31st Parliament, 1st Session

L023 - Tue 18 Oct 1977 / Mar 18 oct 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.



Mr. Speaker: Just before we proceed with regular business, and since the former Speaker, the member for Northumberland, is in his seat, I would like to welcome him back as a regular member of the Legislature and to say how much I enjoyed and appreciated working with him, and enjoyed his wise counsel.

As most members know, Mr. Speaker Rowe was responsible for hosting the Ontario segment of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference, which was hosted by the Canadian branch this year. He did an excellent job on behalf of the province and on behalf of the assembly.

Mr. Rowe provided the hon. government House leader -- the member for Brock (Mr. Welch), and the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) and myself, the opportunity to participate with Her Honour at a tree planting ceremony in Niagara-on-the-Lake, which was held in conjunction with the visit of the CPA delegates. At that time we were able to join in commemorating the 185th anniversary of the first sitting of the Parliament of Upper Canada, 185 years ago today.

Another tree was planted commemorating the hosting of CPA by Canada and the province of Ontario. The third tree was for the purpose of commemorating the 25th anniversary of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth’s ascension to the Throne. During the progress of those three events it was brought home, certainly to me and I’m sure to many in the audience, just how important parliamentary democracy is to each and every one of us.

I want to thank you personally, Mr. Speaker, and all of those who assisted you with those arrangements. I’m getting letters back now from the delegates saying how appreciative they were of the hospitality shown by you, and our very capable table officers, who jointly assisted greatly in making their stay a very memorable and a very enjoyable one indeed.

I think we should hearken back to those celebrations and transfer the feeling that was certainly evident at that time to this very chamber. As you know, parliamentary democracy is very fragile. I think most of us think it is something we should preserve and build upon, and I see no better way for us to do it, individually and collectively, than by showing that we do show respect for it and we think it is worthwhile preserving and building on. I hope our actions in this chamber will carry on that spirit that was carried on here and shown so capably by you, Mr. Rowe, our hon. member for Northumberland. Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if you would allow just a few moments, we on this side of the House would like to be associated with the tribute which you have paid to the hon. member for Northumberland. We in caucus have welcomed him back to a more active role in the affairs of our caucus, and we want to underline, and indeed echo, the very generous remarks which you have made in a very fitting way to the role of the Speaker and the way in which it was discharged by the hon. member for Northumberland, indeed with dignity and with patience and with fairness. I might be allowed this even, that it was perhaps appropriate that one of his final acts, as he shared in the hosting of the parliamentary conference to which you’ve made reference, was that he would be in that great riding of Brock and that we would have some recognition there with respect to the historic matters to which you have made reference.

We pay tribute to a public servant who has recognized the very important role of Speaker in our system, and I agree with you most wholeheartedly a very important position indeed. We will, I’m sure, look forward to the opportunity of working together to continue to accomplish the goals of which you have reminded us.

We say quite simply, thank you, to the hon. member for Northumberland, and welcome back to a more active involvement in the affairs of that group, Mr. Speaker, to your right.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I wish also to associate myself and the members of our party with the comments made by yourself, sir, and by the government House leader, in thanking the hon. member for Northumberland for the service he has given, not only to this House -- and I think he knows that most of us are well aware of the strains, on one’s health and one’s time and one’s family, that the job of Speaker involved -- I say not only to this House because I truly believe, and I say this sincerely, that the member has devoted himself to the whole process of democracy.

I worked for some time, Mr. Speaker, as an assistant to a federal Speaker, the Hon. Alan MacNaughton, and I know the kinds of strains and the kinds of turmoil which Speakers work under. If anything this House is perhaps even more difficult from time to time, perish the thought. I just want to say, in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Northumberland has conducted himself with dignity, with grace, and has been a credit to the democratic system and we thank him.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, before the member for Northumberland rises, as he probably will want to, to reflect, I hope not with anguish, on his years as Speaker in this Legislature, let me say to you, Russell Rowe, that we share the immense affection that all of your colleagues in this House have for you, the respect for the very difficult job you did. It was an awkward one; there were moments when this House was terribly tempestuous and turbulent, by no means the fault of the Speaker.

As I watched the federal House of Commons on parade yesterday in question period on television, I thought to myself with what dignity, decorum, excellence, wit and propriety we conduct ourselves by comparison. That is surely a tribute to you, and we wish you well in all future endeavours.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to make a few comments with respect to the work which Mr. Speaker Rowe has done, and indeed, his task as Speaker in this House was made obviously much more difficult by the events that brought minority government to the people of Ontario. He has served as Speaker through three Parliaments -- the 29th, 30th and 31st. Even though the length of each of those and the time of his service has been comparatively brief with respect to the three years, I think the responsibilities and the involvements have crowded in on him more so than on any Speaker in the history of Ontario.

I have particularly known Mr. Speaker Rowe while being House leader for my party and being our representative on the Board of Internal Economy, of which he was the chairman. Certainly as chairman, the leadership which he has given in the past several years has substantially changed the operation of this Legislature and of the attendant organizations, the funds for which we are responsible on the Board of Internal Economy.

His interest in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has been referred to and it has certainly been one that has brought much honour to him and much pleasure as well.

He now leaves the Speakership to devote somewhat more time to the duties of his constituency and to his family, and I certainly give him my best wishes and echo the comments made by the other members who have spoken so far for the future, and thank him for the services which he has given to all of us.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I might be allowed a postscript to my remarks, I think it would be a serious oversight on our part if we didn’t recognize that included in the responsibilities of the Speaker are very heavy social responsibilities as well. Mr. Speaker Rowe has been assisted in such an admirable way by a very charming lady, obviously Mrs. Rowe, we’d want the record to show our appreciation to Marjorie Rowe as well, a gracious lady who has in fact assisted so well in those responsibilities.

Mr. Rowe: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted a word or two. May I say first of all that in my modesty I’m embarrassed with all the kind remarks which I hear here this afternoon. I do appreciate them. I appreciate the letters, the many letters which I’ve received from the individual members of the assembly here as well.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your taking over this particular office. It’s a very onerous office. It’s a very important office. I know your ability, so I know that you will be carrying out your duties to a very excellent high standard.

The member for Scarborough West mentioned the goings on in the House of Commons yesterday. I saw that too, you see, I wasn’t here; and I had somewhat the same thought.

I think one of my aims, of course, as well as conducting the affairs of the business in as orderly a fashion as possible, was to get all the members together as much as possible to get rid, somewhat, of some of the adversary aspects of our parliamentary life. You know, especially right after an election, when everybody’s all steamed up with telling them what good guys they are and the party they represent and so on, they come in here and they think all those people over there are bad guys.

Mr. Lewis: You know better, don’t you?


Mr. Rowe: I really should be over there motioning this way too.

Anyway, I tried to get you around my dinner table and at other events to get acquainted on a more personal relationship. I hope that has been somewhat successful in that respect.

I have many pleasant memories, of course, from my years in the Speaker’s chair, not only those which emanate from this House but also, as was mentioned by one of the speakers this afternoon, the many, many social events which one is called upon to attend or to host. We have many mementoes and many pleasant memories from that.

I might just say before sitting down that this is really the first time I ever sat, in my 14 years, on the right side of the House. For you newcomers over there, I’ve always sat over there or else up there.

Mr. Nixon: We’ll try to fix that.

Mr. Rowe: It sure looks different, fellows, I’ll tell you.

Mr. Bounsall: It looks better, eh?

Mr. Conway: But don’t read Marvin’s notebook.

Mr. Rowe: Thank you very much, all you people, for your kind expressions. I do appreciate them and I know that I’ll carry the message home to my wife, as well, from the member for Brock. Thank you again.

Mr. Speaker: Just before proceeding to ministerial statements, I would be remiss if I did not make mention of the excellent and very significant contribution to this Legislature and its committees by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith), who was the former deputy chairman of the committee of the whole House. I personally enjoyed working with him very, very much. We had an excellent working arrangement. We had an excellent understanding. As a matter of fact, while we share the responsibility of chairmanship for committees, I don’t think we ever voted once. I think we had a perfect understanding in our working relationship and our responsibilities to the House, and I would just like to say personally, thank you very, very much for the assistance and the encouragement given to me by the hon. member for Simcoe East.



Hon. Mr. Timbrell: For some time, Mr. Speaker, my ministry has been becoming increasingly aware of the need for more extensive and effective programs to promote improved health and to prevent disease.

To this end, we commissioned a review of public health services in Ontario by the Canadian Public Health Association which I have tabled today. Their work was significantly aided by an advisory committee representing not only major elements from the public health sector, but such bodies as the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Medical Association and the Association of Ontario Boards of Health. Consultation was wide, and the report -- entitled “Ontario Public Health -- 1977 -- Some Current Issues” -- is the result of the process of discussion.

The report is in two parts. The first outlines perceptions of the existing Ontario public health system, examined from within and outside the system. The second part comprises recommended policy adjustments for the health services field in Ontario, with special reference to the public health system and policy decisions within that system.

Many of the recommendations are directed to various parts of the field -- the ministry, educators, boards of health. For instance, the report alleges, and I quote, “inability of local official health agencies to meet local needs and to prioritize clearly their activities.” This is an area where we will have to really examine the relationship of the ministry with these bodies, and the role of municipal government in this field.

The ministry will be examining all the issues raised in considerable detail, and will be looking for input from professionals and professional associations, municipal governments and all others involved. As a result, next spring I will be in a position to declare policy decisions resulting from that examination.

Mr. Lewis: Who drafted that with all those split infinitives?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Some of the recommendations have already begun to be implemented such as updating the immunization policy for the province, thoroughly evaluating health promotion activities in Ontario, improving the delivery and support of genetic services, major initiatives and support for family planning, and continuing expansion of our well-received home care program.

I think it is important to note that the report is not designed as a fully developed plan for the future of public health in Ontario. Its value lies in the wide consultation and discussion that preceded its preparation and which will be continued as public health programs are further developed and refined in Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: That is why you need the three Rs -- because of writing like that.


Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, members will recall that in December 1976, the Employees’ Health and Safety Act, 1976, or Bill 139, was enacted. That Act reflects the commitment of this government to the two central themes of the Ham commission report -- first, the need for greater openness and greater employee participation in matters of health and safety, and second, the development of dual responsibility on the part of labour and management in the identifying, controlling and eliminating of occupational hazards.

At the appropriate time today I shall introduce for first reading legislation which both carries forward that basic commitment and as well fulfils the further commitment I made at that time to create a comprehensive omnibus Act which would consolidate all existing occupational health and safety legislation.

This bill, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1977, combines and reconciles the provisions of the Industrial Safety Act, the Construction Safety Act, part IX of the Mining Act, the Silicosis Act and Bill 139.

The bill has been drafted following upon: first, intensive examination of those statutes by officials within my ministry; second, careful study of the report and the recommendations of several commissions -- one in our own jurisdiction, namely the Ham report, and those in other jurisdictions, for example, Alberta’s Gale report and the United Kingdom’s Roben’s report; and third, through extensive consultation with employer and employee groups throughout the entire province, many of whom submitted briefs on the many issues addressed within the legislation.

