Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

STORMONT BY-ELECTION

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the House leader, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Deputy Premier, if he is aware of any plans to introduce amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act which would make it possible to have a by-election this fall in the Stormont constituency, which has been vacant now for a few weeks but which surely should be filled with a by-election this fall.

Is the minister aware that the provisions of the Legislative Assembly Act prohibit calling a by-election during a session of the Legislature? According to the best advice available, just because we rise for the summer does not mean that the session has been interrupted by prorogation, and therefore the law would prohibit calling the by-election.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I am really not aware of what the government’s intentions are, but since we are anxious to have that seat filled over here, I imagine that we will call it as soon as we can.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, since the minister is leaving some impression that it is going to be a Conservative, let me ask him if he doesn’t believe that that’s something that we should leave up to the electors of Stormont? Since we do not want to leave them unrepresented, will the minister undertake before the House closes either to make a statement himself or advise the Premier that we want this accomplished before the House closes or rises for a summer recess?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I would not for one moment doubt the judgement of the electors in that constituency and I am sure they stand firm, but I will endeavour to seek that information and inform the House.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Not the way they are talking against the Premier on the hustings right now.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s the member for Ottawa Centre talking.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s the electorate who are saying that in the federal election.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Let the minister go ahead and call it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

SEATBELTS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications if he can give us any further information about this seatbelt legislation that has been discussed ever since the Speech from the Throne many weeks ago, since one of his officials is reported as having given details of the legislation, indicating that policemen would be exempt but pregnant women would not? Can the minister affirm that that is a part of the policy of legislation which he intends to introduce into this House, and if the planning has gone to the staff where his officials are talking about the details of it, maybe he had better put it on the table so we can all have a look at it?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): What about a pregnant policewoman?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Exempt.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any comments that have been made by officials. We have been discussing the possible contents of the legislation. There are certain exemptions that would be considered at the time that legislation would be introduced, but I certainly haven’t discussed the possibility of exempting policemen and not exempting pregnant women.

A very interesting point has been raised by one of the members opposite. We would have to look into that situation involving pregnant policewomen if such an exemption was being considered. We have not really got down to preparing the legislation in that sort of detail. Obviously some official is talking about discussion that has been held in a very general way.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Has the minister previously made it clear that the government does intend to go forward with that legislation, or is it still subject to, let’s say, the latest reports of the opinion polls?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am in the process of attempting, as I have said, to prepare that legislation. It will be presented for government consideration and a decision will be made at that time, of course.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the recent accidents that have been occurring in connection with school buses, would the minister consider bringing in amendments to the Highway Traffic Act making it mandatory for seatbelts on school buses to protect those children and also those adults who are injured as a result of bus accidents? I think the most recent was the one in Lindsay where a number of senior citizens were thrown out of the seats and the seats, as a matter of fact, came loose from the frame. Would he consider bringing in an amendment making mandatory seatbelts in school buses before school begins in the fall?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the possibility of seatbelts being placed in school buses is certainly being looked at. In fact, we are looking at the possibility of having them in all buses, not only school buses. The hon. member, who I know has an interest in school bus legislation, I think is also very well aware that there is going to have to be a very drastic change in the type of bus being used for school bus purposes, because to put seatbelts in them right now, I don’t think they would really be effective. We are looking at that very point that the buses are not really up to the standard they should be to transport youngsters safely.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister should adopt the hon. member’s private legislation.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Supplementary question: Notwithstanding the minister’s intention perhaps to change the type of bus, what is he going to do to ensure that there is adequate and regular inspection of the school buses that are already on the road? I think the minister is aware of one of the situations that I am talking about.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that sort of inspection is being carried out and will be stepped up. I know from some of the reports I have read just recently that we have been taking school buses off the road that have not met the specific standards.

This has been a problem, but the inspection of school buses has been stepped up and intensified to make sure these vehicles are in as safe a condition as possible, under the existing standards.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary, if I may. Is it true that, although a bus may well be designated as a school bus, it doesn’t fall within the regulations for school buses if its use is solely for chartered trips and, therefore, it is not inspected at all?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I really can’t answer that with any degree of accuracy. That may well be. These are some of the problems that we are trying to overcome as we are looking at seatbelt legislation that possibly would include buses of all kinds. We are also considering amendments to the school bus legislation to do what we can -- and very sincerely do what we can -- to make the buses that transport children to and from school safer and offer more protection to the young people who are riding them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ACTIVITIES OF WESTERN GUARD

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Attorney General if he can give any information to the House as to the procedures that have been used to prosecute members of the so-called Western Guard and other neo-fascists who have been active in the Toronto community. I understand that there have been arrests made in the last day or two; but is it possible to use the federal anti-hate legislation -- which is in general terms -- rather than the legislation that specifically refers to damage of property or personal injury?

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I would draw the attention of the hon. Leader of the Opposition to, I think it is section 281 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which incorporates the points that he is making reference to. There is an offence there with respect to activities that incite people along the lines to which he makes reference.

I know of no cases on the matter at the moment. Of course, it requires the consent of the Attorney General before any matters are proceeded with there; but it is section 281 of the Criminal Code.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Does the Attorney General think that the usage of the more general parts of the statutes, that is, bodily injury and property damage, to arrest these people who have been breaking up meetings -- for example, Oxfam at the University of Toronto, CITY Television, the Sikh Temple, where it is alleged they were partially or totally responsible -- is the minister contemplating using section 281, with the more general powers, to bring this group under some more direct control?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to say at this point that by virtue of the meetings I have had with the province’s multicultural council, and certain investigations, we are giving some consideration to what the various possibilities are of proceeding on the basis of the strength of the evidence which we have.

I simply draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to section 281, because it is the section of the Criminal Code about which there has been something written in the last couple of days -- and there are some problems with respect to establishing the intent. I think the Leader of the Opposition raises a very interesting question as to whether or not one would have more success in confining this whole thing to the question of property damage. But I think the multicultural council has really invited us to give some consideration to the broader issue as to the relationship between the activity and how it might incite people with respect to hatred and that type of conduct.

I think it is sufficient to say at this stage that the whole matter is under investigation in my ministry.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Lewis: Has it occurred to the minister to examine the extraordinary slowness with which charges are laid by the police in instances of this kind for anti-social behaviour, which borders on the crypto-fascist, as compared with the breathtaking speed with which charges are laid against trade unionists on a lawful picket line?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I could speak perhaps in this general way, the hon. member would be the first to appreciate that to proceed with respect to the gathering of evidence to substantiate a charge under 281 requires --

Mr. Lewis: The hate literature part of it is much more complex, I appreciate that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am sorry, I have interpreted the hon. member’s question to have relation to that.

Mr. Lewis: No, I am referring to assault charges -- simple assault charges -- and how long in this case it takes to resolve CITY Television and CTV.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Having had that clarification, it will be difficult for me to give a general answer. It would depend on the circumstances of the particular case.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Is the minister rather hesitant to use the powers under section 281 because he feels that it is unworkable, that it would not stand up in court? Or does he feel that it might be an unwarranted intrusion that he personally could not support? What is the matter that is under concern?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in case there is any misunderstanding, I would have absolutely no hesitation in proceeding under section 281, provided I was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to place before a court.

Mr. Lewis: It is much tougher.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think that the hon. member will appreciate that with reference to this whole question as to the sufficiency of the evidence and the establishment of the case with respect to intent, I suppose the very reason why the Attorney General’s consent is necessary is to ensure that in fact we are moving in line with the intent of this section. A very important principle is involved with respect to what in fact would form a prima facie case here.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING AGENCY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Industry and Tourism if he can give us a little more information on his announcement of the establishment of something he chooses to call an in-house advertising service to place all of the government ads, which surely must involve a very large number of dollars in the buying of time and space.

Would the minister not consider having some sort of a procedure whereby this could be done without paying a percentage to an outside agency for buying the space, since most of it seems to be fairly institutional type of advertising that appears regularly in the weekly and ethnic press, indicating the sensitivity and concern of the provincial government in all fields of human activity?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, the agency of record that is reported in the morning newspaper has been under consideration for a period of time by the government. It is to co-ordinate the purchasing activities of the government as far as advertising media are concerned, whether it be newspaper, radio, television or special periodicals, so that we gain the maximum discount for the volume of linage or time purchased from a particular corporation.

While we have not made a firm decision as to who will be the agent of record, he will be an overall agent; and agencies that are responsible to each minister will report to the agency of record.

May I comment on the commission factor? Whether or not we as a government buy the advertising in-house, the linage and the cost of the linage will remain the same. I recognize that a bona fide advertising agency is paid a commission directly by the third party -- the newspapers, radio, television or the special publications. So there is no advantage to us in retaining this service in-house; we acquire the expertise from outside and the commission, as I have already indicated, is paid off the bill by the party we pay it to.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he has not yet made a firm decision. I thought he was calling for submissions, if not tenders, from a number of agencies. Has he made a partial decision? And if so, who?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker, we have made no decision. Nine firms have been invited to submit their proposals in regard to becoming the agency of record for the government of Ontario. Some have indicated clearly to us that they are not interested at this time because of volume of work they are presently doing for other corporations.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the government also looking at the creation of a government body that would have the status of an advertising agency and therefore could ensure that the discounts available to media buyers would come into public pockets rather than into the hands of an advertising agency?

Mr. Deans: They could always hire Ward Cornell.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if the member had been listening, I believe he would have picked that up from my remarks. That is the reason we are establishing the agency of record. One agency will purchase all the linage or time from the news media and will get the maximum volume discounts that possibly will come to the government.

Mr. Cassidy: But will they be passed on to the government?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the agency of record works for the government; it does not work for itself. Any volume discounts that are obtained are obviously for the client -- and we are the client.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): The minister must be aware of the fact that it is standard practice in industry for all agencies to compete for contracts. Over the years we have heard the same bit of garbage from his department --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Sargent: The question is, why does the government end up giving the same firm the contract? If it is a competitive bid deal, which is standard practice in the USA and Canada, why does the government always end up with the same firm getting the deal?

An hon. member: That’s the second time he’s said that.

Mr. Sargent: I just cannot believe the minister’s statement that no agency wants the deal. What agencies are refusing the business? Will the minister tell me that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I already have indicated quite clearly that there are nine firms which have been requested to submit proposals as to taking over the agency of record for the Province of Ontario. One or two have already indicated to us that they are not interested because of the volume of work they presently have on their books. The others are making proposals and will submit them to the ministry for review at which time I shall report the position to cabinet for a decision.

May I also indicate to the members of the House the agency of record’s fee will be deducted from the fee which would have been retained, or maintained, by the agency which works for the responsible ministry. It is not a second fee. In other words, if the agency working for my ministry should obtain a 10 or 15 per cent commission from the newspapers in Toronto or Ontario, 1.5 or two per cent of that commission will be paid to the agency of records for the work it will do in placing the ads and making sure they are located or placed in the right spots and the volume discounts are acquired by the government.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary again, Mr. Speaker: I do not believe the minister’s statement that any agency --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question, please.

Mr. Sargent: Will he tell me what agency in Ontario or Canada will work for 1.5 per cent? Name one.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister have any further response?

Mr. Sargent: Will he answer the question? Will he name one agency?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I’m not in a position to name one agency for the very simple reason that, if the member has been listening, their responsibility is not that of designing and developing advertising for the province.

Mr. Sargent: It doesn’t matter a damn.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, since the member for Grey-Bruce seems to know so much about it maybe he should be in the business.

Mr. Sargent: That is my business.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There are a lot of them that are.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated very clearly that the agent of record will be working for one to 1.5 per cent of the commission factor obtained by the other agencies. Their job is not to develop a full advertising programme; their job is to see that the advertising for this province is placed in the proper media and that we obtain maximum discounts for the linage or time that we purchase.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition?

The hon. member for Scarborough West is next.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR’S ACTIVITIES

Mr. Lewis: Could I ask the Attorney General -- I’m sorry to interrupt him -- whether his attention has been drawn to an article in The Canadian of mid-June -- this month -- dealing with a licensed private investigator named Morris Boychuk, operating in the Province of Ontario, who indicates, in the course of the article:

“While he’s on the job he watches for employees who are stealing from the company, slackers, time-card cheaters and people who drink on the job. A restaurant chain had him report on which workers were trying to bring a union into the company, then the president fired them.”

Does he recognize that that is in violation of the laws of the province and could he undertake an investigation into these categorical assertions as they are related in this article?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, that article has not been brought to my attention but I will look into the matter to which the hon. member makes reference.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much.

OIL PRICES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Energy a question? In light of the hearings now taking place in the Province of Nova Scotia, affirming their legislation on the right of their public utilities board to scrutinize oil company prices; in light of the feeling of the oil companies that such legislation is now being considered in other provinces, which was asserted again on CBC this morning, has he such draft legislation in mind? Is it his intention to move in the direction of the Nova Scotia experience?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Oh! Then the various reports which have suggested that Ontario, or the Minister of Energy, is considering such scrutiny or controls of the oil companies, that kind of intimation, implicit and explicit is wrong, I take it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, we’re considering a great number of things but I have nothing to announce to the House at this moment.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): A supplementary: In many previous replies to similar questions the minister has said, “I’m not considering it now.” What does that mean? Might he consider it next week or next month? Is it on his docket for consideration at the appropriate time whenever that happens to be?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, at the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): By way of a supplementary: Does the minister consider the follow-the-leader price policy, as disclosed before those hearings yesterday, in the best interests of the consumers of the Province of Ontario, in the context of his responsibility as the Minister of Energy?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m afraid I did not see the report to which the hon. member made reference. I assume it was about the hearings yesterday in Nova Scotia, but I didn’t see the paper this morning.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary, how would the minister pronounce upon the assertion by Gulf that they have to raise their prices to meet the identical prices set by Imperial, because if they maintain them at a lower level Imperial would lose money and, therefore, Gulf has to maintain them at an equal level? Does he not think that that is a price fixing of the kind that justifies Ontario stepping in in defence of the consumer?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would want to see the context in which it was said, and I have not seen it. I would simply say if it is a matter of price-fixing, then it is clearly a matter which should be investigated under the Combines Act.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the majority of the oil companies are American-owned here in this country and that the policy trend in the States now is to take off the depletion allowances allowed to the oil companies where they have such gross fantastic profits, does the minister recommend following the same pattern to cancel depletion allowances to these oil companies?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much if this is supplementary to the question. I would simply say that by a combination of one method or another, not including depletion allowances, had Mr. Turner’s recent budget been enacted, it would have cost, for example, in Saskatchewan or Alberta something like $1.07 to produce a barrel of oil for which the producer would have received $1. It would not be necessary under those circumstances to change any depletion allowances because nothing would be there to deplete. I think obviously there has to be a balance and a reasonable rate of return in the industry if we are to find the oil. I would only say this, that Mr. Turner’s budget went far too far in the other direction.

