer to the board any questions that arise that in his opinion relate to his authority to make an appointment under any such provision that is mentioned in the reference and the board shall report to the minister a decision on the question.”

Hon. Mr. Elgie also moves that the following sections of the bill be renumbered accordingly.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: This amendment really adds the reference to section 37(a) in section 96 to allow the minister to refer in case there is any question about his authority to appoint an arbitrator.

Motion agreed to.

Sections 3 to 6 as renumbered inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We have a number of amendments stacked. I would remind the members that the division bells will ring for up to 10 minutes.

The committee divided on Mr. Swart’s amendment to section 4 of Bill 29, which was negatived on the following vote: Ayes 28; nays 62.

Bill 29 reported.

The committee divided on Mr. Van Horne’s amendment to section 1 of Bill 25, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 23; nays 67.

The committee divided on Mr. Van Horne’s further amendment to section 1 of Bill 25, which was negatived on the same vote.

Bill 25, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Grossman, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendments and another bill without amendment.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 25, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Bill 29, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Niagara.

The House recessed at 6:08 p.m.