Copies of this non-legislative background material have been compiled in a compendium which will be tabled with the bill. While I should be delighted to bring the compendium with us to the House, I have to tell you that the amount of material fills, for each copy of the compendium, five boxes. It was my concern that I would not be able to see the faces of the hon. members for Hamilton West and Scarborough West behind those boxes when the compendium was tabled.

As members know, responsibility for all occupational health and safety legislation has, for approximately one year now, resided within the Ministry of Labour. The creation of the occupational health and safety division within the ministry under the direction of an assistant deputy minister, has provided the structure necessary to implement the comprehensive statute which will shortly be before this House.

Now that the process of integration has been completed, with the passage of this legislation, I am confident that we shall have significantly increased our ability and our capacity to deal effectively with matters of health and safety in the workplace to an extent not hitherto possible.

I should point out that the bill which I shall introduce deals with substantive matters of considerable import. Of course, as with any attempt to consolidate and reconcile longstanding legislation enacted at various times and directed at diverse and particular segments of industry, this bill contains certain structural and formal changes distinct from its antecedents, which are necessary to ensure its effectiveness.

With the particulars of those matters I shall not burden the members at this time. There are, however, three major areas in which the bill contains new initiatives to which I would direct the attention of the members, for these embody the commitment to occupational health and safety to which I referred earlier. Briefly the areas are: 1. The comprehensive treatment of dangerous substances; 2. The clarification of the right to refuse to perform unsafe work; 3. The coverage of the new legislation.

Under current legislation, general provisions require employers to maintain safe and healthy workplaces for their employees. These provisions were enacted at a time when the health hazards of many biological, chemical and physical agents and processes present in the workplaces were but imperfectly understood. As the result, few specific regulations regarding these hazards are to be found in present statutes.

In a significant departure from this legislative past, this bill provides a twofold mechanism to ensure strict control of the use of such agents and such processes in the workplace.

First, with respect to certain designated dangerous substances, standards will be enacted by regulation which will govern the exposure to and the handling of such substances by workers. These regulations will include detailed compliance programs enabling employers and employees to ensure that the standards are in fact being met.

Employers will be required to maintain detailed records relating to worker exposure to and handling of such designated substances and their use and storage. Further, with respect to such designated substances, some employers may be required to establish occupational health services where such is deemed necessary.

The designation of dangerous substances will be an ongoing and continuous process, reflecting the dynamic and progressively advancing field of occupational health sciences.

Secondly, the bill will provide for the enactment of guidelines for the use and control of other dangerous substances for which satisfactory evidence is still not available in order to enable designation -- that is, the introduction of absolute standards and the concomitant compliance programs to which I referred. The bulk of dangerous substances at present used in industry in this province falls into this broad category. However, the general provisions of the bill will ensure adequate protection of the worker by regulating his exposure to and his handling of all such substances.

Apart from designation, there is now a mechanism which will enable the development of acceptable and absolute standards governing such dangerous substances. Where the guidelines introduced by regulation and enforced by the ministry are challenged, the matter may be referred to an independent third party empowered to make a finding as to an acceptable standard governing the dangerous substance at issue. Thus, the spirit of co-operative and dual responsibility to which the government is committed will find expression as well in the development of standards to govern the workplace.

At the beginning of my remarks I referred to Bill 139, in which a remedy was provided for those employees disciplined as a result of exercising the right to refuse unsafe work -- namely, the right to refer the matter either to an arbitrator or to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

My ministry is cognizant of the criticisms which have been directed towards Bill 139 in this regard -- and again, I refer the members to the many submissions made to the ministry which will be tabled with the compendium. In response to that criticism -- that the right to refuse was not clearly defined as an integral component of the dual responsibility system enunciated in the Ham report -- the new bill clarifies that right.

As newly drafted, it is clear that the right is to be exercised where the health and safety of the worker is at stake, and is not to be undertaken frivolously. The rights and obligations of employees and employers in the event of the exercise of the right of refusal are spelled out now in some detail. It is my opinion that this clarification of the right to refuse will ensure that it continues to be a practical element in the overall health and safety program provided for in this bill.

With respect to the coverage of the bill, members are aware that certain categories of employees in this province are not covered by present legislation. While immediate expansion of coverage would appear to be desirable, dispassionate consideration has convinced the government that such expansion would be inappropriate at this time. Rather, the bill provides for the eventual and incremental expansion of coverage by regulation to those workers in Ontario not currently covered.

This mechanism will permit careful, deliberate and sustained consultation with affected employers and employees to take place so that the necessary complex of regulations may be drafted which will give meaning and effectiveness to any expansion of coverage, a consultation process similar to that undertaken by the Mining Act revision committee, commonly known as the Barrett committee, in the mining industry -- which I would remind the members has been under way for some 18 months and is still ongoing.

In conclusion, as I have stated both in this House and elsewhere, the government is determined to provide exemplary legislation which will most effectively protect the health and the safety of the Ontario worker. Both industry and labour are committed -- and deeply so -- to this goal. This legislation ensures the achievement of that common objective.



Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Energy: Will he now tell the House what steps he has personally taken to investigate the massive cost increases and low productivity at the Bruce heavy water site, and can he assure us that the situation there is now under control?


Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting of the board of directors of Hydro yesterday in connection with that particular job. The work on the D plant is substantially completed in terms of engineering and construction, and the Lummus Corporation will be completing that work. Hydro is satisfied that it is in the best interests of Hydro and the people that Lummus complete that work.

In connection with the D plant, the board of directors of Hydro have reviewed that as well. It has decided to take over the construction of the D plant on August 1, if the Lummus Corporation has not made satisfactory progress at that time. So, this matter has been, and is, under constant and continual review by the board of directors and Hydro staff.

I may say that the chairman of the Hydro board has been in touch with me in the past, as he is at present, and has been in touch with the hon. member.

Mr. Conway: As if that would do any good.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The member has a copy of that contract. He has been corresponding with the chairman of Hydro. He has met with the chairman of Hydro, and I’m sure that --

Mr. S. Smith: I know what I have been doing but what has the minister personally been doing?

Mr. Foulds: Or even impersonally.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- he has had every co-operation possible from Hydro to keep him abreast of those developments. I think it’s been explained to him what the initial estimated cost was, what the proposed completion cost is and the reasons for the difference.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: The chairman of Hydro indicated, not only to me but to the minister -- to his surprise -- and in his July press conference to the rest of Ontario, that the Lummus portion of the Bruce heavy water project plants B and D had gone from a $742 million estimate in 1975 to $899 million in 1977, and he also indicated at that time that the total cost of the project --

Mr. Yakabuski: Inflation.

Mr. S. Smith: -- had gone from $900 million to $1.3 billion. Would the minister not agree that the non-Lummus portion, the portion of that contract which does not involve Lummus, has increased from $158 million to $401 million? What accounts for that increase?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I would agree. Basically, the total cost of the project was about $1 billion and it has been estimated that the completion cost will be about $1.3 billion.

The increase in the Hydro portion of that contract is roughly equivalent, as the member knows -- and I’m sure the member knows all this or he wouldn’t be asking it --

Mr. S. Smith: I appreciate the vote of confidence.

Mr. Warner: You’re giving him too much credit.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- the Hydro portion of the job is estimated to increase by about $157 million. A lot of that has to do with projections of additional borrowing costs --

Mr. Conway: Read your notes carefully, Jimmy.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- and capital investment on that plant. If the member wants additional information on that, I’d be happy -- and I’m sure he will be meeting again with the chairman or getting additional information -- to cover that aspect of those breakdowns and additional interest payments which are higher, of course, because of the long period of construction.

But a lot of it has to do with financing costs. The member knows very well that probably between 75 and 80 per cent of Hydro’s capital costs for construction is borrowed money.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of further supplementary on this very point, Mr. Speaker, do I understand the minister to say that the Hydro portion, the non-Lummus portion which was originally budgeted at $158 million, is now over budget by $157 million -- virtually a 100 per cent increase in the Hydro portion. Even the Lummus portion isn’t 100 per cent over what it was originally. How does he explain that increase in the non-Lummus portion?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I didn’t say that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kerrio: Say it, say it.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: What I indicated and explained was the total increase on the overall job. What I said was that the portion of the job that was to be completed by Hydro has increased in dollar terms by about the same amount as the Lummus increase --

Mr. Wildman: Tory economics.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- and that was $157 million. It’s my understanding that most of that increase is due to the financial costs. There was a delay in terms of completing the work --

Mr. Wildman: That is a hell of a restraint program you have.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- that is, there was a postponement of the work, as members very well know, and I think as the select committee which reviewed these matters knows -- and additional financing costs over the years.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary, might I come at this in a slightly different way? Can I ask how the minister can continue to have confidence in the management of Hydro, given the remarkable escalation in costs which he himself has now confirmed, but even more important, given the assurances that were extended to members of the Legislature by the chairman of Hydro in July 1977, and now we learn from the minister this afternoon that Hydro may drop the guillotine and take over the construction of the Lummus portion itself in August 1978? Doesn’t that suggest faulty and inexcusable management practices on Hydro’s part?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: No, I don’t think that necessarily follows.

Mr. Warner: Stop there. Stop there.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I am no apologist for escalating costs or Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Lewis: Management, management?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: What I am simply pointing out is that costs have, in fact, escalated.

Mr. Lewis: What about management?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you want an answer or don’t you?

Mr. Lewis: I do.

Mr. Speaker: Then be courteous enough to listen to what the minister has to say.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: What the member is saying is that presumably every project in this country that is over budget is as a result of poor management.

Mr. Breithaupt: By 100 per cent?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: If that is so, then presumably one would fire the board of directors of Stelco in connection with that company’s costs that have doubled.

Mr. Makarchuk: Put Bob Mackenzie in the job.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Let the record show that the NDP is in favour of disbanding the board of directors of Stelco. It’s the same thing with the new Texaco plant, the costs have doubled. Look at what has happened to the Syncrude plant.

Mr. Lewis: Come on. What about Hydro?

Mr. Reid: It’s the Treasurer’s (Mr. McKeough) budget.

Mr. Peterson: Has the Treasurer been helping you with this?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is getting into a debate.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: All I am doing is pointing out how foolish it is to conclude that because costs escalate it is mismanagement on the part of the board of directors. What I am saying is that is not so at all.

Mr. Sargent: Now we understand it.

Mr. Samis: Isn’t anybody to blame?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Costs right across this country have been escalating. There’s no question about that. We are concerned -- I am sure all of us are concerned in terms of productivity, Mr. Speaker. We have heard a lot about that.

Mr. Samis: Isn’t anybody to blame?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: We are very concerned in terms of inflation.

Mr. Speaker: That is not relevant to the question. We will get along with the second question of the member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, could I ask one more supplementary on this?

Mr. Speaker: No, that is all the supplementaries on this. We have spent nine minutes on this first question.

Mr. S. Smith: There was only one supplementary.

Mr. Kerrio: It is a very important question. You’re hiding behind the Speaker. Webster said it this morning; that is how you are going to get off the hook.

Mr. Speaker: We have spent nine minutes on this first question.

Mr. Yakabuski: Let’s find out about the sagging Trudeau dollar.


Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker, if I can possibly intervene for a moment for his attention: Why has the Premier still not initiated serious negotiations with Ottawa to ensure that if the federal treasury were to benefit in the form of reduced unemployment insurance payments as a result of provincial job-creation programs, these benefits would accrue, at least in part, to the provinces? Why has he not undertaken that form of negotiation?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Chretien says no new budget.