Mr. Sargent: A further supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, there has been a reasonable number of supplementaries. The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Sargent: This is right to the point, Mr. Speaker. It is very important to the Canadian taxpayer to find this out.

Mr. Speaker: There have been a reasonable number of supplementaries. All questions are important in this period. The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Sargent: You just don’t care, do you?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West. There have been a reasonable number of supplementaries.

CENTRALIZATION OF EDUCATION IN LANARK COUNTY

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Education. Given the amount of correspondence and material he has received from Lanark county dealing with the centralizing tendencies of the school board, including material from various home and school associations, is he prepared to take another look at what is occurring in that county or the general centralizing experience as it is shared around Ontario? Is he prepared to take a stand on what is happening in Lanark?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): As I recall, Mr. Speaker, from the correspondence that I have had with some of the people there, it again boils down to the question of whether you give a board local autonomy. Boards have certain powers that they are given under our legislation to provide accommodation. I certainly assume and hope that all boards consult very freely and fully with the people in their communities and then make the decisions that they feel are best for their areas. We give them this right as they are elected by the people. We expect them to uphold that right and to do the best things for their communities. It seems that every time a problem arises, somebody expects someone down here can solve it. And the way of solving it usually is to do something that the board won’t do, which again interferes with the local elected people. I am very loath to do that on a lot of occasions.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the concern expressed in that county and elsewhere in the province about reviving or maintaining the quality of rural schools rather than forcing kids to go into the towns and the cities, is the minister taking action to look into the problems of what is happening to rural schools and how the larger ones can, in fact, be sustained rather than depleted as is the case now?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have learned from long experience, Mr. Speaker, that there are always two sides to every story. I am sure that if I were to talk to the Lanark board about this, they would present some very good arguments on both sides that what they are doing is not interfering with the quality of education or destroying the rural school setting. It may be for some people down there. If we believe in the idea of at least giving boards a certain degree of autonomy, and I am not going to say they have complete autonomy but a certain degree of autonomy, we certainly have to let them handle things in this manner. They are closer to the people than anyone up here and most of us in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would ask the Minister of Education, if he feels so strongly and if he reiterates that stand so frequently, why is it that when the board of education from the Nipissing area, North Bay, sent him their resolutions requesting permission to put in a compulsory course in Canadian history, he turned them down? Why wouldn’t he allow them, who are closer to the needs of their own community, to put forward a course in Canadian history without vetoing what the local board wanted to do?

Mr. Sargent: Right. Right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, putting in a course in Canadian history and encouraging students to take it can be done under our existing procedures. There is no need to ask for any compulsory regulations or for me to say something to do it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They did ask the minister and he did refuse the course.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can’t recall the actual course, Mr. Speaker, but, of course, compulsory --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was Canadian history, grade 12.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, we are now insisting that two courses in Canadian studies are mandatory for the secondary school graduation diploma.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not in grade 12.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, and for the secondary school graduation diploma.

Hon. Mr. White: The member is a little out of touch, I’m afraid.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not at all. It’s in five grades. They want it in grade 12. The minister doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If you read the directions, Mr. Speaker, it says that in order to get a secondary school graduation diploma you require two courses -- two courses are mandatory -- in Canadian studies. It doesn’t say what --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They want an additional one in grade 12.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, it doesn’t say what grades they have to be. On the course in grade 12 -- the credit in grade 12 -- if they want to invite their students --

Mr. Lewis: Just let them do it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- to take that course, they’re free to do it. But we’re not going to make that compulsory or give them the right to make it compulsory for the secondary school graduation diploma.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister turned it down.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He turned them down.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend knows that under HS 1 -- What we have said is --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is selective in his autonomy statements.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member mustn’t get excited now.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, I admitted that a few minutes ago. And my friend over there, of course, believes that we down here should set exactly what’s done in every high school and not let the local boards do it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That they should be teaching Canadian history in grade 12. Right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think they should be teaching Canadian history in grade 12 --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And French, too.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We made two courses in Canadian studies mandatory for any student in this province to get the secondary school graduation diploma.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is trying to have it both ways.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As far as I am concerned, the Nipissing Board of Education has got what it wants. All it has to do is say, “There’s the course; take that course.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What if they don’t think so?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur has a supplementary.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I could get back to a supplementary on the original question: Does the minister not realize that his grant structure in fact discriminates -- well, first of all, severely limits the autonomy of the local boards? And, secondly, doesn’t he realize it discriminates against the continuation of a strong curriculum in the rural school areas, because his busing formula is so extraordinary that it is cheaper to bus the students than maintain the facilities in the local rural areas?

Mr. Lewis: That is a very good point.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t accept that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Well, it is true.

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

Mr. Cassidy: If I could also return to the original question: Would the minister look at the $50,000 overrun in the project to which the parents in Lanark county are objecting, given the fact that despite his lofty words about autonomy the chief reason for the project is to help the town of Perth provide a new swimming pool, rather than provide educational facilities?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I don’t think that’s right, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Treasurer, which I’ll probably regret but I want to ask it anyway. To the Treasurer -- may I?

Hon. Mr. White: Excuse me.

Mr. Lewis: Well, as a matter of fact, it may be the first intelligent answer I get from the Treasurer this session, considering who’s on his right in this instance.

BANK RATE

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask when the Treasurer is going to make a formal statement of public complaint on behalf of the consumers of Ontario against the incessant rise in the bank rate interest, which is creating enormous credit problems for people, destroying the mortgage market, adding to bank company profits which do not need further increments --

Mr. MacDonald: And is inflationary.

Mr. Lewis: -- and inflationary to boot? And surely the Treasurer of Ontario has a right at this point -- indeed, an obligation -- to enter in and indicate his personal displeasure and, in fact, to try to file an intervention with Ottawa in the process?

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. minister like to answer that statement?

Hon. Mr. White: In this, as in other modern states, 100 per cent of the monetary power rests with the national government.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, that’s just not so.

Hon. Mr. White: And the national government in effect establishes the interest rate, not only for its own securities but for every security in the jurisdiction.

Mr. Cassidy: No, it doesn’t.

Mr. Lewis: Not at all.

Hon. Mr. White: Now, the federal government has increased its expenditures by as much as 26 per cent this year.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): And the province has too.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. White: They are going to have to borrow $2 billion in new money to support this.

Mr. Cassidy: The Treasurer is really frustrated at being kicked off the CBC, isn’t he?

Hon. Mr. White: As they go to the market for these moneys, the Bank of Canada is required to buy whatever quantity of bonds is necessary to stabilize an interest rate at a certain amount.

Mr. Sargent: They don’t go to Germany, either.

Hon. Mr. White: In the recent issue of $600 million the Bank of Canada gave an undertaking, which was sought, to pick up as much as $300 million. Of course, what happens is that the bonds, having been purchased, are put in the vaults of the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada makes an entry in the government of Canada’s account and the government of Canada thereupon writes cheques on that account, increasing the money supply.

Parenthetically, the money supply was increased in the first three months of this year at an annual rate of 35 per cent. The interest rates established for every type of risk and every form of debenture in this country are established by the federal government. When Mr. Coyne and Mr. Fleming got into their altercation some years ago --

Mr. Lewis: Our policies are complementary to that. The Treasurer has the right to say something about it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: -- the Bank of Canada held a policy which was directly contrary to the fiscal policy of the government of Canada. When Mr. Rasminsky succeeded Mr. Coyne, it was specifically agreed --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Hon. Mr. White: -- by both Mr. Fleming and Mr. Rasminsky that the federal government, in the final analysis, had complete responsibility and control over monetary policy, which is to say, the rate of interest across this country.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have no further questions?

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister’s lecture in economics probably presages his return to the University of Western Ontario. Is he not willing to do anything on behalf of the consumers of this province, given the fact that the prime rate by the banks and the rates they charge to consumers, are not directly controlled by Ottawa and certainly are reflected in the very large increase in bank profits over the last year or two?

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. White: Now let me give lecture No. 2. Not only has the federal government, here as elsewhere, 100 per cent of the monetary power but the Constitution of Canada in section 91 explicitly gives the federal government complete control over banking.

Mr. Lewis: We are not asking the minister to roll it back; we are asking him to intervene.

Hon. Mr. White: If the federal government will attend to its responsibilities as defined under section 91 and leave us to deal with --

Mr. Lewis: We are asking the minister to fight for the consumers of the province.

Hon. Mr. White: -- our responsibilities, as defined under section 92, it will be a much more orderly jurisdiction.

Mr. Lewis: And let the consumers be fleeced.

Mr. Cassidy: It didn’t stop the minister from commenting on the CBC.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Sargent: Will the minister advise the House, if Ontario is 40 per cent of the Canadian economy, why can’t we demonstrate the clout we have by going to Trudeau or government and saying, “If you can give concessions in the form of interest to homeowners, like Trudeau is offering now” -- why in the hell doesn’t this government do something like that?

Hon. Mr. White: Why don’t we do something --

Mr. Sargent: Something intelligent for a change.

Hon. Mr. White: We do make representations to Ottawa on a wide variety of matters, including housing, if this is the point. Unfortunately, the old-fashioned men with the old-fashioned minds who are dominating the Ottawa scene -- I mean members of the cabinet and their senior advisers -- won’t pay any heed to the provinces of this country.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry; was it a supplementary?

Mr. Kennedy: No, it is a new question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll recognize the hon. member next. The hon. member for Kent.

FEES FOR TRUCKS ON INDIAN RESERVES

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is it true that Indian band councils, if they purchase a truck, pay the regular truck fee? I am told that one Indian band council pays $383 for a truck to be used on the reserve, whereas town councils or other municipalities pay a $2 licence fee on the trucks owned by them which they use in their municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the incident the hon. member is referring to I think is with reference to a fire truck on a particular Indian reserve. That matter was brought to my attention; I have asked officials of the ministry to look into that situation and if the circumstances as they were related to me are correct, I think it is improper and that the licence fee should be refunded to the Indian band. They should not pay any more for municipal vehicles than regular municipalities do.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peel South.

MOVE OF AECL TO QUEBEC

Mr. Kennedy: A question of the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker: I was wondering if the minister had any information as to Atomic Energy of Canada moving from Sheridan Park to Quebec, presumably complete with employees? I have heard this rumour. Could he comment on this? Has the minister heard anything about it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have heard something about it. The Province of Quebec and Hydro Quebec are, I think it is fair to say, away behind the Province of Ontario and Ontario Hydro in terms of nuclear technology and techniques. I think AECL feels that perhaps some of the design staff should be located in Montreal by way of bolstering the nuclear technology in that province.

Specifically, I think that the design work for the 600 megawatt units, which will be put into the export field, may well be done in Montreal. But the design work for the larger units, which will probably come on stream here in the late Eighties or Nineties, will probably be done at Sheridan.

I don’t have all the details and I have no idea how much staff it is contemplated moving, or suggesting to them that they be moved. Certainly Ontario and Sheridan specifically have benefitted greatly by having the design capability in the province where the action has been.

I would think that it would be unwise for the government of Canada to tinker with what has been a very satisfactory relationship and a very fruitful relationship in terms of the proximity of AECL design staff and Ontario Hydro’s operations people and engineers. I think it would be unwise, as I say, to tinker with it. Some movement may be desirable.

Mr. Kennedy: Supplementary: ls it within the realm of the Energy ministry, then, to consult with the federal government and have input into this decision -- if there is, indeed, to be one -- and could the minister obtain further information about it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I shall most certainly do so, Mr. Speaker. We do consult with the government of Canada from time to time. We are not always listened to, but we persevere.

We would expect that in two weeks’ time we will be listened to very, very well.

Mr. Lewis: The minister doesn’t believe that.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are still waiting for the NDP breakthrough --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Well, the member shouldn’t hold his breath. This man over here will be elevated by then. On the other hand, that member will descend --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

SUNSET MOBILE HOMES

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment regarding the Sunset Mobile Homes near Tecumseh: Is the minister aware of the defective and inadequate sewage disposal system that has, during the past several months, become increasingly unbearable for the residents to stomach?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the situation. These mobile homes do operate on septic tanks and a lagoon system, which has not been satisfactory to the ministry, and they have now brought in consultants. I think it is James F. MacLaren Ltd. These consultants have been studying the situation and will be meeting with our people on this Friday to try to get the matter resolved.

Mr. Burr: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

STUDY OF VINYL CHLORIDE

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: Is the minister aware of the emergency temporary measures taken in the US to reduce the standard for vinyl chloride to 50 parts per million, when our standard here is still 200 parts per million? And is he also aware of the exact findings which have now attributed many deaths from cancer of the liver to overexposure to vinyl chloride by workmen working with plastic and things of that nature?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the tests that are going on down there. We have our people working on it at the present time. Our criteria change quite regularly as we --

Mr. Haggerty: The Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) is not aware of it.