Mr. Conway: What was that, Darcy? The Treasurer is making more sense with his mumbling.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will be very careful, in the spirit of the House, Mr. Speaker. I find it a very intriguing suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition that the Unemployment Insurance Commission, which is a form of insurance paid into by a lot of workers in this province --

Mr. S. Smith: I said the federal treasury benefits.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that the provinces would be getting some rebate as it relates to some impact that a provincial job-creation program might have on that particular fund.

Mr. S. Smith: The federal treasury, not that fund.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say, with respect, Mr. Speaker, we are looking for ways and means to find moneys from the government of Canada from time to time. I must say to the Leader of the Opposition that I would be less than hopeful that the new Minister of Finance would see it clear to enter this sort of shared-cost arrangement.

As I say, it is an interesting suggestion, but I for one would not be optimistic that Mr. Chretien would accede to this sort of request.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since the question originally dealt not with the fund itself but with the federal treasury itself, which would undoubtedly benefit since it is now paying for a good portion of what the unemployed receive, I still have not heard from the Premier, and I ask him to consider from the following point of view, why he has not already sought that precise remedy so that we could have in this province a job incentive program of the kind that President Carter has spoken of, that we have spoken of and that this government itself started as a summertime project for 16 weeks in order to actually intervene to support and subsidize wages for newly created jobs?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are really quite enthusiastic about the response we had. In that that was part of the Leader of the Opposition’s question with respect to the summer employment program, I think it was singularly successful in terms of the role that it played for the summer months.

Mr. Sargent: That was election stuff.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am quite aware of the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that a somewhat similar program that he has suggested be extended on a much broader basis across the province at a cost that one can guesstimate would be many millions of dollars.

Mr. S. Smith: Recoverable from unemployment insurance.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, it doesn’t matter where you recover it from, it is coming from the economy somewhere. It’s coming from the taxpayers somewhere.

Mr. Peterson: You are asking for help with sales tax.

Hon. Mr. Davis: To develop a specious argument that because there may be fewer dollars --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a debating period, it’s a question period.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- spent through the unemployment insurance, whether it comes directly from the fund or the government of Canada, really isn’t in itself a solution to the problem. I would say with respect to the Leader of the Opposition that perhaps a more realistic approach is to recognize that part of the problem we face in this province and in this country is not a question of further subsidization of industry but a recognition that our industry has to become more productive. It has to become more competitive and it has to become more efficient, if we are going to compete in the international marketplaces of the world. It’s as simple as that.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since the Premier realizes that it’s a long-term goal -- and I agree with his latter remarks -- could he explain to this House, please, the meaning of his comments, when he suggests that if money presently being paid in unemployment insurance were paid instead to the people in order to have them do work, that would somehow or other still be a drain on the economy rather than a useful enterprise to be undertaken at a time when unemployment is so high?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will try to explain it to the hon. member, if I can. What I was trying to say is -- and I’ll try to phrase it in a language that both of us will understand --

Mr. Foulds: Try English.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- my recollection is that the government of Canada -- and I am the last one to defend it at this moment -- isn’t operating from a significant budgetary surplus. The last figures I read indicate that they too are operating in a slight deficit position. As a result, any such alteration in their policy would have to be part, I think, of perhaps a new budget.

Mr. Roy: That is called a net cash requirement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chretien says there will be no budget and, as a result, to say there are funds there that might or might not be available is dealing in a hypothetical situation that just doesn’t exist.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: I would be curious to see how the Premier reconciles that position with the Treasurer’s approach of asking the federal government to come across with some $800 million for assistance with sales tax. Their views are totally different in this issue.

Mr. Breaugh: That is called sucking and whistling at the same time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can recall, not exactly what the Treasurer said, but I can recall --

Mr. Mancini: Ask him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- what the Premiers said. I think all of the Premiers had some observations in St. Andrews by the sea.

Mr. Conway: Who is the Premier over there?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know who the Premier is. We some days wonder over there just who the newest aspirant for leadership over there is.

Mr. Speaker: That’s wasting the time of the question period.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for Renfrew North that he really shouldn’t be too optimistic. I don’t see it in the foreseeable future. I don’t even see it in the fullness of time.

Mr. Conway: Did you not hear the Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: That wasn’t part of the original question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In fact, I don’t even see it. Where did I leave off?

Mr. Conway: After June 9 your vision is surely suspect.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Where the Premiers in their sort of joint communique to the Prime Minister suggested that if the government of Canada in its wisdom felt there was a need to provide stimulation to the economy, one area that we suggested was in the situation of the federal sales tax -- this to be consistent with a policy of stimulation. I think that is really quite consistent with the approach that I have tried to explain to the member’s colleague and his leader.

Mr. S. Smith: Does the Premier not agree that it is better to receive the same dollars for actually doing work than merely for receiving unemployment insurance benefits? Isn’t that the difference?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has already been asked and an answer has been given.

Mr. Kerrio: There was a question but no answer.


Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the original question today, because there was part of the minister’s statement which intrigued me. What new details have emerged about unit D at Bruce which would require the unprecedented declaration by Hydro that they will kick Lummus off the construction site and take it over themselves? What has happened, even in the last few days, that has brought them to that pass?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that anything dramatic has happened in the last few days.

Mr. MacDonald: Drama is extended.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: What I was saying is that there was a board meeting yesterday of the directors of Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Lewis: Was the minister in attendance?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I was in the House yesterday. As the member knows, Ontario Hydro have given Lummus until November 1, which is not too distant, to put their schedule in order in terms of completion of the work. That is to ensure that they’re on stream. That was reassessed yesterday -- and may I say that my information was over the telephone. I haven’t had a formal communication from Hydro yet; it was just late yesterday that I learned in a general way the gist of their deliberations.

What I explained is what happened in terms of a certain unit, B. In terms of unit D, there may be some further conditions or something of some substance that may be of assistance to the member. When I get the complete decision on that, I’ll be happy to share it with the members of the House so that they can appreciate the thought process that prompted Hydro to set a new date of August 1, in terms of Hydro completing that work, if they weren’t satisfied with the Lummus Corporation.

Mr. Wildman: Are you sure it’s August or is it December?

Mr. Lewis: May I ask very quickly, Mr. Speaker, has the minister thought of himself and some senior members of his ministry sitting down with the board of Ontario Hydro at this point to examine what is occurring over the next several months, given the apparent incapacity of Ontario Hydro, on this front as so many others, to operate effectively in the public interest?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I just don’t accept the member’s assessment of the board of directors and the staff of Ontario Hydro as being incompetent.

Mr. Lewis: I didn’t say incompetent; I am talking about this issue.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The member said incapacity. If they are not capable, if they don’t have the capacity, I would assume that it logically follows that they are probably incompetent to carry on.

Mr. Lewis: That is right, something is wrong.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Frankly, I’m not accepting that proposition and knowing of course of the expertise, the technical people who are employed by Hydro in all fields, including the legal field, I would think the board of directors who are charged with the management of that corporation should be sufficiently advised by that expertise to come to a proper determination in terms of problems they meet from day to day.

So I have confidence in that, and unlike some members here I don’t feel that I can add in a technical sense to the judgement of Hydro’s advisers in terms of the course of action that they should take in the interpretation of legal documents and the completion of a very technical project.

As the member knows, a heavy water plant isn’t something that one picks off the shelf and says, “Here, build one of these things.” We’re on the frontier of new technology and there are very few people in the world who can construct that kind of a plant, engineer and construct it. It’s easy for us to become instant experts in various fields --

Mr. Foulds: Except you.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- whether in terms of engineering or law --

Mr. Samis: You are getting silly now.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- but I think that we have to be guided by that area of expertise that the Ontario Hydro has.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I’m going to allow one final supplementary, and that’s by the member for Niagara Falls. This is an extension of the original question which took nine minutes. We’re now six minutes into what is really a supplementary.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question I have to raise with the minister is that it’s my understanding that Hydro has an agreement with the same employees who are now working with or for Lummus. Is the minister suggesting that he’s going to take the same people on to his payroll, which is a question being raised in another matter with the Minister of Labour, excluding Hydro? Is he suggesting to me that he is going to take on the same people after the loss he’s shown on his part of the project with the same people? Aren’t we just then talking management?

Mr. Swart: Blame the workers.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Contrary to the views of the hon. member’s leader, apparently, and his party, I don’t see the benefit of firing the employees -- there may be 3,400 employees on that site -- just because the member happens to say that the job isn’t progressing.

Mr. Nixon: Nobody wants to fire them.

Mr. S. Smith: Nobody suggested any such thing.

Mr. Nixon: Maybe the minister should be fired.

Mr. Conway: We just want the minister fired.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The board of directors of Ontario Hydro, as I’ve mentioned -- and this will be the third time -- have decided to go ahead with the completion of the work, full completion of unit B. Those are employees of the Lummus company.

Mr. Wildman: The minister is a nuclear disaster.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: If the hon. member is suggesting to me that simultaneously they are employees of Ontario Hydro, then I think he is sadly mistaken. And frankly I can’t see --

Mr. Kerrio: The minister is going to fire Lummus and hire them himself.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: And if the member is suggesting that Ontario Hydro turf out those employees and then go along and try to put together another work force, then I think that’s ludicrous.

Mr. Gaunt: We are not suggesting that at all.

Mr. Peterson: Go powder the top of your head.


Mr. Lewis: A question for the Minister of Labour, timed, I guess, to coincide with her announcement of the legislation today.

Did the minister know that at a recent conference the gentleman who did the statistical analysis for the Ham commission on radiation exposure in Elliot Lake further reviewed his figures and came to the conclusion -- and I’ll quote it:

“On this basis I would like to assert that if there exists a threshold for production of lung cancer by exposure to radon, it has to be below 60 working-level months.”

Does the minister realize that this level is roughly less than one-half of the present standards which we are using to evaluate for compensation purposes, and what steps can be taken to act on this kind of information?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I’m very much aware that Dr. Hewitt has made that statement. It is an upgrading of the level which he had suggested earlier by about something like 10 times, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Lewis: Six. That was an error.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: So he said.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am also aware that there are a number of epidemiological experts in various parts of North America who are presently re-reviewing Dr. Hewitt’s analysis of the figures which he developed for the Ham commission report and whose suggestions are that indeed Dr. Hewitt is somewhat in error again and that perhaps there are some more rational figures which they would be able to develop.

I am awaiting the results of those analyses because I know of two sources from which they are coming. As well, we are hoping to conduct a further review of these in order to establish some rational basis for the decision about the number of working-level months.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since so much of this ministry’s legislation is flowing from the Ham commission report and the evident integrity of that document, therefore, and since several hundred workers or more would clearly be at risk if Dr. Hewitt’s projections are valid, can the minister tell us the sources for the review to which she is turning and when they will be available?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Offhand, I can’t remember all of the names of the people who are involved but I shall get that information and present it to the members of the House.


Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General: Having raised this matter with him and with his predecessors over the last five years, I just wonder how much longer the Attorney General is going to tolerate the deterioration of the administration, which is leading to a breakdown of the administration of justice in Ottawa, by the fact there are now delays for trial dates of eight or nine months for provincial court trials? I wonder if he is prepared to tolerate the situation where accused persons do, in fact, have to plead guilty to offences to which they want to plead not guilty because they have to wait seven or eight months in jail?

How long is he going to tolerate situations where Supreme Court judges are having to release an accused who should be in custody but are releasing him on bail because he has to wait seven or eight months for his trial? How long is he going to tolerate the situation where the process of witnesses, and so forth, is really breaking down? When are we going to have additional judges? When are we going to have adequate court space?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I think one of my colleagues has pointed out that there are approximately seven questions included in the general concern expressed by the member for Ottawa East with respect to the administration of justice in Ottawa.

Mr. Sargent: We shouldn’t have to ask.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If his colleague behind him will mind his manners for once we might attempt to deal with them.

Mr. Sargent: Get on with the question. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: First of all, I have not hesitated to state that I regard the present court facilities in Ottawa as being quite unsatisfactory. As the member knows, the Ministry of Government Services has been attempting to locate 40,000 square feet of additional court space for the provincial criminal courts in Ottawa. Some considerable concern has been expressed by representatives of the local bar in respect -- as I know the member for Ottawa East appreciates -- to the location of this court facility. There was a location picked, for example, about 15 minutes -- I’m told -- from the downtown Ottawa area. You say 20 minutes?

Mr. Nixon: Are you still using the Holiday Inn? That is what the local bar is called.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Great concern has been expressed about the convenience, not only to members of the bar but to the public generally. I know the Ministry of Government Services is considering looking at other tenders in order to see whether a more convenient location cannot be provided because there’s no question but that the provincial courts in particular are desperately in need of better court accommodation.

With respect to the backlogs, as the member for Ottawa East appreciates, there is a rather unusual situation with respect to the provincial court in Ottawa inasmuch as there is an unexpected shortage of two provincial court judges at the moment. These two judges are not sitting. They’re still judges and their problems have not yet been resolved. In the interim, it’s my intention to recommend, within the next few days, the appointment of an additional provincial court judge in Ottawa.

Mr. Roy: And don’t ask Bob for advice.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: With respect to the matter of the backlog, I’ve had officials of the ministry looking at the backlog. We are satisfied that the backlog is such that it is not critical. It is manageable, and has been created, to some extent, by the unexpected shortage of these two judges.

There was a great deal of media attention last week to the allegation that a local Ottawa lawyer advised his client to plead guilty rather than risk remaining in custody for some time awaiting a trial date. I think it’s unfortunate that any counsel would ever advise a client to plead guilty if he believes that a person is not, in law, guilty.


In that particular case it might have been helpful, firstly, if the counsel had sought a judicial review of the bail order of the provincial court -- in other words, appeal the order of $500 bail which was made because, apparently, the accused had a drinking problem and just forgot to attend in court. It certainly would have been open for the counsel in that case to have appealed that $500 order to a county court judge to have it reviewed. This was not done. I think, and I am also advised, that there were no serious efforts made by counsel in communicating with the local Crown attorney to secure an earlier trial date.

I spoke to the Crown attorney in Ottawa as recently as yesterday about the matter. I have met with the chief judge of the provincial courts and he is establishing a special custody court, so-called, in the provincial court system in Ottawa to give priority to the trial of accused persons who are in custody because I share the concern of my friend, the member for Ottawa East, that the delay or undue delay of trial of persons held in custody is not something that should be tolerated.

I am satisfied that trials involving individuals in custody will be expedited. This is a matter that we are going to continue to look at very closely.

Mr. Roy: If I can raise a supplementary question to the minister’s answer, first of all, does the Attorney General recall that we have discussed -- and I am sure his predecessors may recall as well -- this situation in Ottawa? We keep coming to it and he keeps referring back that it’s manageable. Will he undertake at the present time to get adequate additional court space?

I put it to the Attorney General, does he know of any urban centres in this province where the provincial court system would be divided up in three areas? We have got right now 1 Nicholas, 2 Daly and 60 Waller. Now they want us out in a warehouse in the east end of the city. Does the Attorney General not feel that the bar association has a good point in saying we should try to centralize these court facilities?

Secondly, may I ask the Attorney General about the question of this counsel pleading or suggesting that the accused plead guilty? He states right in his letter that he discussed it with Crown counsel and that it was a problem at that time as he had to wait seven months for a trial.

Finally, may I ask the Attorney General does he not feel somewhat embarrassed by the critical comments of the Chief Justice, Chief Judge or senior judges of the Supreme Court who come down to Ottawa and say that the court situation is absolutely atrocious?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think I have already indicated my unhappiness with the present court situation in Ottawa. I have already indicated to the hon. member for Ottawa East the province’s commitment to produce 40,000 additional square feet of court space in one location.

Mr. Warner: Whenever you find a place.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: So the provincial courts will be centralized to that extent, and we certainly will attempt to do it in such a way as to avoid any unnecessary inconvenience. But I should at the same time remind the member for Ottawa East that there are other communities in the province where lawyers do not regard it as an unnecessary imposition or a particularly unfair imposition to have to --

Mr. Roy: Like where?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- travel 15 minutes from their home to court. We have to balance the public interest in securing court space at a reasonable cost with respect to the convenience of the lawyers who practise in these courts.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: I would like to ask the Attorney General whether he remembers the letter he received two years ago from a member of the defence counsels’ association in Ottawa outlining the same problem with the same results, that people were pleading guilty to charges where they should be pleading not guilty. Also, does the minister know how long it takes to get to the far east end of Ottawa? I represent an area in the far east end of Ottawa and, unless one is going along the Queensway in a car, it can take 45 minutes on the bus.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think I am being repetitive when I state we are not insensitive to the concerns of the Ottawa practising lawyers in relation to the location of this court.

Mr. Roy: It is not only lawyers.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There has been considerable consultation with representatives of the bar association as to where this court is going to be. We are quite prepared to take their concerns very seriously in so far as they are opposed to the location that was selected by Government Services, and we are prepared to look for better locations. I have made that quite clear.


Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I guess I have the honour of asking the first question of the new Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I will ask him if he will tell the House when he will complete the investigation and table the report on tea and coffee pricing. In view of the fact that most of the Canadian roasters are subsidiaries of United States corporations, will he assure us that his investigation will include the relation of the United States and the Canadian prices by these companies?

Mr. Ruston: Stand up taller now, Larry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m taller than the House leader.

Mr. Speaker: Can we have some order, please?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Welland-Thorold also had the honour of writing me my first letter. So I thank him on both accounts, depending on what happens.

First, I should point out that I will not be tabling a report in the assembly, or anything of that sort. As I think I made fairly clear -- or tried to -- I will be making public the responses I get from the wholesalers and retailers to whom I have written. That comprises seven or eight companies in total. When I get those responses I will be deciding what to do further. It could be that those responses will be self-explanatory; it could be they won’t. If they are not, then I can assure the member that we will be furthering the investigation and asking more questions. That may well include, as he points out, some inquiries of American parent companies, if that’s appropriate from the replies.

I should also say that we sent out the letters the Friday before the Thanksgiving weekend. I had my staff call last Wednesday and Thursday to see where the replies were, and it turned out that the companies had received those letters on Wednesday and Thursday of last week. So I would expect to hear from them by the end of this week or early next week, at which time I will show the member the communications and make them public. Then we will assess the situation and go from there.

Mr. Swart: A supplementary: In view of the wide contrast in the price of coffee -- between Canada and the United States -- wouldn’t the minister think that a full investigation is warranted? Would it help him to change his mind and decide that there should be an investigation into the contrast of these prices if I sent to him, across the floor, two four-ounce jars of Maxim coffee produced by General Foods -- one bought in Etobicoke at the A&P at the price of $3.79, the other one bought in the United States in Buffalo --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Swart: -- at a price of $2.69.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Swart: Yes, I do.

Mr. Speaker: Please put it.

Mr. Swart: Would the minister please note --

Mr. Yakabuski: What was the difference?

Mr. Swart: -- that the label on both says, “Made in Canada.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Over here.

Mr. Speaker: Please remove that coffee.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’ve already got the water, Mr. Speaker. This is really the first benefit of holding office I have received, and I thank the member for that. My wife asked me when she would be getting some coffee, inexpensively. I didn’t think I would have it free.

Mr. Speaker: Will you please answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I should point out to the member that from our information -- and we are trying to get some more -- and, indeed, from the member’s information, we have so far been talking about the prices between Ontario and Buffalo and area, with no regard to Canada and all of the United States, which may in fact be a whole different subject and may alter what appears to be a problem on the face of it. We are looking for that, and if the member has any information with regard to coffee prices in the United States outside of Buffalo, it may be helpful.

I should also point out to the member when he talks about a full-scale investigation that his colleague from Etobicoke said on the radio the other day that he, too, was looking forward to the replies and wasn’t, at that stage in any event, prepared to say there should be a full-scale investigation launched until we get the sort of information that I’ve asked for. I think that’s the common-sense approach and will be followed.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary: Is the minister prepared to examine the differences in prices of tea that is blended and packaged in Canada?

Mr. Speaker: That’s not a part of the original question.

Mr. Philip: The original question pertained to tea and coffee prices.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

An hon. member: Save us some coffee.


Mr. Peterson: We need a little order, Mr. Speaker. I have a very important question of the Treasurer. Does his ministry do independent forecasting, its own forecasting, about the provincial take on income tax as well as mining tax?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We do our own forecast of mining tax. We do not do a forecast on the income tax.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Is the Treasurer saying that he always takes wholesale the federal figures with respect to his budgeting and he has no independent corroboration on what his take will be in terms of budgeting? He has no independent corroboration of that? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. B. Stephenson: They are your figures.

Mr. Roy: What are all these experts doing?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been answered.


Mr. Laughren: A question to the Minister of Natural Resources: Is the minister aware that Falconbridge Nickel Mines has stated that by the end of 1978 it is the company’s intention to reduce the work force by 800 employees, and is he aware as well that that comes in an area which already has the highest unemployment rate in Ontario? Northeastern Ontario is 9.5 per cent and Sudbury 9.3 per cent.

Is he willing to reassess the policies of his predecessor regarding exemptions to Falconbridge to ship their ores to Norway before processing is done, thus costing northeastern Ontario a great many jobs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of the change to 800. I’m aware of an increase in the 350 originally scheduled of the 4,000. There are very serious problems in the nickel industry and they are particularly difficult for Falconbridge Nickel, as I understand it.

Mr. Laughren: Mismanagement.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m not going to question the reasons at this point. I simply say they are of vital interest to all of us, because without a healthy market for the product of those two major companies in the member’s area, we can’t help but have an increasing unemployment problem.

However, the market is very cyclical. It is just, if I recall, three years ago when the market for those two metals was hitting an all-time high. In fact, the revenues to this province were hitting an all-time high. One tends to think that a point in a cycle is not going to change. I’m optimistic enough to believe the markets will change.

This, however, will require our country and our province to assist the industries in whatever way to be competitive in what is now a world market, not a Canadian market. There was a time when the nickel from the member’s city supplied 95 per cent of the free world market. What is it now -- 45 to 50 per cent? In fact, Cuba has twice the reserves of the province of Ontario.