Hon. W. Newman: Our criteria do change. I can’t give you the exact criteria count right now, but certainly we are studying this matter on a very intensive basis now as a result of the inquiries we had several weeks ago.

Mr. Good: A supplementary: What is the minister doing about industry in Canada to rid them of this very serious problem, which evidently was not made known until very recently, and is now causing a great concern among people associated with it. I don’t think all firms have been alerted as yet to the effect that other methods must be used to handle this material in a certain manner. Is the minister doing anything to tell the industry that he may have to reduce the vinyl chloride standard?

Hon. W. Newman: Our staff are working on this and have checked all industries that are now making vinyl chlorides in the province.

Mr. Haggerty: B.F. Goodrich in Niagara Falls?

Mr. Speaker: There are only three minutes remaining. I think we should restrict the supplementaries to one. A new question?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

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

KINGSTON TOWNSHIP SERVICES

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Treasurer: Is the Treasurer aware of the impasse that has now been created in the Kingston area and in Kingston township, in particular, by the OMB decision to reverse the township plans to build its new waterworks? What is the government going to do in order to get serviced land available so that housing can continue in the Kingston area in view of that situation, which was contributed to by the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. White: I have read material on this subject. I am sorry to say I don’t know what the solution is to the housing matter. I don’t know whether my colleague cares to comment.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, could I redirect the question to the Minister of Housing then? There is a serious problem there in terms of shortage of lots.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): There certainly is, Mr. Speaker. What we are trying to do is to work with the Ministry of the Environment to see what we can do about providing the necessary services. Obviously they have been delayed now by the decision which supported the ratepayers’ group in that area.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Is it true that that decision has been repeatedly delayed, going back to about 1968, and that it seems it is going to be necessary for the Ministry of the Environment or the Ministry of Housing to go in there in order that the land can be serviced, because Kingston township has assiduously worked through the ministry as it changed from one individual to another to fulfil all of the requirements, and now it has been reversed by the Municipal Board hearing? Surely there has got to be something done to correct the situation in Kingston township? What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I think the question might be more properly referred to my colleague, the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Or the Treasurer. They have been his regulations over the years.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am not personally familiar with the law and apparently the very intricate history of this matter, having become familiar with it only recently. As far as I am concerned, the OMB has acted expeditiously in recent months to try to come to a decision one way or the other.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, we’ve had a supplementary and a redirected question. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville is next.

OIL SPILL TESTS

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Was the minister made aware of the proposed oil spill tests to be conducted by both the US and Canadian governments in Lake St. Clair in the month of August?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I was not made aware of this until I received a phone call on Sunday from someone down in that area. At this point in time with the information that I have, I would certainly be opposed to it. But to make sure exactly what is happening, we have subsequently arranged a meeting with Environment Canada, I believe it is for July 10, to discuss this whole matter with them. I was not aware of it until it was brought to my attention.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

POSSIBLE ELEMENTARY TEACHER SHORTAGE

Mr. Foulds: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education, if I can lure him from the precincts under the gallery there. What steps is the minister taking to avoid a shortage of elementary school teachers this fall, the strong possibility of which was mentioned by H. A. Blanchard, director of teacher education for his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, based on the number of students who are enrolled and have graduated from the elementary teacher training institutions, the statistical projects show, if you take that number of graduates, they will not be enough to fill the available vacancies that are going to be coming up.

There are, as my friend knows, a large number of qualified teachers out who are not teaching at the present time. The number of those who will be available to fill those jobs, of course, is the unknown factor in this whole situation. I think that the other thing is that many of the secondary school teachers who have been taking secondary teacher training have been taking the elementary school option. They will be available if there are no positions in secondary schools for the elementary school panels.

While the figures at this point in time show that there could be a shortage, I don’t think there will be a real shortage this year, but we are certainly studying very carefully the projections in the few years ahead.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The time for questions has been exceeded.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Bales, on behalf of Mr. Morrow from the standing procedural affairs committee, reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Speaker be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975:

Office of the Speaker

Office of the Speaker program.......$6,364,500.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure there can be no question about that report.

Motion.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISES ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine, on behalf of Hon. Mr. White, moves second reading of Bill 97, An Act to amend the Municipal Franchises Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before the member for Kitchener speaks, could the House leader indicate to us what his intentions are this morning? Last evening some of us revised plans for this morning based on the information he gave at adjournment when he indicated he would be going right into committee, not into second readings. Could he tell us what it is his intention to cover in the next couple of hours?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Yes, Mr. Speaker, following the balance of what I called last evening, I think this morning I would call first items 16, 21, 22, 23 and 29.

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary, for Justice and Attorney General): And 20.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, my friend says 20; and item 20.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, on the balance of what the House leader called last night -- last night the Act to amend the Planning Act was one of the things he had hoped to call and he also referred to going into committee. We are not in committee right now. We are being asked to do bills which are after the things one would have thought he had called last night. I don’t know where on earth we stand and I am not sure if he does but could he not be more clear?

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): He doesn’t mean item 29, does he?

Mr. Lewis: No, I don’t think so; I think he meant item 20. If I understand it we are going from 16 to 21, 22, 23 and 20. We are staying on second readings this morning? Is that his intention?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, these are relatively --

Mr. Lewis: And if we complete them, does he intend to go into committee?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is correct.

Mr. Lewis: But these are all the second readings he intends to call this morning?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The motion was for second reading of Bill 97. The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker I understand this amendment allows either a municipality or the supplier of gas going through a municipality to make application to the Energy Board for hearings for rights to either extend or renew existing rights between a supplier and a municipality. We see no objection to this bill and will support it.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I must say it’s darned annoying, the way the business of this House is carried out. I am looking for my copy of the bill on which I had one or two notes and I will probably have to do it off the top of my head.

It appears to be a routine bill but there is something curious about it which, given the circumstances of this House, I haven’t been able to look at. Why is it that long-distance gas pipelines, which are the particular things referred to in this amendment, when they are put through a municipality do not require approval from the Energy Board or the Municipal Board if they are going to be there for longer than three years, but may require that approval after they are in the ground when the licence for them to be there expires? If the Speaker would permit that as a question, maybe I could comment on it after.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): I would like to refer that to the Minister of Energy, if I could.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Sorry, I didn’t follow that. Indeed, I will try and answer it.

Mr. Cassidy: I will put it as a question, Mr. Speaker. As I understand the bill, which seems to come under everybody’s responsibility over there --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That is not part of the bill, that point.

Mr. Cassidy: As I understand it the bill -- if I had a copy of the darned thing it would be helpful -- the sections inserted refer to the end of the term of a right referred to in clause (a), (b) or (c) of subsection 1 of section 6 that is related to gas. Those sections are exemption sections in the Municipal Franchises Act and they exempt from the normal procedures the installation of a long-distance pipeline for oil or for gas.

In this particular case, as I understand it, that exemption, insofar as it relates to a long-distance gas pipeline or a gas pipeline which comes in from a distance and is carrying gas to a wholesale distributor, is waived when it comes to the expiration of the franchise. At that point either party may apply for renewal or extension of the term of the right. Presumably, therefore, if there was no application the right expires; there is no automatic renewal. Presumably, also, the Energy Board might be called upon to hear things over which it had no jurisdiction at the time the long-distance pipeline was originally installed.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, if I could reply to that, I still say that isn’t part of the bill. This refers to a municipality and a franchise granted to a company in regard to the distribution of certain energy. The Minister of Energy may wish to reply further.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I would just add to that, to the member, it is not the subject of this bill. This bill simply, as the member has said, provides a way to settle unsettled matters, namely, by letting them go to the board.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to go into this tediously but it is one of those routine bills which is presumably passed to the minister by his people. If I can read section 6 of the Act, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), the approvals of franchises must normally be made by the OMB or the Energy Board as the case may be.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s correct.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, that’s correct. Then it says that subject to section 2, and except as therein provided, this Act does not apply to a bylaw granting the right of passing through the municipality for the purposes of continuing the line, work or system that will be operated for another municipality; the second one is related to -- the marginal note says gas transmission lines -- and those are long-distance transmission lines that are not involved in retail distribution; and the third one is works required for the transmission of oil, gas or water not intended for use in the municipality; again long-distance gas transmission lines; fourthly, a temporary line -- where there is a temporary line the Energy Board does come into play.

Where it is a permanent long-distance gas line, as I understand it, the approvals of the municipal bylaw permitting the line do not have to go before the Energy Board or the Ontario Municipal Board. That is exempt. However, what the amendment says is that renewals of that approval, renewals of that bylaw, renewals of the term, may go before the Energy Board at the request of either the municipality or the franchisee where it is a gas transmission line. I hope the minister is with me that far.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: The question one has to ask -- I know it is a small point -- is why is it the municipalities are allowed by bylaw without approval from government authority to grant the franchise for a long-distance gas transmission line in the first place but are being required, under the terms of these amendments, to go before the Energy Board in the case of renewal of that particular franchise for a long-distance gas transmission line?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is exactly the point. As long as they have agreed there is no problem; they agreed in the first place when the franchise was granted. This has been the story all over the province. This amendment simply allows that when there isn’t agreement one can get it before the Energy Board but there is no need to take everything before the Energy Board obviously. If there has been agreement on the franchise, as there normally is, there is no problem. But if there is a disagreement, this provides an avenue of getting it aired before the appropriate group.

Mr. Cassidy: That means, in other words, that not only is there power to go before the Energy Board, but the Energy Board has also the right to overrule the decision of the municipality in this particular case, if the municipality gave the right in the first place. Is that correct?

If it gave the right in the first place, then the Energy Board has the right to order the municipality to continue. Okay. That was the clarification I was looking for, Mr. Speaker, and it does appear to be rather a routine kind of thing. It would help an awful lot if explanations for these things were put forward rather than our having to spend six or seven minutes of time in the Legislature in the last couple of days trying to get an explanation from the government.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further comments on this bill?

Mr. Cassidy: Well, maybe the minister wants to comment on that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No further comments, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 97, An Act to amend the Municipal Franchise Act.

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS INSPECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moves second reading of Bill 106, An Act to provide for the Inspection of Public Institutions by Public Visitation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I hope that my brief remarks this morning on this bill will not bring forward the same debate that we had last evening on its predecessor, Bill 105.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): That is a faint hope.

Mr. Breithaupt: We had suggested last evening that this bill coming as the necessary corollary to the results of the new Juries Act would be acceptable to us. I am pleased to note there is going to be continuing inspection of public institutions because I believe that this is a necessary civilian involvement in the administration of justice. It is true, as the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) said last night, that the functions of the grand jury, while they had changed over the years, had included a visitation of jails and other places where persons were incarcerated, and on the ancient traditions of habeas corpus at least made sure that the persons who were there had their trials set or were there because of the result of some decision of the court rather than the whim of some local noble or monarch.

I would ask the minister to comment with respect to the payment of fees following the same remarks that the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) made last night. It would seem to us that in order to encourage persons to accept this responsibility of service we would have to be at least fair in the payment of the necessary daily fees. We can always say, of course, that it is a citizen’s duty to carry on this kind of work without any fee, but that is easy enough for those of us who are in this Legislature to say when we are remunerated quite handsomely for the work which we are expected to do in the Legislature.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Speak for yourself.

Mr. Breithaupt: For a citizen who is involved with the loss of wages and has much more of a problem of daily living expenses than some of us might have, it would seem to us to be fair that changes in these fees are made so that no one loses financially for the acceptance of this public duty.

We agreed that the programme which is set up should be adequate. We hope that the minister will review it to ensure that the benefits which were formerly obtained by the grand jury’s visitation of these various institutions will continue so that the policies are firmly set as to the encouragement of this kind of civilian review of public facilities.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, logic, if logic has any role in this somewhat irrational assembly, would dictate to the New Democratic Party, having taken a stance last evening with respect to grand juries generally, that we cannot support the bill. I would think, though that we will probably not drive it through to a division, just as a gesture and time-consuming way, and not because our viscera isn’t stirred with respect to the matter.

What we wanted was an adumbration or an expansion of the grand jury concept; therefore, it would be necessary if it had any validity at all, to preserve its extant position and to simply give it much wider powers than it has at present, first of all, as a way of citizen participation, as we pointed out, and because it does perform some kind of valid function. We are coming back to that in committee, and we’ll have an opportunity to discuss that particular bill a little more -- but not, I hope, at undue length.

As far as this bill is concerned, this is a kind of stop-gap measure, a form of Pablum fed to the general. The minister has to do something to make a substitution, I suppose, if he’s going to abolish the functions of the grand jury. He’s buttressed and fortified, if he needs be, by the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission in part 1 of its magnificent report with respect to the courts. At page 359 they say:

“The grand jury’s right of inspection of institutions maintained in whole or in part by public funds is set out in section 46 of the Jurors Act.

“Grand jurors are not assisted in their inspections by independent experts and accordingly one or two days spent at an institution will not reveal underlying serious defects or problems that would escape a more or less formal inspection by untrained men.”

If that applies with respect to the operations of grand juries, surely it applies equally within the dimensions of this legislation.

Where, oh where, in the terms of this bill has the minister provided that they may have access to people who may clue them in? In other words, if the reason that the Law Reform Commission gave for the abolition of this particular function of the grand jury is as they have stated, the minister has done nothing to rectify it; yet he comes forward with the thing in its stripped form and without the proper instrumentalities to carry out the very role and function that he seeks to devolve upon them.

I find that a lacuna, to say the least, and perhaps even an oversight. Perhaps the minister would give some thought to rectifying that, particularly within section 5, where the various powers that they do have are set forth, to the derogation of the remarks that I have just quoted into the record.