I think we have to realize we don’t have a corner on the marketplace. The product is sold in international markets, and unless we produce it at a profit and at a competitive price we will not have continuing jobs. It’s my job to see that we do.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: In view of the fact that it’s not just the nickel industry that’s causing the unemployment rate in northeastern Ontario to be at 9.5 per cent, but it’s the entire resource sector that’s in trouble, will the minister convene a meeting with federal people, municipal people and provincial people to discuss the future of northeastern Ontario?


Would he also at the same time give special consideration to the comments of the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce in its document “Profile in Failure” in which they accused this government of neglecting all of northern Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the voters of northeastern Ontario did not reject this government recently.

Mr. Wildman: They did in Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Remember June 9, fellows.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would simply point out that we are very concerned, but we have to stick to those things the province is able to control. I believe the Treasurer and I had made arrangements not too long ago to speak to the Minister of Finance about some of these problems, then he was moved. I am sure we will continue to do our best to get to the new man.

Mr. S. Smith: I will undoubtedly be moved by this answer as well, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us what things within the provincial jurisdiction he is doing, as he just referred to, to assist the nickel industry? And in particular, has he heard of plans by Inco to lay off another 1,500 workers this Thursday?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am keenly aware that the companies are having to adjust, as all manufacturing or extractive companies do, their production schedules to meet sales. I am also keenly aware that sales of nickel have been dropping and have been below forecast. At the beginning of the year, when I was made Minister of Natural Resources, both of those companies were reasonably optimistic that the year would show improved sales. Both of them, to give them credit, have been stockpiling metal at a time when they could have cut back on the work force. They believed that by stockpiling they could perhaps even out the cycles.

The last figure I had was that Inco had $1 billion worth of stockpiled nickel. In the face of softening markets I would think it is probably inevitable that that company might have to curtail operations for a short time.

Now, what are we doing? The provincial jurisdiction covers things like mining tax --

Mr. Roy: You can’t ask yourself a question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- and what effect that has on the overall industry. In a time of low profits admittedly that doesn’t have much effect. What it does do though is signal the way to the future. And I think it is safe to say that the mining tax is being looked at in an attempt, not to generate just more money for this government, but to maximize the investment potential and therefore the job potential for the people in the north.

Mr. Nixon: John White adjusted it last time.


Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

In view of the very high unemployment situation, particularly among young people, and in view of the fact that Ontario Hydro has recruited approximately 100 families from Great Britain and other countries these past two years, will the minister take steps immediately to stop this large-scale importation of out-of-country chemical nuclear operators by, one, convening a meeting between the ministry, Ontario Hydro and Canada Manpower, to determine accurately the manpower needs of the nuclear program in the next 10 years; and two, instituting a crash program to train chemical operators?

Mr. Roy: Good question. Just say yes and sit down.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: In reply to that question I should say to the member that we agree with the -- I have forgotten the minister from the federal government who said immigration was not an acceptable procedure today in our climate for filling the job market needs of society.

Mr. Gaunt: That was Cullen.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Cullen. The member is right. I am sorry, I had forgotten it. That is an obviously sensible statement that we agree with.

To change around in a very quick way the training program and to meet a need today requires a good deal of lead time. It is quite easy to suggest that we are prepared to do that, but I think history has shown that by the time one makes the changes necessary, the need has frequently changed and it is now in some other area.

An hon. member: Never stopped you before.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: So let us not oversimplify the ease with which we suggest we will instantly treat that problem.

Mr. Peterson: We need more teachers, that is what we need.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It takes a good deal of lead time not only to set up the course, but indeed to train those people. We are talking about several years and that doesn’t give us licence not to be concerned about it -- not at all. I think that in the last year we have made a considerable effort through our Industrial Training Council to address that problem. We talked about it on many occasions and said that we are prepared to adjust our training schedules as we are best able to do so.

If the hon. member is asking whether or not I would take that to the Council of Regents and see that programs are put in place as soon as possible, the answer clearly is yes. At the same time, I would hope that he would accept that it will take a long period of time to train the personnel required today.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the government was alerted to this problem some two years ago and did nothing about it --

Mr. Roy: Your lead time.

Mr. Gaunt: -- which I would consider to be sufficient lead time, in view of the fact that Ontario Hydro is fully committed to the nuclear program, which indicates to me that there is going to be a need for chemical operators over the next 10, 15 or 20 years, and in view of the fact that Ontario Hydro has indicated to me that if the government were serious about it and instituted a crash program these people could be trained in 18 months, would the minister consider that this is a very important problem and that such a meeting between the various bodies I mention initially should be instituted immediately and a crash program put into place in the next couple of months?

Mr. S. Smith: It really is right, you know.

Mr. Gaunt: Would the minister agree with that? And can it be done?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would agree to a meeting. I am not prepared to agree that it is that simple.

Mr. Roy: He is doing the minister’s work for him.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Given the fact that Ontario Hydro committed itself to a large-scale nuclear development about 15 years ago, and given the fact -- and we recognize this -- that we have potentially thousands of good, lucrative jobs for young Ontario graduates, I want to ask the minister whether or not over the past year, at least while he has been minister, Ontario Hydro has ever consulted him in a concrete way about a program that might be devised? Is the minister telling me that no such negotiations have taken place? And if they have taken place, I would like to know what in fact the outcome has been.

Mr. S. Smith: Very good question.

Hon. Mr. Farrell: I think we all recognize that Ontario Hydro over the years has had an excellent training program of its own.

Mr. Conway: Bringing them in by the busload from Europe.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, not by bringing them in. That is just not the way it is.

Mr. Nixon: And they train them here. Bringing them in untrained.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: And to those members opposite who think that the answer is for government to get involved in the daily lives --

Mr. Conway: But Hydro is involved.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- and say, “You go here, you go there,” and to take on that responsibility --

Mr. Conway: Who runs Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- I say that is a bunch of nonsense.

Mr. Kerrio: The minister is shirking his responsibility.

Mr. S. Smith: Are you going to privatize the community colleges?

Mr. Lewis: The ministers are all apologists for Hydro, the whole pack of them over there. I’ve never seen anything like it.


Mr. Philip: A new question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Is the minister aware that not only is coffee packaged in Canada selling at less cost in the United States --

Mr. Mancini: Send the tea down here, Ed. We need it.

Mr. Philip: -- but that so is tea packaged and blended in Canada? In this case an eight-ounce package of Red Rose tea bags that sells in the United States for $1.67 is selling in Ontario, only a few blocks from here in a major supermarket, at $2.19. Does this not warrant an investigation of comparison between US and Ontario prices?

Mr. Peterson: Send over a sandwich too, Ed.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member sends over the tea. That’s the supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: No difference in labels -- just the price tags.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, as I tried to indicate earlier, I will be following the same course on the tea -- and I already have instigated it; it was some time last week -- as I followed on the coffee. We’ll write the companies involved and see what answers they provide, we’ll write the AIB and see what they have on it, and I will report back to the House.

Mr. Roy: We want the tea as well.

Mr. Lewis: A real consumer advocate. He will write the companies!

Mr. Philip: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I don’t know what possible supplementary there could be to that but try it.

Mr. Philip: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unlike my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold, who is of Dutch origin, being of Scottish origin, I don’t intend to give the minister any free tea. I intend to keep it.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Philip: However, would the minister be willing to comment on whether or not as a result of his representations to the AIB for information concerning wholesale prices -- which I understand they have monitored -- that information has been refused to him?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It has not been refused.


Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food concerning the hydrophobia quarantine. In view of the reported incidences of rabies among household pets would the minister review and reverse the policy of his ministry which allows quarantining of those suspected animals in homes rather than animal pounds, particularly as it applies to urban settings with the inherent danger to the community at large, if not to the owners of such animals?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Balderdash.

Hon. W. Newman: With the high incidence of rabies that we have in the area -- many areas out there have the same situation -- there are some safety factors involved in trying to have the incubation period in the home. That’s a very dangerous sort of a situation. The animal should be separated from any person and kept away from the home, and to suggest that it is kept in one’s home for the incubation period is inviting trouble. Certainly I don’t want to change that around.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is what is happening.

Mr. Stong: That is exactly what I wanted reversed. That’s the policy of his ministry which he stated. That’s happened, and I’m asking him to reverse that situation -- to require animals to be quarantined in pounds rather than the homes.

Mr. Sargent: Ask Bob Eaton, he will tell you.

Mr. Conway: It is time for another shovel, Bill.

Mr. S. Smith: Maybe there’s some Hydro-phobia over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: I think you’ve got a bit of Hydro-phobia too, so just be careful.

But as far as keeping all the animals in the pound goes, there just isn’t enough room in all the pounds.

Mr. Lewis: Have you thought of the occasional injection? A little immunization?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes.

Mr. Breaugh: I’d volunteer to give him the injection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Do you have a question?

Mr. Breaugh: I do.

Mr. Speaker: Please put it.


Mr. Breaugh: I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy. Would he elaborate for the House on the exact status of the spent fuel storage areas at the Pickering plant and would he give us some insight as to how Ontario Hydro is so affirmative they will meet construction deadlines? And will they be able to construct further storage facilities there by the time they run out of space next spring?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the member may or may not know the Pickering B is well along the way now. In conjunction with that plant is additional capacity for irradiated fuel storage. There is also an additional storage area -- that’s the wet storage, in the swimming pool type of facility. That will be completed in February of next year. So there is no concern whatsoever that there will not be sufficient capacity there to store the irradiated fuel. I don’t think that really is a problem at this time.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could I ask if the minister is using the same management model techniques at Pickering as he is in other parts of the province?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Management techniques?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Yes, we have, as the member knows, probably the most efficient system in the world -- no question about that.

Mr. Foulds: Are you using Lummus in this one?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: If you look at the Pickering reactor, operating probably at about 92 per cent capacity, and it is untouched by any other plant -- it is number one in the whole world in terms of capability. I think we should be proud of that.




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

Motion agreed to.


Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of Bill 71, An Act to relieve Persons from Liability in respect of Voluntary Emergency Medical and First Aid Services.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: An explanatory note is that the purpose of the bill is to relieve persons from liability in respect of voluntary first aid assistance or medical services rendered at or near the scene of an accident or other sudden emergencies.


Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I’m reminded by the table officers that notice was given prior to the summer recess by the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) that he was dissatisfied with the answer to a question put to the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) concerning fire regulations. This matter will be debated this evening at 10:30.


Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I would like, if you will, to call for second reading not only Bill 36, but also Bills 37, 38 and 39. I understand that there has been general agreement that all of these bills -- I can’t do this? Okay.

Mr. Speaker: No, you need unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask you if there is any precedent for us to deal with bills in bundles? I don’t think that there’s any great advantage in doing it that way and I don’t believe it’s unnecessarily time-consuming if we move through them, even if they are routine.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, if I may just add, for the benefit of members, why this came forward. I understand that there was actually a request by the opposition that they could be considered in concert because basically they were all dealing with the same items to do with the regional municipalities and the restructured municipalities. That’s why I put forward that motion. But it’s of course really at the option of the House which way we would proceed.

Mr. Speaker: There does not seem to be unanimous consent. So I think perhaps the hon. member would be well advised to move second reading of one of them.

Mr. Ashe: Fine, Mr. Speaker. I’ll then move second reading of Bill 36, which, as the hon. members are aware, includes primarily measures to streamline the temporary borrowing provisions. In addition, there’s one permitting the 10 regional municipalities to accept money for reward purposes and to be allowed to pay this money to persons who supply information leading to the conviction of offenders. It also proposes that a simple majority --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You just simply move second reading of Bill 36.

Mr. Ashe: Fine, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moved second reading of Bill 36, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Durham West wish to make a brief opening statement? That’s your prerogative.

Mr. Ashe: I’ll finish those few remarks that I started out of order, if you wish.

Mr. Speaker: Very good.

Mr. Ashe: Fine. This is somewhat along the line of housekeeping and to bring more uniformity within the various regional Acts. The removal, for example, of auditors with cause, to get back to the simple majority, that is accepted pretty well throughout all other legislation. It is also to allow a little more flexibility to the municipalities in terms of their borrowing procedures, both for capital and current purposes and for signing authority in that particular regard. There are also specific amendments within the Metro Act to remove the three-quarter vote required for the paying of travel expenses of members of council; and there’s a little tidying up to do within the Region of Halton Act regarding the surrender of the charter of the Halton County Museum Association.

After this particular bill has been dealt with in second reading, I will be asking that it be referred to committee of the whole House for some further amendments.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, it’s a pleasure to be able to speak to these bills, particularly Bill 36. I agree that this is somewhat housekeeping. I wonder sometimes; I guess this is the kind of thing bureaucracy is made of, because it takes a long time before some of the requests of municipalities have been put into legislation, that finally TEIGA is acting on these measures. This party will support these measures because they are of a housekeeping nature.

I looked, for instance, at the fact that in order for an auditor to be removed for a cause you need a two-thirds vote at present, and with the new legislation this will be corrected.

The government doesn’t even have a 50 per cent majority and it is empowered to govern the province, yet up until now it has required a two-thirds majority to remove an auditor for cause. I welcome the change.

As far as the other items are concerned, the mechanical devices for chairmen, their signatures and the paying of rewards for the supplying of information leading to the apprehension of unlawful citizens and so forth, we regard these as housekeeping measures and we plan to support them.

Mr. Lewis: The contents of this bill are largely a housekeeping matter and my colleague from Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) will want to raise a couple of items in respect to the bills which you are about to entertain before the House, but we can support this bill on second reading.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I’m speaking on behalf of my colleague, the member for Welland-Thorold, who will return to the House in a moment, slightly refreshed from a cup of freshly brewed instant coffee, roasted in Canada.

Mr. Nixon: Meanwhile tell us about the bill.

Mr. Foulds: I think my colleague would like me to say --

Mr. Nixon: Tell us about the bill, we’ve heard about the instant coffee.

Mr. Foulds: Would you like to call your former leader to order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would appreciate it if the member would direct his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, this legislation slightly improves the whole concept of regional municipalities, but I think it’s fair to say that we in the New Democratic Party would like to see some more dramatic revisions in regional government. This may not be the opportunity to discuss that at length, although the bill lends itself to that concept. After all, the bill does amend the Regional Municipalities Act.

It should be taken note of at this time, and I hope the parliamentary assistant would bring back to his minister the message, that with this bill we are only tampering with something that is at this stage right for fundamental re-examination. I’m sure that my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold will have further remarks to make on the other bills as they come up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any further members wishing to speak to this bill? Any further comments by the parliamentary assistant?

Mr. Ashe: Just very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the members across the floor for their support, appreciating that these are principally an enactment of housecleaning items and requests on behalf of the various municipalities that are covered under this legislation.

In response to the hon. member, of course there are other studies that are well under way, as the hon. member is aware, relating to many of the regional municipalities that are being dealt with within these particular amendments. I am sure that in the future there will be suitable legislation coming forward to enact whatever would seem to be best for those municipalities concerned.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole.


Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moved second reading of Bill 37, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Do you have any opening remarks?

Mr. Ashe: None, other than to point out to the House that the amendments proposed in Bill 37 are exactly the same as those which were proposed under the regional amendment Act, Bill 36; except this, of course, deals with the district municipality of Muskoka.

Mr. Epp: Since these are housekeeping items, we will support them as indicated earlier.

Mr. Foulds: Before we proceed, I think the parliamentary assistant has indicated that there will be some amendments from the government side coming forward in committee. Could he indicate to us at this time which bills those apply to?

Mr. Ashe: If I may respond, Mr. Speaker, we will be proposing amendments to Bills 36 and 38. There are no amendments being proposed to Bills 37, 39 or 42.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.


Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moved second reading of Bill 38, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, with this particular bill, Bill 38, my comment is the same as in the previous discussion relating to Bills 36 and 37. This also is one of the bills we would ask the House to refer to the committee of the whole House for further amendment.

Mr. Epp: In a spirit of co-operation, Mr. Speaker, we are going to support this.


Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I was forced to be out of the House when you dealt with Bill 36, but I do want to make a few general comments which I think are appropriately made in the discussion of this bill. We, of course, are obviously going to support this bill, as we are supporting them all. We have no amendments to make to them; the two to which we wanted to make amendments have been withdrawn. We support this bill -- and the previous bill -- because we think it would slightly improve the regional operation. I want to put on record, as we have before, that we would rather like to see dramatic, major revisions in all of the regional government bills. We feel that it should be done by a committee of this House. A study, in depth, should be made on the principle of regional government.

Mr. Haggerty: You are not going for another study trip; you went for that in 1962, and we have got regional government now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I just don’t know if anywhere in the bill it states that there should be a study.

Mr. Swart: No. I am speaking on what I think should be in the regional bills, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to be very brief.

These amendments only tamper with the fundamental changes that should be made in the bill. Specifically, with regard to the bill, we support the reduction of the vote for relieving the auditor of his duties from a two-thirds vote to a simple majority vote. We are in favour of the broadening of the temporary borrowing provisions of this bill. I think it is a step in the right direction that the signatures can be produced by mechanical means. I think we would all want the right of this regional government to be able to pay rewards for the apprehension of criminals; and I think we would agree, although it is not in this bill -- it’s in some of the bills -- that the Treasurer should not have to provide statements of revenue, et cetera, to the lenders.

As I stated before, we have no amendments to these bills. They are, basically, housekeeping bills. We think that housekeeping simply is not good enough. There should be fundamental changes.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, I do want to speak just briefly to this bill, which is an Act to amend The County of Oxford Act, 1974. I bring to your attention, sir, the words of the parliamentary assistant who, when he introduced the bill and the other companion pieces, indicated that they were of a piece, if not identical, with the amendments to Bill 36, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

I simply rise to bring to your attention, sir, that in all of these bills and amendments, the difference between a restructured county and a regional government is nil, except for the fact that the restructured counties don’t have a chairman; they have, as in Oxford, a warden.

If the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Parrott) were here -- and he may even be listening and come rushing in, red-faced and in high dudgeon on this matter -- we may hear about it again. But I can’t let the opportunity go by to remind anyone who might be paying attention that, in fact, Oxford has a regional government in everything but name.

Mr. Riddell: Right on.

Hon. Mr. Welch: What’s that got to do with the principle of this bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to speak to this bill? If not, does the parliamentary assistant have any further comments?

Mr. Ashe: None, Mr. Speaker, other than to pass on my thanks for the co-operation of the opposition in their support of these various amendments.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole.


Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moved second reading of Bill 39, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Ashe: Again, this particular bill speaks to all the various items referred to previously. There are some additional amendments concerning vote requirements, proposing a simple majority vote to authorize the travelling expenses of Metro councillors and officials and the expenses incurred for entertainment.

Mr. Epp: We will be supporting this bill.

Mr. Swart: The New Democratic Party is supporting this bill too. I understand, though, in this bill there is one other change. That is section 2(1), which provides that other revenues will be included in the 70 per cent amount. We support that too.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does any other member wish to comment on Bill 39? If not, are there any further comments by the parliamentary assistant?

Mr. Ashe: No, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.


Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moved second reading of Bill 42, An Act to amend the City of Timmins-Porcupine Act, 1972.

Mr. Ashe: What this bill is designed to do is to make it legal, if you will, to clear up some lack of clarification in the original intent of the authority of the corporation of the city of Timmins as to its ability to collect tax arrears from many annexed areas that were previously unorganized townships that surrounded the new community. This would legalize the collection of these arrears retroactively.

Mr. Epp: This being a bill of a housekeeping nature, we will be supporting it.

Mr. Swart: We are supporting it in this party too. We might have had some question about the second section of this bill, but in checking with the city of Timmins, we find there are no actions outstanding and no litigation under way. The second section of the bill is apparently put in for a saving, to make sure, because there is no action under way and it’s unnecessary. We are supporting the bill.

I would perhaps just like to point out that this bill applies to the area of Cochrane South. I’m surprised that the member for that area is not in his seat as the former member from that area would have been.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.


House in committee on Bill 36, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Mr. Ashe: I have many amendments to this particular bill. If you would like we can go through it section by section. I have an amendment for section 1.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

Section 1 of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act, being chapter 407 in the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1970, is amended by adding thereto the following section:

“7(b), notwithstanding section 4, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the minister may by order authorize such method of selecting the members who represent the area municipality on the regional council as is considered advisable following an order of the Municipal Board under section 7(a), and that the sections of the bill that follow be renumbered accordingly.”

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we will be supporting this amendment. Unfortunately the notice of the amendment was fairly short. We received it only on Friday. I am usually aware of more notice on these things, but nevertheless we feel it is a reasonable amendment and that it should be supported.

Mr. Swart: We have had an opportunity to look at this amendment and we support it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on the observation of the hon. member with respect to notice. There may be some misunderstanding, and perhaps this is the place to clarify it. It is generally agreed among the House leaders, and we thought in all caucuses, that Tuesday being legislation day, by the close of the day on Friday we should exchange notice of any amendments that anyone plans. I just want to make it quite clear that this is in keeping with the practice we have developed among ourselves, that Friday is, in fact, the deadline for notice of amendments for legislation being considered on Tuesday.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, if I might just speak to that; it is certainly our understanding, and there have been occasions on which the House leader of the government party has been good enough to waive that when the opposition parties have had difficulty with amendments at the last moment in the current circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I appreciate that observation.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments from members? If not shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

On section 4.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“Section 100(b) is renumbered to become section 4. Section 100(b) of the said Act, as enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1975, chapter 46, section 5 is renumbered as section 124(a); and that the sections of the bill that follow be renumbered accordingly.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 5 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 9:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“Section 3 of the Regional Municipality of York Act, being chapter 408 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario 1970 as amended by the Statutes of Ontario 1972, chapter 78, section 2; and 1976, chapter 43, section 27; is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection 3(c): Notwithstanding section 7, the Lieutenant Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the minister may by order authorize such method of selecting the members who represent the area municipality on the regional council as is considered advisable following an order of the Municipal Board under subsection 3(a), and that the sections of the bill that follow be renumbered accordingly.”

Any comments? Shall the amendment carry?


Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 10 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.


On section 13:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“Section 2 of the regional municipality of Waterloo Act in Chapter 105 is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(a) That portion of the city of Kitchener described as follows is annexed to the city of Waterloo: All and singular that certain parcel or tract of land and premises situate, lying and being in the city of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, formerly in the county of Waterloo, and province of Ontario, and being composed of firstly one foot reserve (a), part of one foot reserve (b), and part of Silvercrest Drive, Registered Plan 877 in the said city of Kitchener, designated as parts 1, 2 and 3 on a reference plan deposited in the Registry Office for the registry division of Waterloo North 58 as Plan 58R-1986.