Section 4 of this bill carries this over into the area which the Law Reform Commission discusses on page 360 under the heading of “Instrument of Jail Delivery.” It says:

“The third function of the grand jury is to investigate and interrogate prisoners in an effort to determine whether or not any persons in custody are being held improperly or for an unwarranted length of time pending their trial.”

I won’t read the whole paragraph. As the minister well knows, they make a recommendation under this head that the sheriff, going before a judge at the inception of the sessions, make complete disclosure of who is held in custody, for how long and why. They seem to think that that rectifies the situation.

The minister therefore circumscribes the obligations of this particular panel which, by the way, is grandiosely called a public institutions inspection panel. I’m sure none of us will remember the precise designation, and I was hoping we might get something more tied around the tongue in future reference to this particular group.

In section 4(2) it says, “The panel shall inspect all institutions in the county or district in which persons are being held in custody,” but they are not given explicitly, nor have we any legislation before us transferring to the sheriffs all the responsibility in this regard. Perhaps it’s forthcoming; perhaps that’s what the minister has in mind. But even if he had that, I would have misgivings with respect to it, again stating: Why not? Why is this when they have the powers under section 5, to enter any public institution at reasonable times, having given notice first? The panel may inspect all parts of the premises, and any documents, records, etc., and they may interrogate any person in them. Well, why not have that added faculty or facility?

I think we should have it; with the history of what has happened with incarcerated people sitting for prolonged times in our various jails, particularly the Don, and being brought to trial in an untoward way, without having given proper surveillance at all -- eight months there on occasions. And that hasn’t been overridden; that hasn’t been obviated in any way, as far as I can see.

I am sure if we went down there today we could find a case of prolonged incarceration without adequate justification; no doubt about that at all. In many of the jails in this province such is the case. And this is a severe reprimand to this ministry and, particularly, to the ministry of Correctional Services, that this should be allowed to happen.

Therefore, since we are jealous of the rights of our citizens -- and not the least those who are subject to penal penalty -- why not just preserve this extra notch in the coil and allow this panel to make interrogation of this particular aspect of the matter, too? Sure, let the sheriff do it and take it before the judge.

I get the feeling that that is a ritualistic performance -- that that is a merely formal regard -- that there isn’t enough compunction about it; and that a grand jury composed of fellow citizens would have more empathy, more sense of the affliction that may be involved in a particular situation with somebody in the jail. When they come across a case of this kind, as I see it, they have no particular role or function to play; that jurisdiction is being lifted from the grand jury and not even disposed of in terms of the new panel that is being set up. In that regard, I think this legislation may be somewhat defective, too, and I would ask the minister to give that a good deal of thought.

As for the rest, the empanelling of the individuals involved is done in accordance with the manifold provisions that we saw last night as to the machinery of empanelling. They are selected out through the county court system -- not through the Supreme Court but through the county court judges of the province sitting in their respective jurisdictions, to set these seven people in motion and to give them powers to look at these institutions under direction and to report back.

I think that the clause in there with respect to extensions of time is all to the good -- whenever I see those clauses nowadays with the warping and the woofing of contemporary conditions, the extension of time concepts are entering more and more into the ministry’s legislation. And the more the minister does that with respect to all court matters, and not to bring the full coerciveness of the law with respect to mere limitations on to the heads of individuals in any aspect of jurisdiction of life, all to the good and highly beneficial.

Now, as I say, we have these somewhat severe misgivings about the legislation -- I think well taken on the basis of the report itself and our personal knowledge of what goes on with respect to grand juries and the displacement under this particular head. And, therefore, I say we express our dissent as it is presently sketched and etched, but I don’t think we are going to pursue it very much more deeply.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this? The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I intend to reiterate the remarks I made when we discussed the Attorney General’s estimates this year, when we discussed them the year before, and the year before that, and that concerns the pay for jurors.

My colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener, mentioned it today. A year ago, I brought to the attention of the then minister the problem of a gentleman by the name of Robert Bailey who was called up for jury duty. He wasn’t instructed sufficiently, as far as I’m concerned, and as a result his job was in jeopardy because his employer assumed he was goldbricking because he was not present on the job.

The man kept himself off welfare by working as a waiter in a tavern and because he wasn’t present, his employer actually threatened to dismiss him. The amount the man was making was just enough to keep him off welfare. The fact that he had to accept jury duty and receive, I think it was, some $6 a day was a real hardship to him. I don’t think anyone, in today’s world, should be required to present himself for jury duty and be paid such an infinitesimal sum. I think it should be in keeping with the times. I don’t pretend to know what the amount should be but it should be substantially more than the minister has indicated.

If I’m not mistaken, during the discussions of the minister’s estimates, there was no intention on the part of the government to increase jury fees during this budget. The government is thus going to penalize anyone who accepts jury duty from now until the next budget, come next February, March or April, and it is going to punish them substantially. I don’t think that is fair at all.

It is all well and good for one who works for Chrysler, Ford or General Motors, one of the big three, where the union contract compensates for or allows the company to make up for his loss of pay. But one who does not work in a union shop, who works in a service industry, who could be classified today as the working poor, is being taken advantage of by the system by not being paid a substantial amount, a living amount, for taking care of his democratic right by being a member of a jury.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak? The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: I would like to ask quickly, if the Attorney General, under the section that obliges the judge to point out to the panel their duties, might entertain the possibility of him also pointing out their powers to them? I think it’s very important that they understand what their powers are under section 5.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two observations. If I might speak to the point raised by the hon. member for Sarnia, that’s very reasonable. I think it would be wise, particularly since we’re going into this new arrangement, for section 5 to be quite clearly understood by the panel.

At this stage, too, in speaking to the points raised by the hon. member for Kitchener and the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, consistent with the points raised last evening, I concur with the principle that we should not have people exercising their civic duties under great financial hardship. I appreciate the fact that, as part of our system, we do expect people to serve on juries. It’s a system which we treasure and which, of course, is something very important to us.

As I indicated last evening, the whole question of fees is under review. In speaking to the estimates, of course, when I was asked in my estimates whether or not there was anything in those estimates for an increase in fees during the current fiscal year, I had to quite honestly say there was not. The matter is under review and, as I mentioned last night, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr) is quite interested in this as well, as it involves coroners’ juries.

The hon. member for Lakeshore has raised some points with respect to the principle of this bill. Certainly I don’t argue the importance of the matters which he’s raised. However, I would feel that an appreciation and an understanding of this bill, in simple terms, is that twice a year, on the first Monday in May and November, or as close to those dates as possible, in every county or district in the Province of Ontario, such a panel is brought together and is instructed with respect to what it should do. Under subsection 2 of section 4, it must inspect all institutions in that county or district in which persons are being held in custody for the purpose of a judicial proceeding. The work has to be completed within two weeks or any extension granted by a judge. They can in the course of their duties interrogate anyone who is there. They must at the completion of two weeks or at the expiration of the extended time --

Mr. Lawlor: Does the minister think they will be paid any more attention to than the present grand juries?

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- submit this report in open court, having been empanelled in open court. I think the points generally raised by the member for Lakeshore are encompassed in the principle of this bill. As the member for Kitchener has pointed out --

Mr. Lawlor: Not the main point.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- and also in my opinion, when one understands that they have the power to go into any institution funded partly or in whole by public funds, this may well broaden the types of institutions into which this panel will go and will concern itself with.

Mr. Lawlor: I think the grand jury could do that too.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I only hope that with this new legislation and on the basis of the principle which it sets out we will see this as a very important vehicle for civilian involvement insofar as our public institutions are concerned.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, before it goes, might the minister consider having the bill go to committee in order that the point raised by my colleague, the member for Sarnia, could be dealt with, in that we might choose to amend it to state that the judge shall instruct the panel in its duties and powers?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well, it will have to go to committee.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole?

Agreed.

LORD’S DAY (ONTARIO) ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moves second reading of Bill 110, An Act to amend the Lord’s Day (Ontario) Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, this is a very minor change to the Lord’s Day (Ontario) Act dealing with the permission for agricultural exhibitions on Sundays where the municipality has so decided so that they can be open at 12 o’clock noon rather than 1:30 p.m.

I’m aware that a number of the agricultural organizations within the province have been interested in this amendment and we certainly can support it. In my own constituency and that of the hon. member for Waterloo North the Central Ontario Exhibition has been operating and was one of those which has requested this change.

I think that in the traditions of our communities it is prudent not to have these exhibitions open before 12 o’clock on a Sunday. I think, however, after that hour it is reasonable, as the times generally change, to allow this extension. As I have said, we will support it.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, we will argue vehemently in its favour.

Mr. Speaker: With such unanimity the motion is for second reading of Bill 110.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 110, An Act to amend the Lord’s Day (Ontario) Act.

JURIES ACT

House in committee on Bill 105, the Juries Act, 1974.

Mr. Chairman: On Bill 105, anyone like to speak on section 1?

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): On section 2, the amendment there is one that has caused great altercations, fuming, foaming at the lips and various forms of dervish dancing in this House on previous occasions. You have amended the (b) clause of that away from a British subject. Why?

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): I think it is generally consistent that we would want a Canadian citizen to serve on a jury. I’m sorry, I don’t quite understand the question.

Mr. Lawlor: All right.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Do you feel we should add a British subject?

Mr. Lawlor: Last year in Bill 166 which came before this House in 1973 you made manifold amendments to this particular section at that time. You amended section 2, repealed it and substituted therefor, “Subject to sections 3 and 4, every person who (a) resides in Ontario; (b) is a Canadian citizen or other British subject” -- then the matters of 18 years and 69 years were introduced for the first time at that time and retained in the present legislation before us. You simply dropped the words “or other British subjects” and I would seek to solicit some kind of information on that point from you.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We felt in this particular circumstance that we would restrict jury duty in this jurisdiction to Canadian citizens.

Mr. Lawlor: I am not deeply concerned.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, it’s interesting to watch the consistency of this inconsistency. I am particularly delighted that the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Irvine) is in his place to listen to this brief exchange as we recall what happened when we were dealing earlier with a certain bill that dealt with changes to the Municipal Elections Act.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think you will appreciate the franchise is one matter; this is jury duty.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The principle is the same in both instances.

Mr. Breithaupt: I felt the Attorney General might say something like that. I felt you might agree to carve up this situation into various small pieces. However, we certainly agree that Canadian citizenship is an important factor -- perhaps the most important -- of those three terms of eligibility to sit on a jury. This is entirely consistent with our view that citizenship should be developed and strengthened.

I hope the government will take upon itself some attempt to review all of the statutes where these four magical words appear so that we could be consistent in this matter.

I know the hon. minister, the member for Grenville-Dundas, has undertaken to give some consideration to a general review of this whole term within our legislation -- not so that anyone is harmed by it but so that we become more positive in our approach.

I am content that these words do not appear in the Juries Act. I hope that may lead to dealing with this matter in a positive way in other statutes as well.

Mr. Chairman: On section 2, the member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Just one other point here -- why 69 years of age? In the Juries Act previously, in a different section, the first clause of that exempted from jury duty every person of 70 or more years of age. What has Methuselah to do with this legislation?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Of course, I think you have to read the whole clause, which says in the year preceding that for which the jury is selected a person had not attained 69 which, I suppose, would still preserve the idea that he wouldn’t be serving after he was 70.

Mr. Lawlor: It is a minor point; let’s get on with the job.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 2 carry?

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chairman, on section 3 --

Mr. Chairman: Just a minute, we will carry section 2 and then we will go on to section 3.

Mr. Gaunt: Okay.

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: On section 3, Mr. Chairman, I want to mention to the minister this matter of exemptions under the terms of this particular Act. I can see a need for certain exemptions although I gather that the McRuer report recommended there be no exemptions, if I recall correctly.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): There shouldn’t be any.

Mr. Gaunt: I would start off from that base. I really believe there shouldn’t be any exemptions. You have put them into this bill and I’m curious as to why certain people --

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t you think lawyers should be exempt?

Mr. Gaunt: I don’t think they should. Why should they?

Mr. Lawlor: I think they should be exempt from everything.

Mr. Gaunt: Why should they? Do you think they should be exempt from paying income tax, too?

An hon. member: They don’t pay any anyway.

Mr. Lawlor: That wasn’t one of the things I was thinking of.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I question the minister’s thinking in this particular regard. For instance, I don’t really think a sound case can be made for exempting a medical practitioner or a veterinary surgeon. You may say they are looking after the sick, that it’s a very vital occupation. Well, so are physiotherapists, chiropractors and many other people. You can say that farmers should be exempt too, because they are producing food for the people of the world; but I don’t think they should be exempt, and they are not exempt here.

I ask the minister to take another look at it. I don’t see why senators or members of the House of Commons should be exempt. I start from the proposition that no one should be exempt; so I am wondering why the minister disregarded the recommendations of Mr. McRuer in this respect.

Mr. Breithaupt: On that point, Mr. Chairman, I suppose you know that since all of us are exempt in this ability to serve on the jury of the Province of Ontario, one almost would think that those who are the greatest defenders of the jury system are those who cannot serve on it and that, indeed, the persons who have to serve, whether they wish to or not, depending upon the choice on the panelling, are the ones who have the least to say about it.

We seem to be in a rather curious position here. We defend the jury system as the great cornerstone of the law-making process in the British tradition, but all of us who think so highly of the system couldn’t possibly serve on it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to a clause here in just a moment. What has been said about excluding everybody seems to me to be rationally impossible. Lawyers have to be excluded. Their wives certainly don’t. Are the wives, at the breakfast table, supposed to pick up by osmosis all the lore and the lingo that goes with the profession?

We know that the lore and the lingo, such as it is, might very well override more rational minds in a jury room and detract from the objectivity. These usually tend to be dominating or domineering personalities, and I think the jury system could be well saved from that particular form of dereliction.