“Secondly, that part of lot 33 German Company tract in the said city of Kitchener designated as part 4 on a reference plan deposited in the Registry Office for the registry division of Waterloo North as Plan 58R-1986.

“And subsection 1(b) which is subsection 3 applies with necessary modifications to the annexation provided for in subsection 1(a) and that the sections of the bill that follow be renumbered accordingly.”

Mr. Breithaupt: I think it important to rise and speak on this particular section, because after all no member of the Legislature enjoys seeing his riding cut by size. However, in this amendment, while the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) was of a view at one point that they were prepared to amend the bill to take over the entire city of Kitchener, I had suggested to him it was only practical that these one-foot reserves be granted.

The purpose behind this, of course, is to deal with a minor subdivision problem which has arisen because the subdivision apparently is right on the line between the cities and has included a very small portion of the city of Kitchener. As a result, I am quite graciously prepared to accept the loss of this territory, but we’ll be looking for Waterloo to give us something on occasion too.

Mr. Swart: Just following the member for Kitchener, I assume that this area, because he is sorry to lose it, must be an area where he received the majority of the votes.

Mr. Breithaupt: It would not have mattered. I won in every area.

Mr. Swart: I have checked, Mr. Chairman, and this change is not only desirable, but I understand that all those involved are in favour of it and therefore we support this amendment.

Mr. Epp: I am pleased to speak on this item, Mr. Chairman. When I was mayor of the city of Waterloo we started discussing this matter and it’s nice to know that it is coming to fruition and that the annexation is going to take place. As the member for Kitchener indicated, we were prepared to annex Kitchener and give it good, honest, reasonable government, but that never materialized.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, they have a super mayor there now. No problems in Kitchener now.

Mr. Epp: There was a suggestion that we build a wall there, but we settled for a one-foot reserve.

Mr. Lewis: I can believe that.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments?

Mr. Ashe: I think it worth noting, Mr. Chairman, for those members in the House who are not particularly cognizant of this situation in as specific fashion as some of the hon. members are, that it is nice to see that an annexation such as this, albeit very minor, can be mutually agreed by the particular municipalities, and this is the case. Both cities involved, as well as the regional municipality, have agreed to this minor change in their boundaries comprising some 6.71 acres. This is the purpose of this particular amendment and it is hoped that most annexations can be handled in the same spirit of co-operation that this one has been.

Mr. Breithaupt: Don’t count on it.

Mr. Swart: You want to bet?

Mr. Ashe: No, I wouldn’t count on it.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

On section 14:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that the bill he amended by adding thereto the following section:

“Section 3 of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act, 1972, being chapter 105, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1976, chapter 43, section 38, is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“3(b) Notwithstanding section 8, the Lieutenant Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the minister may by order authorize such method of selecting the members who represent the area municipality on the regional council as is considered advisable following an order of the Municipal Board under section 3(a) and that the sections of the bill that follow be renumbered accordingly.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.

On section 17:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“Section 3 of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act, 1972, being chapter 104, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1972, chapter 167, section 1; 1974, chapter 54, section 1; 1975, chapter 46, section 12; and 1976, chapter 43, section 50, is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“3(b) Notwithstanding section 8, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the minister, may by order authorize such method of selecting the members who represent the area municipality on the regional council as is considered advisable following an order of the Municipal Board under subsection 3(a); and that the sections of the bill that follow be renumbered accordingly.”

Mr. Swart: I just want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) specifically came in because this bill was being dealt with at this time.

Mr. Haggerty: He is absent now.

Mr. Foulds: No, he is right here.

Motion agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 18 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 21:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“Section 3 of the Regional Municipality of Peel Act, 1973, being chapter 60, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1976, chapter 43, section 61, is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“3(b) Notwithstanding section 8, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the minister, may by order authorize such method of selecting the members who represent the area municipality on the regional council as is considered advisable following an order of the Municipal Board under subsection 3(a); and that the sections of the bill that follow be renumbered accordingly.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 21, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 25:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that section 25 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“Section 3 of the Regional Municipality of Halton Act, 1973, being chapter 70, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1973, chapter 162, section 2, and 1976, chapter 43, section 73, is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection 3b:

“‘Notwithstanding section 8, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the minister, may by order authorize such method of selecting the members who represent the area municipality on the regional council as is considered advisable following an order of the Municipal Board under subsection 3a,’

“And that the sections of the bill that follow be renumbered accordingly.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 25, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 26 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 30:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that section 30 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“Section 3 of the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act, 1973, being chapter 74, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1976, chapter 43, section 84, is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection 3c:

“‘Notwithstanding section 8, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the minister, may by order authorize such method of selecting the members who represent the area municipality on the regional council as is considered advisable following an order of the Municipal Board under subsection 3a,’

“And that the sections of the bill that follow be renumbered accordingly.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 30, as amended, agreed to.

On section 34:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that section 34 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“Section 3 of the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, 1973, being chapter 78 as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1976, chapter 43, section 96, is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection 3b:

“‘Notwithstanding section 8, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the minister, may by order authorize such method of selecting the members who represent the area municipality on the regional council as is considered advisable following an order of the Municipal Board under subsection 3a,’

“And that the sections of the bill that follow be renumbered accordingly.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 34, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 35 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 38:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that section 38 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“Section 3 of the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk Act, 1973, being chapter 96 as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1976, chapter 43, section 107, is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection 3b:

“‘Notwithstanding section 8, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the minister, may by order authorize such method of selecting the members who represent the area municipality on the regional council as is considered advisable following an order of the Municipal Board under subsection 3a,’

“And that the sections of the bill that follow be renumbered accordingly.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 38, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 39 to 43, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 36, as amended, reported.


House in committee on Bill 38, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“Section 3 of the County of Oxford Act, 1974, being chapter 57 as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1976, chapter 73, section 1, is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection 4b:

“‘Notwithstanding section 8, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the minister, may by order authorize such method of selecting the members who represent the area municipality on the county council as is considered advisable following an order of the Municipal Board under subsection 4a,’

“And that the sections of the bill that follow be renumbered accordingly.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 38, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I just want to get the permission of the committee. There’s been some consultation between my colleague, the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld), and representatives of the other two parties with respect to Bill 4 which is in committee. If the committee agrees, we might now call it for some amendment which the Chairman of Management Board has, and proceed with that legislation.


House in committee on Bill 4, An Act to provide Successor Rights on the Transfer of an Undertaking to or from The Crown.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, my amendment deals with sections 7 to 12 of the bill. I assume there are no comments prior to that time so, perhaps, I can move that now.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

On sections 7 to 12, inclusive:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Auld moves that sections 7 to 12 of Bill 4 be renumbered as sections 8 to 13 and that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“7(1) An application may be made to the tribunal or to the board and (a) the tribunal may declare whether or not a trade union or council of trade unions qualifies as an employee organization under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972, and (b) the board may declare whether or not an employee organization qualifies as trade union or council of trade unions under the Labour Relations Act.

“(2) Where the tribunal is not satisfied that the trade union or council of trade unions is so qualified, or the board is not satisfied that the employee organization is so qualified, the tribunal or the board, as the case may be, may specify the steps necessary to so qualify and, when satisfied that the steps have been taken, (a) the tribunal shall declare that the trade union, council of trade unions or the successor of either of them is so qualified or, (b) the board shall declare that the employee organization or its successor is so qualified.

“(3) A trade union, council of trade unions or successor of either of them that is declared by the tribunal to be so qualified shall be deemed to have been qualified as an employee organization under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972, from and including the day of the transfer to the Crown of the undertaking to which the declaration relates.

“(4) An employee organization, or its successor, that is declared by the board to be so qualified shall be deemed to have been qualified as a trade union or council of trade unions under the Labour Relations Act from and including the day of the transfer to the employer of the undertaking to which the declaration relates.”

As came up on second reading of this bill, this has been added to provide a method for determining whether or not a trade union, council of trade unions or employee organization is qualified, as required by section 6(1) of the bill.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, some time ago when this bill had been discussed in second reading there were problems that were raised concerning the matters dealing with a union that might be outside the jurisdiction of the Crown being able to qualify under an employee organization under the requirements of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The matter was stood over at that time for an amendment to be considered and that amendment has now been brought before the House today. This amendment hopefully resolves the question that was raised by, in fact, empowering the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal to specify the steps which are necessary for a union to so qualify. As a result of those steps being able to be specified, then the union can be deemed to have qualified from and including the day of the transfer of an undertaking to the union.

I realize, of course, that the matter is a somewhat involved one but the attempt has now been made to allow the situation to develop, with the hopes that any problems of transferring these matters can be dealt with in future, so as to make sure that such transfers are done smoothly and to the satisfaction of the parties involved.

As a result, we are content with this amendment and we are prepared to support it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, we also will support the bill and the amendment. We recognize that what is really needed are some amendments to CECBA and hopefully we are going to see them somewhere down the road, because that’s the only way we are really going to get reciprocal arrangements of employees coming under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

We certainly take the minister at good faith when he said the intent of the bill as brought into the House was that it would be reciprocal, and hopefully this will correct the situation or at least lead to very few disputes. If it doesn’t, then somewhere down the road we may have to take another look at it, but I think it’s important also that it be done rather quickly in case there be any units that might possibly lose some of their benefits as a result of transfers that are pending.

Mr. Chairman: Do any other members wish to comment on this amendment? If not, any further comments by the hon. member for Leeds?

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, simply to thank the members opposite for the speedy passage, because as the member for Hamilton East just said, it is rather important in that both OPSEU and perhaps CUPE are concerned about the possibilities of transfer in or out, and we trust this will cure any problems.

Motion agreed to.

Sections 7 to 12, inclusive, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: If there are no further comments or amendments, shall the bill as amended be reported?

Bill 4, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House reported three bills with amendments and asked for leave to sit again.


The following bills were given third reading on motion:

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

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

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


Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering, before I call the next order, if we might just have a bit of chat in the House in connection with the order of things.

We are now going to proceed with items 20 to 24 on the order paper dealing with the family law package, about which there have been some meetings. As you know, it had been the intention that most of this legislation following second reading would go to the appropriate standing committee for consideration later, but I have since learned that there may be some bills which the House would agree to proceed with now. I just want to make sure, because it might affect the order; we might do those things that we thought could be dealt with now. It was my understanding -- and the Attorney General might comment on this -- that perhaps 21, 22, 23 and 24 might be in that category, and that we would really leave over Bill 59 -- the family law bill -- for further consideration in the standing committee.