Certainly judges can’t sit on juries, again because of their supposed mastery of the law and the weight they would have to bear on any assembly of laymen in a jurisdictional quarrel and in litigious matters. It’s inadmissible, but again I don’t see why the wives of judges might not be able to. When I have pleasant conversations with the wives, it is never about matters judicial, thank heavens. We talk about Béla Bartók and things of that kind. I think that would make them well qualified to serve as members of a jury.

As for the rest, you have included something that has never been included previously, as far as I can see; in other words, ministers of religion. I can see why people in monasteries, hermetically sealed from the world by their wish and the only ones who are acting as the fulcrum of our salvation, as far as I can see, might be relieved of jury duty.

Mr. Breithaupt: They have enough work at hand as it is.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s right. Praying for your and my soul is a full-time occupation. I wouldn’t want them to do anything else.

The bill says: “Every ordained minister, priest or clergyman under any form of profession or of any faith of worship, licensed to perform marriages.” That leaves out the Scientologists, of course. I don’t know. In any event, I don’t think that’s right. What is the raison d’être for that particular move in subsection 8? Perhaps as we go on, the minister can direct his mind to that particular point.

What I am after, and what I spoke of last night in passing and in part, is paragraph 5 of subsection 1, having to do with legally qualified medical practitioners -- I take it that that phrase is defined in the new Health Disciplines Act going through -- and veterinary surgeons. I think my message was adequately conveyed on that occasion. I said: “Do all or do none. If you are going to do it this way, then include the chiropractors. If you are not going to do it this way, then of course exclude them.”

I gave some indication that this was deliberately done by a predecessor of the minister’s in office, having given it advertence. You know, he didn’t do it lightly, because he amended the Act specifically in this regard.

With all the arguments with respect to physiological knowledge with the disciplines, the only argument you can use for excluding them is that they do possess a peculiar degree of skill and a corner on the market with respect to the very types of injuries which may be under discussion and may be the very point in the litigation. It would be improper for one member of the jury to have such an overpowering knowledge of any particular discipline, particularly if it were pivotal to the whole operation. And that is the reason behind it as put to me, and I verily believe it.

The chiropractors do have an extensive training in this regard and also, certainly commensurate with veterinary surgeons, if I may say so, they may also be as provocative, as overweening, or just simply as knowledgeable in a way that the average man on the street is not, with respect to the very point at issue, and thereby provide an undue bias, an overweight, in the course of the so-called objective to the jury deliberations.

Therefore, it is for the same reason as you have gone to the trouble of specifically asserting this clause against the weight of McRuer, and against what your ministry -- not you; I don’t think you were there at the time -- but against what your ministry had informed the chiropractors’ association at an earlier time that you wouldn’t do.

A week ago when the bill came out I learned they were astounded to find that -- I don’t think we could go to the length of saying a breach of faith -- but certainly there was a profound misunderstanding in this regard. They thought they were outside on the basis that also the others were in the same position too; and they are not -- and you haven’t made provision for them.

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would move that paragraph 5 of section 3, subsection 1, be amended by placing the word “chiropractor” after the word “practitioner’’ in the first line.

Mr. Chairman: The member for St. George would like to speak to this before we put the amendment.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Chairman, just briefly, there has been some discussion about the matter of wives serving on juries -- wives of judges, wives of lawyers, and so forth. It is interesting that one presupposes that the spouse in such cases will always be a wife. I think perhaps the day will come when the member for Lakeshore may be making a speech hoping that the husbands of judges and the rest shall be allowed to serve.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to this matter because I have had personal experience of this sort of situation. At one time the legislation stated that wives of lawyers could not serve. It did not say husbands of lawyers could not serve. Therefore, I was personally in the position of having a husband serving on a jury. And it is a matter of deep concern to me that this should be allowed to happen. It is a fact that a husband who is unfamiliar with the law will be inclined to come home and ask questions. He does not feel that he is discussing the matter in opposition to his oath; he is asking for clarification. It is very difficult to sit and say, “We cannot discuss the matter.”

Mr. Lawlor: Or the judge sitting at the breakfast table: “Dear husband, no, we can’t talk about it.”

Mrs. Campbell: On top of that, I can recall very well one case where the same juror made the statement to me: “You know, I was going to ask the question today, ‘How much insurance did the man have?’” I couldn’t even comment on that until after the matter was over. But I think it does place some onus on a lawyer in those cases. I think it is ridiculous, with respect, to suggest that the spouse of a judge or of a lawyer should serve on a jury. I think there is too much of the inner discussion, quite apart from that specific case going on. I do not think, with respect, that justice is served by having either spouse serve on juries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Did the member for Huron-Bruce want to speak on this?

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to support the amendment of my friend, the member for Lakeshore. As far as chiropractors are concerned, which is the substance of his amendment, I think you either exclude them or you exclude all of these people in the health field -- medical practitioner, veterinary surgeon and so on. If you exclude one, then you should exclude them all. If you include one, then you should include them all. I would certainly support that particular amendment.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): What are you going to pay them? That is all I want to know.

Hon. Mr. Welch: This point came up earlier in the discussion and these fees are now under review.

Mr. Sargent: How can you amend the Act, until you know what the fees are?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The Act doesn’t cover the question of fees. The Act only talks about the methods of collection, how the sheriff calls the rolls and so on. The regulations would cover the fee situation.

Mr. Sargent: What had the minister thought that the fee should be?

Hon. Mr. Welch: This is presently before us now in our policy field and we are making some recommendations in this regard. I cannot indicate at this stage what they will be, but certainly we are talking in terms of an increase.

Mr. Sargent: How much is in the budget?

Hon. Mr. Welch: In the current fiscal year there is nothing for an increase.

Mrs. Campbell: Are you suggesting this?

Mr. Chairman: Would anybody else like to speak? The minister.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, there is no question in my mind but that we would share some concern with respect to section 3. Certainly the points that have been raised illustrate the problems which we experienced in the rewriting of the bill as to who would be in and who would be out. I think the House is entitled to have some general indication as to what the principles are behind section 3.

The occupational groups who generally, would be made ineligible under this particular bill, are those who are responsible for governing the country or the province, most of whom would not be likely available for service in the county or district in which they usually reside. Obviously, if they are called to where the Parliament is or where the Legislature is, they are not readily available in the constituency from which they come. Then there are those whose presence might unduly affect the proper deliberation of the jury by their knowledge of the law and who might be perceived as having a professional relationship with the counsel of the parties -- that is, judges, barristers and solicitors, students of law and their spouses.

I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for St. George because I think that what we are anxious to ensure is the appearance of objectivity. One wouldn’t question this matter, but certainly in the public mind, in the lay mind, there would always be this concern for the appearance of objectivity. Then, there are persons who would be perceived as having a bias against an accused or in favour of the Crown in a criminal trial. That refers to persons engaged in the enforcement of law and their spouses.

Then, finally, to comment particularly on the remarks of the hon. member for Lakeshore, there are those whose religious training and religious background might not permit them to make a determination of the legal culpability of an accused or those who by reason of their religious vows might be forbidden to participate in a secular trial --

Mr. Lawlor: I would have thought that might make them peculiarly sensitive.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- or who by reason of their living outside the secular community might appear incapable of applying its standards -- that is, ordained clergymen and cloistered members of religious orders.

In a general way there can be very legitimate disagreement with respect to these principles, and I would be the first to admit it. I may also be the third to admit that once you get into any question of determining exemptions you’re bound to get into the type of discussion we’ve had this morning. If somebody is exempted you can make just as valid a case for somebody else and that’s why I share these particular principles.

I’m going to be very frank and apart from the veterinary surgeon inclusion in this bill, I would point out that these particular groups or occupations referred to in section 3 are generally exempted by most common-law jurisdictions throughout the world, except in the case of BC which does, as a matter of practice, exclude them by their practice.

What this new Act attempts to do, however, is to minimize the exemptions. I would say, with the greatest of respect to the member for Huron-Bruce, that I do not find myself in conflict with McRuer on this particular point and I think an examination of those reports would indicate that. I’ve been attempting to get the particular volume but McRuer would not include in jury duty, for the same reasons I give, the groups related to the administration of justice.

However, that aside, I think what we’re trying to accomplish is to ensure a wide cross-section of the public being represented on our juries. The simplest way to do this was to minimize the list of exemptions -- about which there can be valid differences of opinion, let me admit -- to go through the new selection procedures which the Act provides for and to provide wide powers of discretion in the sheriff and, ultimately, the judge to either defer or excuse people from jury duty. In other words, as I said in the statement introducing this bill, an agriculturist called to come, say, at the very busy time of harvest, could legitimately ask that his service be deferred to a more convenient time and so on. One could give ample examples of this.

What I’m pleading for in this case is not to broaden the exemptions by statute any further but to rely, as a matter of practice, on the good judgement of our sheriffs and the county court judges, who have wide powers in this Act, to defer and/or excuse. For those reasons and with that modification I can’t accept the amendment. I do so in the spirit that the professional group referred to in the amendment -- indeed all others not referred to in the amendment -- simply on receipt of the first notice -- will be able to indicate to the sheriff at the time of receipt of the notice reasons why he or she should be excused or, indeed, his service be deferred. I think that particular broadening of discretion in those officials in many ways would accommodate the concerns which have been expressed by the hon. members on this section this morning.

Mr. Lawlor: Just one point on saying that the judges have very wide powers of excuse; the grounds for excuse, as I understand them, are illness or hardship. Has hardship been defined? I don’t mean in your legislation but in the law having to do with the excusing of jurors?

Hon. Mr. Welch: If so, I’m not familiar with it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: I am of the opinion that it is very difficult to get excused by a judge. Sending somebody to a sheriff to have him taken off the roll on the basis of hardship, the hardship must be hard indeed.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, that may well be the practice under the present legislation. It’s not the intention under the new legislation.

Mr. Lawlor: Nobody but you and I know that.

Mr. Chairman: Is it agreeable with the House that we stack this resolution?

Agreed.

Mr. Lawlor: I haven’t any more amendments. Has the minister? Mr. Chairman, I don’t know what we’re stacking.

Mr. Chairman: Just a minute. I’m wrong.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t think there is anything to stack on it, so to speak.

Mr. Breithaupt: This could be the bottom of the pile.

Mr. Lawlor: This is the bottom of the pile but it remains the top.

Mr. Chairman: I agree. All those in favour of Mr. Lawlor’s amendment to section 3, subsection 1, please say “aye.”

All those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost and section 3 will stand as part of the bill.

Section 3 agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, so far as I am aware, there are no other amendments that we have to the bill unless my friend from Lakeshore has certain items. If not, I presume the bill can be reported.

Mr. Lawlor: No, I have a few more points, if I may have the floor. First of all, I do want to advert to section 6 --

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 6? The member for Lakeshore.

On section 6:

Mr. Lawlor: On subsection 8, were the Indian bands and the Indians previously caught within the jury system? If not, then I commend you for having done so on this occasion. My feeling is that they probably were not given that status and recognition, which is deserving of anyone.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That was last year.

Mr. Lawlor: In last year’s amendments, eh? I didn’t check that.

Section 6 agreed to.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I go on then to section 15 for a brief explanation --

Mr. Chairman: Does everything before section 15 carry? Carried.

The member for Lakeshore.

On section 15:

Mr. Lawlor: What does section 15 mean? It reads: “Where the same day is appointed for holding the court of general sessions of the peace” -- that’s the criminal side -- “and the sittings of the county court” -- which I think is the civil side, although that may not be clear either, because the sittings of the county court may involve both; but county court sittings called general sessions of the peace are specifically criminal -- “the sheriff may return the same panel to the precepts for the panels of jurors.”

What does it mean?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It simply means that the sheriff uses the same panel for both.

Mr. Lawlor: Are certain individuals selected from that panel, six individuals here and six there? In other words, in that context the panel would be sufficiently large to pick two, three, four or more juries. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Welch: If they were needed.

Mr. Lawlor: Okay.

Section 15 agreed to.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): What is the bill?

Mr. Lawlor: The bill number is 105. Yes, bear with me -- oh, by the way, who is David Booth?

Hon. Mr. Welch: What section is that in?

Mr. MacDonald: What section?

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you, Mark. Page 12.

Mr. Chairman: Page 12.

Mr. Lawlor: He’s enormously prominent, carried through the legislation --

Mr. Chairman: Section 27? Is everything prior to that carried?

Mr. Lawlor: No, that’s section 30.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, down to section 30.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Everything before section 30 carried then?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes. That’s my little joke for the day, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, the next thing has to do --

Hon. Mr. Welch: You must admit it’s more original than John Smith.

Mr. Lawlor: I can’t stand anything else but Richard Rowe. You know, dear Richard played a prominent part in my life.

Let’s get over to section 43 --

Mr. Chairman: Is everything prior to section 43 carried?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, everything prior to section 43, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.

On section 43:

Mr. Lawlor: Section 43 is completely new, I believe.

You haven’t sought in previous legislation, as far as I know, to define the range of contempt without reasonable excuse for a juror failing to show and stay when he gets there or to perform his functions when he is there. Did you feel that a contempt citation was really in order in this particular regard? Is it not first of all inherent in the common law that it should be so? Why do you spell it out? What is the penalty? Are you leaving it completely to the common-law jurisdiction --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes.

Mr. Lawlor: -- as to how he is going to penalize them?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It will be completely within the discretion of the court.

Mr. Lawlor: He might send a juror up for a longer period of time than the accused in this particular case.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We would have to rely here on good judicial judgement, I think.

Mr. Lawlor: You have an implicit faith in these things.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If I might just digress for a moment, it is my understanding that David Booth has been mentioned in this type of legislation since at least 1859.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, I don’t doubt David’s longevity, I just don’t particularly go for his name.

Hon. Mr. Welch: By virtue of this, he would not be eligible for jury duty now.

Mr. Lawlor: Are you telling me with respect to the questions up to section 43 that I am answering all my own questions?

Hon. Mr. Welch: You are doing pretty well.

Mr. Lawlor: In other words --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lawlor: -- the answer to the second question is that you are spelling out in statute, in explicit terms, contempt things that were always assumed anyhow. Is that the answer? I wonder why the section is in there, in other words?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think we are just spelling it out to be very clear as to what is available to the courts if a person declines or refuses to respond to the summons for jury duty without a reasonable excuse.

Mr. Deans: Could I ask a question?

Mr. Chairman: Is section 43 carried?

Mr. Deans: No.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I know some people in Hamilton who --

Mr. Lawlor: Have you got an ongoing quarrel with my colleague?

Mr. Chairman: Never.

Mr. Lawlor: Will you never let him speak? He’s got the rights of every other member of this House. It was the last thing last night and the first thing this morning. You mustn’t exercise this kind of selectivity.

Mr. Chairman: The Chairman is always kind to the hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, but you and I were buddies out on the hustings; come on.

Mr. MacDonald: This isn’t the York county council.

Mr. Deans: There I was, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: You can say that again.

Mr. Deans: -- in the heat of battle with my colleague --

Mr. MacDonald: I can say for your benefit that it isn’t, too.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The hon. member for Wentworth has the floor.

Mr. Deans: Thank you; once out of every twice isn’t too bad, is it?

I want to talk to the minister about some people in Hamilton who have some contempt for the system, with regard to jury duty. This seems to be as good a place as any to do it. Had they been able to, they would have got up and walked out of the court in the city of Hamilton because of intolerable conditions inflicted upon them as a result of their having been called to serve on a jury in the cause of justice.

I sent the minister a letter from one of the people and it was a reflection of a large body of opinion. I think it was shared by every single person who was called upon to appear in the courthouse to be made into a jury and to hear a case. I don’t know what you’ve done. Frankly, I haven’t had the opportunity, since I was meeting with the Ministry of Health this morning, to take part in the debate on this bill.

I want to tell you that the conditions which were inflicted upon the people who were called to serve about two weeks -- maybe three or four weeks ago now -- in a hearing in the city of Hamilton courthouse were, to say the least, intolerable. They were not a reflection of good behaviour on the part of the court toward the citizens of the province. There was not adequate space for them. There were no adequate meals provided for them and they felt some considerable contempt for the process. I think they might have walked out; I think they might even have refused to go back in at one point because they were so upset and that might have been good reason for them not serving.

I want to suggest to the minister that regardless of what’s written in a bill, or regardless of what the law may prescribe should occur, there’s no doubt that the attitude of the court officers toward people who are called to serve as jurors is something which should be a reflection of government policy or ministry policy. The minister is going to have to make it abundantly clear to court officers that jurors are to be treated with respect. They are to be treated humanely; if they are required to remain for long periods of time their physical comfort has to be looked after; they’re not to be herded into rooms which are inadequate, without accommodation for them to sit, for hours on end like cattle.

From this point on, if citizens are going to be called to serve, the Ministry of Justice should inform the courts within its jurisdiction it will not tolerate the kinds of conditions which were required to be tolerated by those people called to serve in Hamilton.

I think, for the majority of people, to be called to serve on a jury is a traumatic experience. To have to go into court, for most people, is a traumatic experience. I don’t think many people, frankly, look forward to it. They’re afraid of it but they have respect for the judicial system, they have respect for the justice of the province and for the laws of the province. They go, maybe a little unwillingly, but they go nevertheless and they take their job very seriously, as they should, and they try to do it to the best of their ability, given that it is not something for which a person could be professionally equipped, nor should it be.

But I think that we have an obligation to remove or to lessen to the absolute minimum whatever hardships are inflicted on juries. I ask the minister if he will make sure that correspondence goes out to every single court officer, and to every single judge to ensure that there will be some change in the attitude of the court toward the juries, to ensure that they are not treated the way these people were treated some, as I say, three or four weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the comments that have been made. As the hon. member knows, he has drawn these particulars to my attention and they are being looked into. I couldn’t agree with him more with respect to the general attitude of those with whom the jurors come in contact, and matters of physical arrangements, and I can assure the hon. member that on the basis of his letter we will make it our business to go into that particular situation and indeed find some way to generalize the results of that investigation.

I would like to make just one brief reference, since we are still on section 43, to the comments of the hon. member for Lakeshore, so that there will be no misunderstanding. I should draw his attention to the fact that section 43 is really the old sections 89 and 91 of the present Jurors Act combined. The penalty even in those sections was primarily at the discretion of the courts, so we are simply treating the whole situation in section 43 as the facts are.

The general approach is that it is an offence against the administration of justice, and therefore we leave it to the court to decide what the fine will be. But I think I should underline once again that section 43 is a combination of those two older sections of the present Act.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I just have one further question arising out of the legislation itself, if you will bear with me. It came up during a second reading last evening when I asked whether the view of the jurors would be retained. The minister referred me to the Judicature Act. I have leafed through the Judicature Act. Could you clue me in as to precisely what that section is?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Pardon --

Mr. Lawlor: Giving the jurors the right to a view.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Rather than holding up the committee, I can get that information to the hon. member. Would the hon. member be satisfied with that?

Mr. Lawlor: That will be satisfactory. I expect you to complete my education.

Section 43 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further section that anyone would like to discuss before section 53? Shall the bill now be reported?

Mr. Lawlor: No, you have left out the chiropractors.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the bill being reported say “aye.” All those opposed say “nay.”

Mr. Lawlor: Nay.

Mr. Chairman: In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Bill 105 reported.

Mr. Lawlor: You succeeded again.

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS INSPECTION ACT

House in committee on Bill 106, An Act to provide for the Inspection of Public Institutions by Public Visitation.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know whether there are any other comments on this bill, but I would like to move an amendment.

Hon. Mr. Welch moves that subsection 5 of section 2 of the bill be amended by adding after “duties” in the first line “and powers.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments on section 2? Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Subsection 2 of section 4.

Mr. Chairman: Subsection 2 of section 4.

On section 4:

Mr. Lawlor: Would the Attorney General give any consideration to giving them slightly wider powers, not only to inspect the institutions in which people are held in custody but to clear for themselves the reason and the length of time? Has he great reservations about that?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I think in section 5 the expression, “may interrogate any person on the premises,” carries with it all those implications. The Act doesn’t restrict what the questions of the persons are going to be.

Mr. Lawlor: No, but is it your intention to follow the Law Reform Commission in this particular regard and place that responsibility solely on the shoulders of the sheriff?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Section 4, subsection 2, makes it mandatory that all institutions in the county or district in which persons are being held in custody be inspected.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The word there is “shall,” so they must go into all those institutions. Then section 5 gives them their powers when they are in those institutions.

Mr. Lawlor: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but as I read the section and read it in the light of the Law Reform Commission report and the specific recommendations, you drafted this legislation aimed at a particular point, namely, the point of the inspection of institutions. The third function of a grand jury is general jail delivery. And that was reserved in the thing to the sheriff. As I read this thing, you haven’t there the amplitude of power. That is not their function to perform, to see that people are not improperly held in custody for an unwarranted length of time pending trial.

If that is encompassed in the legislation, fine. I find it very palatable. But it may be deliberately not encompassed, as I read it. When you spoke a moment ago, you gave me pause. It’s possible, I suppose, if you throw the net wide enough here that they might be able to perform that function. On the other hand, I want your intentions because you are the master of this legislation. You may be bringing in in the fall an amendment to the Sheriffs Act, widening their powers or giving them extra responsibilities in this regard. I want to know what your intentions are.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think actually we would expect the sheriff as part of his administrative responsibilities to continue to perform that function.

Mr. Lawlor: And you don’t expect this particular entity to do so at all.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, before I answer that, I am very anxious to underline once again that there are no restrictions by section 5 as to the interrogation of anyone in these premises. But the specific function to which the hon. member makes reference will continue to be part of the administrative duties of the sheriff.

Mr. Lawlor: If you don’t exclude this possibility, this power, this function, from -- what’s this marvellous institution called? -- the public institutions inspection panel, if you don’t exclude that from their power, then I think you should be more explicit in what you do intend in this regard.

They give a certain inspection. They go into a jail. They ask how the food is and whether the cockroaches are crawling up the inside or the outside of a wall or what the general disposition of bedding happens to be. They are not asking nor is there attention directed nor is there any explicit mandate given by the judge or anybody else in the course of this legislation that they may also take a little interest in the prisoners themselves as to whether they are being properly held in custody. And that’s what I want. That’s what you are not conceding me. You are playing your games again with me.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, that’s not true.

Mr. Lawlor: And I don’t like that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would appreciate your dislike if I, in fact, was doing that and I’m not doing that, Mr. Chairman. I simply point out to you that there is no amendment of the responsibilities of the sheriff in regard to the specific matters to which you first started to make reference when you discussed this particular section.

It’s quite clear that every panel makes an inspection, prepares a report indicating the conditions, and so on. That’s why I draw your attention to subsection 3 of section 4 as to what will be in the report. There is certainly no attempt by this legislation to be restrictive, but rather to give this panel the powers as are set out in section 5.

Mr. Lawlor: All right, we will bring an end to it. I want to say something dire in closing which will set your heart in perturbation. Next spring when you and I meet eyeball to eyeball on estimates, I am going to bring this up and just see what the first panels have done in this particular regard. And if it isn’t satisfactory, I want to extract from you on that occasion a promise to give them these wider powers.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I appreciate the notice.

Section 4 agreed to.

Bill 106, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House reports one bill without amendment and one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 105, the Juries Act, 1974.

Bill 106, An Act to provide for the Inspection of Public Institutions by Public Visitation.

Clerk of the House: The 31st order concurrence in supply for the Office of the Provincial Auditor.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves concurrence in supply for the Office of the Provincial Auditor.

Resolution concurred in.

Clerk of the House: The 32nd order, concurrence in supply for the Management Board.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MANAGEMENT BOARD

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves concurrence in supply for the Management Board.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this item be concurred in? The member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of remarks I want to make on the concurrence and I want to refer specifically to the function undertaken by the Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Winkler) with regard to the implementation of what is called the second report of the Ontario commission on the Legislature.

Unfortunately, that report came out the day after we dealt with the Management Board estimates, and therefore we weren’t able to get the kind of clarification on the report that we might normally have expected to get. And since it’s a responsibility of the Chairman of the Management Board, I would like to put to him now some of the questions that we have with regard to that in order that we might clearly understand what’s going to happen in regard to the implementation of the second report.

I want to read to you from one part of your report. It deals with the matter of staff, and that’s primarily what I am concerned about. It says:

“The commission has made recommendations as to the number of staff and general level of expenditure and the government is persuaded by its arguments. It is also persuaded that salaries, fringe benefits and general terms and conditions of service should reflect equivalent job classifications in the public service.”

One might reasonably have expected, since all matters regarding finance are retroactive to April 1, that there would have been a clarification given as to what is intended by that. I thought by this point that we might have received a schedule from either the Chairman of the Management Board or from some other appropriate body, indicating to us exactly what the classification is to be with regard to secretarial help in order that we can determine in advance of the implementation whether the classifications adequately reflect the duties and responsibilities of those people who are in the employ, at least, of this caucus and, I suspect, of the Liberal caucus, too.

I think it is very difficult for us to understand fully we are going to be able to implement the policy as set out in this statement until we are told (a) What the classification is; (b) What the fringe benefits are to be; and (c) Whether or not those classifications are subject to some discussion or negotiation between representatives of the various caucuses and the Management Board or the cabinet or some other group within the government’s administrative hierarchy or whatever one wants to call it.

The statement itself is --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It has just been brought to my attention -- I am sorry I wasn’t listening to the earlier remarks of the member.

Mr. Deans: You should have been; it is very important.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure, but the topic under discussion really hasn’t anything to do with the Management Board. It will in future come under the Speaker’s office, is that right?

Mr. Deans: No.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): No, that is where we got hung up yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: It would come under the Speaker. It’s the Speaker’s estimates; that’s the point.

Mr. Deans: If I may, Mr. Speaker, on that point, that is when we had the difficulty.

Mr. Renwick: We don’t like to have games played with us.

Mr. Deans: We thought that, too, and we therefore went to the Speaker’s estimates and asked the questions. We were told that the Speaker didn’t have the jurisdiction; that it was the Management Board which was doing it.

Mr. Renwick: They told us they had just received the statement and therefore they couldn’t comment on it. We got hung up between the Chairman of the Management Board and the Speaker’s office.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Wentforth has the floor.

Mr. Deans: It wasn’t a statement issued by the Speaker’s office. It was a statement by the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and I can only assume he was speaking on behalf of the government.

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. minister willing to accept this? It’s a new procedure, I believe.

Mr. Deans: Yes, I am not being nasty about it; I am simply looking for clarification because I think it is going to be very difficult. You and I both know that sometime, perhaps the middle or the end of next week, we are going to rise and we are going to adjourn for the summer. For those of us charged with the responsibility of administering caucus operations, it is very difficult for us to relay or transfer information we don’t have to our staff.

It is my understanding that there has been a recent revision in certain classifications within the civil service. It is my understanding that was an upward revision in salary and it is also my understanding that applied to certain secretarial help. I am interested to know:

1. If the Chairman of Management Board can inform us what classification the secretaries who are in the employ of the various caucuses will fall into.

2. If he can inform us exactly what fringe benefits are to be afforded to those secretaries who are employed by the caucuses, who are not to be considered as civil servants but who are to be considered as, I suspect, temporary help. Some of them will be here a long time, by the way, temporary or not.

3. If he could inform us whether there will be a financial statement sent to us in the next day or two days, or certainly before we adjourn next week, on the amounts of money in total that will be made available to us?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deans: No, it is going to be next week; I said sometime toward the middle or end of next week. Could the Chairman of Management Board perhaps tell us how we are supposed to sort of decode the message contained within the statement?

For example: “The government fully accepts the principle of additional support for members of the Legislature.” What does that mean? How are we to interpret that? Am I to assume, if I may speak on my own behalf and the behalf of the member for Kitchener, (Mr. Breithaupt) that the section of the statement dealing with House leaders -- I don’t know where it is; it is someplace here -- which says “The matters which will be referred to the Board of Internal Economy include the recommendations relating to the library and the public support of administrative aides to the House leaders of the two opposition parties,” am I to assume that really means that particular recommendation has been washed, that that one is out and that some other recommendation is to be implemented? If so, what recommendation is to be implemented, so that we can understand the whole matter of the responsibility to be assumed by the Speaker’s office over against that responsibility to be continued to be assumed by the Ministry of Government Services? Could you tell us exactly what that is to be so that we can understand it?

Is there going to be an opportunity for some kind of discussion between various caucus representatives -- perhaps the leaders or someone designated by them -- and the government in regard to the implementation of all these recommendations so that they don’t come in sort of piecemeal, so that we can see in an overall way exactly what is going to occur and roughly what the timetabling of it is going to be, so we know what we might expect to see happen six months hence, or by the end of the year, or by the middle of next year, so we can tell, just for our own interest and the interest of the efficient functioning of the Legislature, what is going to be different about the way this place operates then over and against the way it operates now?

I was frankly disappointed that this matter was not before the estimates, because that would have been an ideal place to sit in a relaxed atmosphere and talk about it, get answers back and forth and perhaps pursue some points even further than we are going to be able to here today.

But I am really concerned about the effect that this statement will have on existing staff, the effect that this statement may or may not have on our ability to hire additional staff, and I think that on this day, Wednesday, June 26, we might expect a statement from the minister by the end of the week, so that we can debate it further next week, on exactly how we are going to be expected to function during the remainder of the current fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to support the views expressed by the hon. member for Wentworth with regard to staff. This winter some of our secretaries were able to benefit from the courses in French, for example, that were made available to the civil servants, but then found that because of the change in regulations with regard to admission to those courses next year, they wouldn’t be able to carry on with that unless we were able to find the funds out of our other party sources. If they are taken under the wing of the civil service in the way that has been suggested, then they would qualify for this extra benefit.

After all, they are doing work that is very similar to the work done by the people in the Premier’s office, helping constituent problems. We really are doing a government service and I hope that the minister will clarify that and make their position clearly that they get the benefits similar to those in the civil service.

Another matter I wish to raise at this point is with regard to the position of those in what they call CAATs, that come under the Management Board legislation, or at least the legislation of this minister, with regard to negotiations. Is it the minister’s intention to include faculties of universities in this category if they should organize? One of the objections that the faculties and the colleges have to the present situation is that they really don’t have similar rights to those in the universities and yet their status is very much the same as with regard to funding.

Both groups really depend on provincial funding and they would like to be in a position of having their own independent negotiation entity separate from the civil servants. Maybe if this government decides its policy is to have all such groups subject to the no-strike rule, that’s this government’s decision. We don’t agree with that. But at the same time I think that the government should be consistent and if it considers the situation I hope that consistency will say we’ll treat the faculties of colleges the same as we do the faculties of universities; if they want to organize they can be independent, they can organize without being subject to the present legislation, which is so offensive to so many of us in the province.

I hope that the minister will bring in legislation eliminating faculty members of the colleges from being subject to the terms of the present legislation which applies to the civil service.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to the bill?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Yes, I want to talk, Mr. Speaker. I just want to bring to the minister’s attention the fact that by the government’s decision and by the House leader’s decision to bring the Management Board estimates before the House at a time when we are heavily engaged in work right here, there has not been the opportunity in the estimates committee for a major discussion of the bargaining rights of Crown employees, or the brief that was put forward by the Civil Service Association of Ontario just a couple of weeks ago.

I think it’s fair to say that it was probably a deliberate piece of timing that the Management Board estimates were put before that committee at a time that this Legislature was in speedup. The two decisions were made by the same minister because he did not want to face a public scrutiny about the bargaining rights of Crown employees and about the way in which the civil servants of this province are so miserably treated.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Of course it was deliberate.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Who is the member trying to kid?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I’ll read the facts into the record as coming from the Ontario government pay and research bureau, and then we can see who the minister is kidding. What does he think about being an employer and underpaying his employees here in the Province of Ontario as much as he does? What does he think about the legislation which denies the essential bargaining rights to these employees?

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the New Democratic Party was the only party to oppose the continued imposition of compulsory arbitration upon Crown employees at the time the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act was considered in this Legislature. As I recall, it went through this place late in December in one of those perpetual speed-ups, which seems to be the only way that the government knows of getting legislation through the House. At that time, it’s fair to say, the galleries were far from packed. In fact if there were more than two or three Crown employees up there I would have been surprised.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I think we voted against this bill.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m glad that the Liberals voted against the bill. They usually support compulsory arbitration, because that’s their philosophy in labour relations.

Mr. Deacon: Oh, now look, the member knows that’s not true.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s true.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: It certainly is right that the Liberal Party supports compulsory arbitration most of the time, and so does this government. Both the Liberal opposition and the government are willing at the stroke of any opportunity to take the full and free bargaining rights of employees away from them through the use of compulsory arbitration. They don’t have a real commitment, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Breithaupt: The member is misleading himself.

Mr. Cassidy: -- to free collective bargaining. That’s what it amounts to.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: Look at what Barrett is doing in British Columbia.

Mr. Cassidy: We’ve moved a long way in BC; a long, long way in two years. There’s no question of that.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s why he is taking those rights away.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: We may have taken away a few rights of the big mining companies, but they have been enjoying a tremendously privileged position under the free enterprise government that existed there before.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): There’s bad trouble out there.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, according to the pay and research bureau, in 1967 Ontario civil servants lagged, on average, about 25 per cent behind the pay for comparable occupations in the Province of Ontario.

Over the seven years that have occurred since then, and under the regime of compulsory arbitration, the average pay of Ontario civil servants has risen by 63 per cent. That compares with an average increase for people across Canada, the average wage of workers under free collective bargaining, of 75.7 per cent.

In other words, under compulsory arbitration, not only were the civil servants well behind in a race at the beginning, but they had been lagging steadily further and further behind as month has followed month and year has followed year.

The present calculation of the Civil Service Association of Ontario is that Ontario civil servants now are 34 per cent behind wages and salaries in comparable occupations, where there is free collective bargaining.

The minister can quibble about whether it should be 32 per cent or 36 per cent, or whether the figures are absolutely precise. However, he’s got to admit that these figures are based on the work of the government of Ontario and the Ministry of Labour’s pay and research bureau. They are unassailable figures which indicate just how poorly off the civil servants in the province are.

In addition, under Ontario legislation the rights of bargaining which the civil servants in the province enjoy -- if that’s the word to use -- are hemmed in in so many ways that we may as well not call it bargaining at all. The experience of the community college teachers who were dragooned into the civil service bargaining framework, who were dragooned into it because they had no choice because of the legislation, surely indicates just what kind of a strain exists. The community college teachers have been trying for about 14 months now to get a first contract with the Ontario government under the collective bargaining as it’s created for civil servants in the province. That just shouldn’t happen, and it didn’t happen in individual community colleges where there was bargaining under way before the Civil Service Association of Ontario had been imposed. They have had a lot of problems, but the problems have been exacerbated by the lack of rights which exist.

In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the only means by which disputes can be resolved under the collective bargaining legislation for Crown employees is through a government tribunal whose full-time chairman is a government appointee and, given the kinds of appointments made by this government, is therefore suspect in the eyes of employees of the province.

I am not commenting right now about the quality of the decisions. I am commenting on the way in which the government makes appointments generally and therefore on the feeling that people in the government service have about having not one but two government appointees on every three-man tribunal that engages in compulsory arbitration decisions. The union gets one representative, the government gets one representative but they sneak another one in through the back door because the full-time chairman is a government appointee.

That appointment by government is simply not trusted. The appointment of the chairman of any arbitration tribunal, if there is to be one, should be made by agreement of the parties, that is, by agreement of a union nominee and the employer nominee, that is, the government nominee, which is the normal course of events in an arbitration in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, the range of items which can be negotiated by civil servants is extraordinarily limited. They can’t negotiate pensions. There is a management rights clause, which would be laughed out of court if it existed in the private sector, which is totally unacceptable in the modern era of free collective bargaining. It’s not possible for working conditions to be negotiated by civil servants.

They are also enjoined against making any collective agreement that would, and I quote from clause 17 of the Act, “directly or indirectly call for the enactment or amendment of legislation.” That excludes a whole range of things which are negotiated as a matter of everyday collective bargaining by auto workers and steelworkers and CUPE and the service employees and other unions in this province, including trade unions who negotiate for people who are paid out of the public purse, including, for example, the teachers’ unions, the hospital employees’ unions, and so on. These are barred as far as Crown employees are concerned. They simply are not permitted to bargain.

Crown employees can’t have less than a two-year agreement. Crown employees don’t have the right to recruit at the place of employment. In the past that didn’t much matter because the Civil Service Association was a company union. One may as well put that on the record. But that’s changed in the last couple of years. The CSAO is acting like a real union now and it’s started to fight for the rights of its members. It was about time that happened, but it’s also about time that this government gave to the CSAO the normal rights of a trade union.

On political activity, I am more familiar with the situation at the federal level because I happen to come from a community where 40 per cent of the work force works for the federal government. The situation we have right now in the federal election is a travesty of the law that was passed federally in 1966. In 1966 the federal government said that civil servants should not have the right to participate in an election campaign to work for a candidate. Their rights should only extend to membership in a political party and to a financial contribution to a political party.

I happen to think that both federal and provincial civil servants who are not in a sensitive policy-making kind of role should have political rights. The Deputy Minister of Housing is obviously in that kind of role and should stay away from politics. But his secretary or the secretary to the person who is administering rents down at Regent Park for the Ontario Housing Corp. is not in a sensitive role. He or she should have the same political rights as any other citizen in the Province of Ontario.

What we have up at Ottawa, and I think what happens at the provincial level as well, is that many civil servants quite freely engage in political activity. They even allow their names to be published in the newspaper as working on behalf of a candidate or as a member of a riding association or that kind of thing. This is true not just of the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party, but of the NDP and the various fringe parties as well. All parties engage in it.

The federal law is completely absurd because it says that no civil servant may engage in political activity, but then provides for the enforcement of that section only by a complaint lodged by a political candidate and nobody else. Since 1966, in eight years there has not been a single complaint by a political candidate. The law, in that sense, is a dead letter. But there have been any number of memos at the federal level that have gone out from deputy ministers and branch heads and people like that, saying if we catch you working in a political campaign all hell is going to break loose, or words to that effect. People are intimidated against engaging in political activity and against exercising their political rights. The same thing happens here in the provincial government.

It didn’t stop the Premier (Mr. Davis) in 1971, and other members of the cabinet from digging into the civil service in order to get material they could use in a partisan matter through the course of an election campaign. That isn’t stopped. But the political rights of somebody who wishes to work for the Conservative Party or for the Liberal Party or for the NDP, in a provincial campaign are emasculated. We all know how that is applied. In particular, if somebody in the minister’s department is working for the Tories on the side nothing is said because people know that that will be blessed.

Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland ): Oh, no. The member is wrong.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s okay; that’s perfectly true. If somebody is working for the government candidate, that’s fine; but if they’re working for a New Democratic candidate in a seat that is sensitive and which the government may lose, one knows bloody well that all hell’s going to break loose; that that person is going to get fired; that their promotion opportunities are going to get blocked; and that the full weight of the law will be brought against that person.

Mr. Laughren: Right on.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. It’s much the same situation with many people who even are so bold as to try to engage in active union activity. You should have seen the look on the faces, Mr. Speaker, of those 120 or 200 civil servants who were bold enough to come here in 1972 to demonstrate for their collective bargaining rights on behalf of the CSAO at the time we were last considering the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. They were scared that something was going to happen to them, despite the fact that there was nominally a protection of union activity within Ontario law for Crown employees. They knew the way the system worked. They knew the kind of office politics. They knew the way that they could get scuppered, their job opportunities blocked, and that they could get sent out to Siberia or Kapuskasing or some other place like that.

Mr. Breithaupt: Kapuskasing?

Mr. Cassidy: When it becomes an NDP riding then it will be Nirvana.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): It will never be an NDP riding now. The member’s party has just lost it forever.

Mr. Cassidy: They know the way the Ontario government deals with people who are so bold as to try to exercise their rights, whether it be in union activity or whether it be in political activity.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: If the government were willing to restrict the way in which it uses and abuses civil servants for partisan political purposes during the course of an election campaign, it would at least then be consistent. But we’re saying that there are 60,000 people in this province who work for the Ontario government, of which all but 1,000 or 2,000 of them are in non-sensitive positions, and they should have the right not only to take a leave of absence to run for political office, which they have right now, but also to engage in political activity on behalf of the candidate or the party of their choice.

Mr. Speaker, finally, we need to give to civil servants the same free collective bargaining rights that have been given to civil servants in other jurisdictions. I would particularly note the federal government, which for the last six or seven years has given to civil servants a choice of the way in which disputes will be resolved.

For civil servants who are not in essential jobs -- and it’s clear that most of them are not, because even when the Hydro employees went on strike, the government didn’t deem that they were in essential occupations -- they should have the right in each bargaining unit to decide whether they wish to go to voluntary arbitration or whether they wish to choose the route of a strike.

That’s the situation up in Ottawa. It is a fair kind of compromise. It recognizes that there are certain groups of civil servants who don’t want the right to strike. But it also recognizes that the settlements made with civil servants will only be fair in relation to what is happening outside if civil servants do have the right to withdraw their services -- and they don’t have that right right now.

The Act should be brought forward at the fall sitting of this Legislature in order to provide for the essential kinds of reforms I’ve talked about and which have been pressed by the Civil Service Association of Ontario -- political rights, the right to bargain collectively, an end to the barriers to bargaining of such things as management rights, pensions and working conditions, and a granting of the right to strike in cases where civil service bargaining units seek those rights. Those are essential reforms if we are to bring civil servants in this province into the second half of the 20th century as far as their bargaining rights are concerned.

I wish very much that the minister, who has not been put on the carpet about this in the committee, would comment about what the government’s intentions are and why it continues to be so overbearing about the political and bargaining rights of civil servants.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too would like to express my concern about the breakdown in the negotiations that have been going on between the community college teachers and the representatives of the government.

It is no coincidence that the community college teachers are finding dispute, not primarily with wages at this time, but with the conditions under which they are employed, as laid down in the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

For community college teachers to be negotiating for over a year and to have not arrived at any settlement with the Council of Regents is an indication of just how bad is the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

There are about three main issues in this dispute. One is the whole question of the arbitration panel; and, as the member for Ottawa Centre pointed out, that is not a balanced arbitration panel.

If the civil servants in the Province of Ontario had more respect for the intentions of this government, they would not be so concerned about the permanent appointment of a chairman on the arbitration panel. But they know that the government is suspect when it comes to labour negotiations in the first place. Therefore, how can you expect them to accept a permanently appointed chairman of this government, given the fact that another one is appointed from the government as well, which of course makes it a two-to-one representation on the part of the government?

The Chairman of Management Board points out that in the past that particular chairman has ruled in such a way that has never been challenged, that the only time there was a challenge was when he ruled in favour of the employees. That is not the issue. The issue is that at this point in time the civil servants of the Province of Ontario have come to the conclusion that the government is not bargaining in good faith.

It’s little wonder when one considers what is going on in the private sector in Fort Frances with the medical clinic, for example, that the government won’t move in and insist that good-faith bargaining take place on the part of the employer when they themselves are guilty of bad-faith bargaining for over a year now with their own employees.

I would hope that the Chairman of Management Board would be prepared to make a statement as to what they are going to do in order to re-open the talks between the community college teachers and the Council of Regents. I wonder if the Chairman of Management Board realizes what will happen after July 8, if by some strange twist of fate the Conservative Party of Canada forms the federal government in Ottawa and imposes a wage and price freeze on this country? What does the Chairman of Management Board think is going to happen with the community college teachers in this province?

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Laughren: Already, Mr. Speaker, there is a problem with replacing those who are leaving and going back to the private sector because they are working two years behind in salary levels. Does he really think, if a wage and price freeze is imposed after July 8, the civil servants in this province and, in particular, the community college teachers would tolerate that kind of freeze when they haven’t had a settlement in over a year?

Mr. Cassidy: The only thing that will save him is the Tories won’t make it federally.

Mr. Laughren: That’s the only reason the Chairman of Management Board is not panic-stricken at this time. It is evidenced by the fact that we are still sitting here at this date in June; it is an indication they know the Tories are not going to make it federally anyway.

Mr. Cassidy: They don’t want to fight.

Mr. Laughren: They don’t want to be out there on the hustings and that’s why we are here this week.

Mr. Cassidy: They are hiding here in the Legislature.

Mr. Laughren: That’s why there has been legislation introduced at this time.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): The member has to be kidding.

An hon. member: That’s out of order.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly in order to talk about the wage and price freeze the Tories would impose and the effect it would have on the community college teachers in the Province of Ontario. I really wonder what the Chairman of Management Board would do if a wage and price freeze was imposed on employees who have been negotiating for over a year now.

Mr. Deans: He would rub his hands with glee.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, he’d rub his hands with glee, perhaps.

Mr. Speaker, there is the whole question of the public sector and the problems the public sector is going to have negotiating not only with this government but with the federal government. For those of us who follow the pronouncements of the Economic Council of Canada fairly closely, there is real concern when the Economic Council states there is a fiscal crisis in the public sector and that public sector expenditures can no longer be allowed to grow at the rate they have in the past. It gives the people like the Chairman of the Management Board the opportunity to say “Yes, that’s quite right. We really must clamp down on growth in the public sector and what better place to start than the teachers in the Province of Ontario and the 60,000 plus civil servants in the Province of Ontario?”

It’s such a short-ranged view that I don’t understand why the government doesn’t see that what supports the public sector is the growth of real wealth in this country and in this province. At the same time, to this day, 1974, it does not have any kind of industrial strategy for the proper growth of the Province of Ontario.

He wonders why, if there is a fiscal crisis in the public sector, nobody is doing anything about it. The responsibility rests on that side of this chamber, Mr. Speaker. I would urge the Chairman of Management Board to make a statement on what he is going to do about the breakdown in negotiations with the community college teachers, and whether or not he is going to instruct the Council of Regents to get down to that bargaining table and begin, for the first time, to bargain in good faith with the community college teachers.

Mr. Deans: Well said.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in replying to the number of questions which have been placed before me, I will deal first of all with the member for York Centre. I think he made a point in regard to the staff of the Legislature for which I have a great degree of sympathy. I think the changes which are about to take place will resolve the very question he raised.

Mr. Deacon: Right, thank you.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes; as a matter of fact, I will take a personal interest in that.

Dealing with the member for Wentworth, I suppose he could raise an argument that it is going to be an oversimplification when I explain to him what is taking place in regard to the main thrust of the question he put before us.

It is my hope that the people employed as servants of the Legislature and, of course, as a result of that, of the Speaker -- because he will have quite an elevation in the status of his office as will the Clerk -- I assume these people will be considered servants of the Legislature, but because of the division of caucuses that division will remain and be the responsibility of the caucuses involved. I would hope that the job assessment will be done by the Civil Service Commission as it deals with civil servants for their classification, and they will be paid in accordance with that particular range, wherever they are, in accordance with their abilities.

I also expect that the fringe benefit package to which the member made reference will be given to these people as a package so that they can choose their own course in dealing with those moneys. I believe that this will be a very fair way to approach it in accordance to what the present situation is.

I spoke last evening in person to the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), and although I didn’t have the figures then and I don’t have them now, there are caucus allotments. There is a change because of the fact that the secretarial staff in particular will become servants of the Legislature and they will be paid on that classified base. The change, then, in caucus allotments will be different from what it is at the moment, because they will be removed from the responsibility of the several caucuses.

Nevertheless, there will be caucus allotments, particularly, I think, separately, to the opposition parties in regard to research, and I believe those figures were defined in the report. I didn’t include them in my report to the Legislature yesterday because they may not remain the same, but I thought that was inherent to part of the member’s question. Then, in the very broad sense, if the member feels that there is a negative response to anything that happened to be in the report, the second report that was presented to the Legislature, I want to assure everyone that when the organization is brought together any of the items that are currently set out by the government to be implemented will be dealt with immediately, and the balance of them will be referred to the committee on internal economy, to be implemented in due course when that becomes feasible so far as the Legislature itself is concerned.

So much for that. When I am talking about the remarks of the member for Ottawa Centre, I would like to say that policywise, as far as the CAATs colleges teachers are concerned, that is a matter which is the direct responsibility of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld) --

Mr. Laughren: He passes the buck to this minister.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- and it is actively under consideration as to what the future course will be. In regard to negotiations, I think that I should --

Mr. Cassidy: This minister was the one who groomed him, though.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- without accepting everything that the member said, because the use of statistics is often wrong and some of what he used this morning is improperly put, but we will deal with that again -- say that I think negotiations are currently under way and I believe an offer is being considered. I am not too sure if it’s today but it is very close by, and I don’t think I should prejudice any of that negotiation by interjecting thoughts here in the Legislature this morning.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for concurrence in supply for Management Board.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: The debate is concluded now.

Mr. Cassidy: No.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is.

Mr. Cassidy: No, it is a form of an estimates debate, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, it’s not. It’s a formal debate of the House and each member has the privilege of speaking once and being replied to finally by the minister concerned.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister accept a question, then, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: He may accept a question. Will the minister accept a question?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Oh, I will accept one question.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. I accept what the minister says about not commenting on current bargaining. Could he comment, though, about government policy in relation to the structure of collective bargaining for Crown employees; the points that I raised at that level during the debate?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I don’t think that I will comment on that this morning, Mr. Speaker. We had quite a lengthy discourse and debate in the committee the other evening and the member for Wentworth did a credible job of putting that point of view forward and I think it was well handled.

Resolution concurred in.

ONTARIO SCHOOL TRUSTEES’ COUNCIL ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moves second reading of Bill 107, An Act to amend the Ontario School Trustees’ Council Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Bill 107, An Act to amend the Ontario School Trustees’ Council Act, certainly meets with our approval. All it apparently does is expand the representation on the council. Now there will be seven members of the Ontario Public School Trustees’ Association and three from l’Association française des Conseils Scolaires de l’Ontario, three from Northern Ontario Public and Secondary Schools Trustees’ Association, and three from the Ontario Separate Schools Trustees’ Association.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to make remarks on this? The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) had to go to his riding, Mr. Speaker, because David Lewis is going to be there this afternoon.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Is David Lewis coming to see him?

Mr. Cassidy: He has been waiting here for days for this bill to come forward.

Mr. Breithaupt: He should be here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: We are not responsible for the incredible way in which the business of this House is operated. He was waiting here until 12:15, Mr. Speaker, in order that the bill could come forward.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Has he gone to see the Queen?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the minister should have known that David Lewis was going to be in Port Arthur today so he could have brought it on sooner.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can think of a lot better reasons to be in Port Arthur.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s a pretty good reason, I think.

Mr. Breithaupt: So can the member.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In fact if David Lewis were there, I would stay here.

Mr. Cassidy: Well that’s the minister’s ideological prejudice. That’s all.

Mr. Breithaupt: I don’t think any of this is in the bill.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But you are going to see Pierre Trudeau tomorrow night at Varsity Stadium. You are all welcome.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At any rate, as I understand it, and maybe the minister could just nod at me, the Metro Toronto school trustees will continue not to be represented on the public school trustees’ council after this bill is passed? Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill has nothing to do with that. It is merely some housekeeping amendments to the present Act and does not deal with the problem of membership of school boards. The Toronto board of education, as I understand it, has decided not to belong to the trustees’ council, as they have a right to do.

Mr. Cassidy: That is fine. The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that we have seen the school trustees’ council in action over the last couple of years, led in a manner very favourable to the government by Twyla Hendry, whose name keeps on popping up in various pro-government kinds of statements. If this body in its old form or in its new form were at all effective, one would feel happier in endorsing the bill. As it happens though, the school trustees’ council have been subservient lackeys as far as the government of the Province of Ontario is concerned and nothing more.

Mr. Breithaupt: I am sure the member will give that some publicity.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He sounds like a Maoist press release.

Mr. Cassidy: Where was the school trustees’ council’s concern when the debate came out about school board ceilings and about spending ceilings? Why have they not been as effective and as strong in pressing for better treatment of the school boards of the province as have the teachers of their province?

Where have they been when it gets to the matter of grants? They have been silent. Maybe they had a little backstage tête-à-tête with their friends, but nothing more. Where have they been when it gets to the matters of the phasing out of rural and small schools? The matter was raised by the member for Port Arthur today, where up in northern Ontario, and in my part of the province, smaller schools are forced to close in order that a greater overall amount of money may be spent on busing pupils to another school and completing their education there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: I am saying, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: -- that the school trustees’ council --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Order. The member is supposed to stop.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member understand the meaning of that word?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I do.

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister without Portfolio): He just chooses to ignore it.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the matters being discussed are not in Bill 107. We are dealing with second reading of Bill 107, not the general range of the Ontario School Trustees’ Council.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the purpose of the bill is to try to make school trustees’ councils more effective bodies. I am saying the way it stands right now, that isn’t a possible thing to do. It is not going to happen.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member is not speaking to the principle of the bill at all.

Mr. Cassidy: They have not been effective in the past. They have been dominated by school trustees who enjoy school trustee politics in the same way that some doctors enjoy --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not the principle of this bill.

Mr. Cassidy: All right, Mr. Speaker. At any rate, one would wish very strongly that, in addition to this restructuring, the school trustees’ council would cease being a patsy and an apologist for the ministry and start to stand up for their beliefs --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: -- and argue for the things that are of use to the school boards across the province.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member persists in pursuing items which are not in this bill.

Mr. Cassidy: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I finished my speech.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak? Does the hon. minister have a reply?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, as I said a few minutes ago, that this is a housekeeping bill --

Mr. Renwick: It’s 1 o’clock.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It has nothing to do with making the school trustees’ council more effective, which is something I would welcome, and so would the school trustees of this province. But, in his usual dogmatic and very uninformed manner --

Interjections by hon. member.

Mr. Renwick: Order. Order.

Mr. Deans: The minister is not talking to the principle of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- this hon. member again slurs another body of people.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Deans: It is after 1 o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: Does the minister understand the meaning of the term “point of order”? It is now 1 o’clock. The House is adjourned.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have further remarks?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think I have concluded my remarks.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is 1 o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: We have to conclude the item --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, we don’t have to.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If the debate is finished, we’ll place the question.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I would like to say that tomorrow we’ll proceed with second readings, and to the best of my ability I’ll call them in this order; I’ll give you the item numbers on the order paper -- that’s today’s order paper, of course -- 22, 17, 18, 27, 28, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Should we conclude those items, we’ll then do the matter standing in committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 o’clock, p.m.