There have been some different reports on this. If the Speaker would allow, we might clarify that point and deal with --

Mr. Breithaupt: I shall be pleased to be of assistance, if I can be. I would agree that from the discussions within our own caucus and with the critics that certain of these bills can probably be proceeded with and go to third reading today. I suggest, however, that of the four items you have referred to, although Bills 60, 62 and 65 are in that category, it may be necessary -- or at least considered prudent -- to join Bill 61 with Bill 59 for the purpose of debate, which ultimately may be preferred. I understand there may be further comments. Certainly, my colleague from Ottawa East will be involved, as will my colleague from York Centre. But in any event, I believe that Bills 60, 62 and 65 can proceed directly.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, as long as it is understood that the House reserves the right to refer the bills to the committee of the whole House, because I understand there may be an amendment coming forward to Bill 60.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am in the hands of the House in this. I just wanted to have some direction, given the fact there is some general agreement that even with a brief excursion in committee of the whole House, we would get Bills 60, 62 and 65 through. Then you wanted to save Bills 59 and 61 for the standing committee. I just want to know, that’s all. All five were going to go to standing committee when we first started this, but if three could be handled now and two or one go to the standing committee, that’s fine with me. I just want to know what to do.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think if there is a necessity for a particular amendment to Bill 60, it could be dealt with here in committee of the whole House. It may indeed be that Bill 61 can also be completed. I am just not entirely familiar with that particular point. So we could begin.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker -- with some consultation fairly recently -- I am of the opinion -- as the critic for the Attorney General -- that only Bill 59 really needs to be sent downstairs for review; the rest can be done in this House. They are very probably -- and, in my opinion, are -- sufficiently severable to get them through. We have been waiting such a long time that it is better to clear the decks to the greatest extent possible with respect to this family law matter.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Then let’s start with the three. I’ll call the 21st order, then.



Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 60, An Act to reform the Law respecting Succession to the Estates of Deceased Persons.

Mr. Lawlor: These tracks have even changed bloody trains in the middle of the junction, the high-speed locomotive coming up behind. It’s not just one bill we’re discussing today. It’s a plenitude. Each of them has a progeny -- all illegitimate. In every case we have three different bills.

What you have to do when you stand here today is know what the state of the actual law is and know what they proposed on the first instance about -- I think it’s getting on to 16 years ago now. Then eight years ago they brought in a change and at a less nether time they have now finally got the third facsimile before us. All that has to be retained and you have to switch at the same time.

This change in the succession in estates has been thoroughly canvassed and perused by the Law Reform Commission. The law at an earlier time was in -- I won’t say exactly a state of confusion -- but certainly in a state of high intricacy. It was designed to test the calibre of the bar working in this particular field. It was not easy to construe, particularly after you got past children and you were going up to parents and down to nephews and nieces and brothers and sisters and over to next of kin and into the hands of what is salubriously called the laughing heir, that is, the fellow in Australia whom no one ever heard of who takes the bundle. And did he ever smile! The fellow in Australia has finally been brought to heel and within this kind of legislation we aren’t any longer going to permit that.

The legislation provides for a great many things. It provides for lapses in a will where people die before the testator dies, for an ademption, as it is called in law, with respect to, for instance, where he takes back a mortgage and he gets rid of it and turns it into cash or sells property that he’s given to somebody under a will and the proceeds are traceable in one form or another. This affirms the fact that you can trace it through and then the person to whom the original gift was given would be the beneficiary of that particular gift.

It abolishes dower, and that has been long called for -- it was abolished many years ago in Great Britain -- and the courtesy, the husband’s right, analogous to but very different from dower. Provisions are made for very intricate stuff in the bill having to do with conflict of law legislation and as to the doctrine of the renvoi, about which --

Mr. Lewis: We all knew that.

Mr. Lawlor: -- one of the most astute of law teachers -- he probably taught law for 50 years at Osgoode Hall, a man by the name of Falconbridge, bless his white-haired soul --

Hon. Mr. Welch: A great man.

Hon. B. Stephenson: How can a soul be white-haired?

Mr. Lewis: Not so much is known about the soul that it couldn’t be.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I suppose that is a possibility.

Mr. Lawlor: -- would spend a good six months of the year talking about that tiny term.

I think that on second reading there isn’t in this particular legislation a great deal of point in seeking to take it apart. There’s a diversity of principle in it and probably the best forum to sort it out is shortly in the committee of the whole. I think we should let the matter rest at that point since we have, as I see it, no quarrel in principle. On the contrary, this is fairly neutral law as between political parties. It simply updates and brings down, rationalizes and modernizes the whole area of law that has descended from time immemorial and is hoary with age. The only thing that amazes one about this sort of thing is that it hadn’t been done at least three generations ago.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I always view and hear with great interest the comments of the member for Lakeshore, and I must congratulate him, because he takes on and meets a real challenge when he can stand up and go on as he did about legislation which I suspect he knows as little about as I do.

Mr. Lewis: Of whom are you speaking?

Mr. Roy: Secondly, about legislation which is as dry and as complex and about which most of the legal profession know nothing. So he has met the challenge and I find --

Mr. Lewis: The member for Lakeshore has read every word, paragraph, clause, understands it all, has absorbed it all and has disgorged it all.

Mr. Roy: That’s right. I agree with the leader of the NDP that he has read it all, but to say understands it? I am sure he is in the same boat as I am.

Mr. Lewis: He understands it. If Patrick tells me he understands it, he understands it.

Mr. Lawlor: They are both half right.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Which half?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few brief comments. I would say to the Attorney General that in his comments when he again introduced the legislation yesterday I noted some sort of suggestion that he was looking forward to expeditious process in the passage of this bill, which we on this side and my colleagues to the left have always been in favour of.

However, I noted some suggestions, somehow, and I just want to correct the record, that certainly those of us on this side in no way have impeded in any way the passage of all these four bills -- or is it going to be five bills -- the bills dealing with succession, with marriage status, with children, and, of course, the major legislation dealing with support obligation, marriage and so on. I just want to make it very clear that we have always been very co-operative on this side, and I can say my colleagues to the left have as well.

If there has been any delay in the passage of this legislation it is because certain things have happened. For instance, they called the election. That sort of delayed the process. We weren’t asking for something like that. That delayed the process. Those of us on this side have accepted our responsibility and have proceeded with as much expedition as possible in the passage of legislation, and we shall do so --

Mr. Nixon: We did everything possible to keep that legislation moving forward.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Get back to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Roy: In dealing with the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, upon the bill first being presented, I don’t know how long ago it was, the bill was referred to an august committee of members of the Law Society of Upper Canada led by Mr. Brule, who is one of the experts in this field. These knowledgeable people, experts, having looked at all this legislation, the only thing they could suggest back to us was changing a comma here and adding a word there.

I say to myself, “Well, that is good enough for me, if these fellows don’t feel that there is anything wrong with the legislation.” Of course, a quick and superficial perusal on my part suggests that there is nothing wrong with the legislation. We are in agreement that it should pass and that it should see the light of proclamation, the Lieutenant Governor’s seal and everything else as soon as possible.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, just following on what has been said, this is legislation that has been pending for some time. I know those who are particularly concerned with the needed reforms that are part of this legislation have been waiting for several years.

I think the process, as has been suggested by the member for Ottawa East, has been a very useful and important one, because there has been a very complete dialogue with the members of the Legislature and the public sector, particularly those of the public sector who are interested in the legislation. As a result, my staff, who have worked very hard over the years, have benefitted by this very useful interaction and we have legislation that has been anxiously awaited, because it really does provide very necessary reforms to the very important laws of succession. I am very happy with the support that has been given to this legislation by members on all sides of the House.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole.


Hon Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 62, An Act to revise the Marriage Act, 1977.

Mr. Roy: We have reviewed this legislation as well and we have discussed it in caucus. We certainly are in agreement with the principle of the bill changing certain aspects of marriages in this province. There are some practical applications, some of which I have experienced firsthand. One of them was the long lineups of people outside the provincial Judge’s office waiting to be married. I thought that somehow it demeaned the process of marriage and in fact it demeaned the whole process of the administration of justice to have a situation where a judge would take a break from a preliminary hearing in a rape case to go downstairs and conduct five or 10 weddings in haste, with expedition and so on. I have felt for some time that the jurisdiction to perform marriages should have been given to justices of the peace or other designated persons, and of course this is part of what is incorporated in the bill.

The other interesting aspect of this legislation, of course -- and it has been mentioned; I think we mentioned it on the first occasion we had to discuss the bill on second reading -- is that we are removing a right of action for a breach of promise to marry. Some colleagues in my caucus were pleased to hear that, but I think I said on second reading the first time -- and I am saying it again -- that I suppose in this Ontario society, in 1977, it’s a right of action which may have had dealings in 18th-century England or other countries but which today is hardly applicable. So we agree with that proposition.

In closing my comments I must say that I find Form 1 at the end of the legislation is very interesting. It just seems interesting that we should have to emphasise by way of legislation that there are certain people that an individual can or cannot marry. You should be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, for instance, that it is clearly set out in the legislation in Form 1 that a man may not marry his grandmother; that is specifically set out there.

Mr. Nixon: You have gone too far.

Mr. Lewis: Is that specifically a McMurtry initiative? You are a reformer; you are a social reformer.

Mr. Roy: If you want to talk about progressive legislation, then this is it. You can’t marry your grandmother or your grandfather’s wife; and it goes on to say you can’t marry your nephew’s wife and so on. We have it all set out.

As far as this legislation is concerned, we see no reason on this side of the House for any delay or why it should not be passed.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t know whether to discuss it here or to discuss it hereafter.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You may not get the chance, Patrick.


Mr. Lawlor: I don’t mean in the other world. I think it should go to committee because there are, again, specific points where it’s not necessary there might be an amendment, but simply to have clarification; and also for those who want to have in Hansard an exposé -- I think that’s the word -- of what the legislation contains.

There are some niggling points too; niggling points which are not pretty. For instance, the age of marriage is set at 18 years, maybe 16 with the consent of the parents and with a whole host of surrounding circumstances. Is that wise or unwise? It’s increased from 14 to 16; what is the impact of that and what are the social implications of that?

An ancient law, a hoary law, is the business of the seventh year presumption of death as the basis upon which a woman or a man, going through particular procedures, would be able to remarry. That deserves a little comment apart from second reading comment. The nature of banns; who are the issuers, by what right do they issue and how you designate them -- that too. It is most interesting that when this matter was previously before the committee we ran into very considerable difficulty in a particular section as to who would otherwise be called either a minister or a priest, or an officiating official, and by what right they acquired that title and whether there was recognition within a congregation of a person. There are some faiths which have marriage ceremonies that do not meet or accord with the usual procedures and ministerial practices.

At section 20, subsection 4 the minister or the ministry has attempted to look after the matter. They have removed the word “congregation” of recent date from the legislation and substituted “the governing authority of the religious body.” That perhaps should be scouted a bit and given further clarification in the House -- first of all because it is such a recent change and although the bodies in question, the Quakers and the Baha’i faith, have been consulted and as I understand the situation have agreed to this alteration, I think that that should be made explicit and on the record.

We probably can spend some time with it, and I don’t wish to, with respect to the time interval between the issuance of a licence and the solemnization of the marriage. I think they carried me out of here about this time last year, when we were just beginning to get into this particular subject and I missed the grand occasion. I don’t know what the extent of the debate was with respect to greater time intervals, et cetera -- giving the opportunities for second thoughts.

Since none of the legislation makes provision for marriage counsellors or all that apparatus that’s been proposed to the minister and which future marriage law in this province will embody as ways of seeking to keep marriages together and as services to people with respect to cementing the situation, then when it permits perhaps precipitate marriage, et cetera -- makes no provision for it within the legislation -- then the legislation isn’t probably as visionary or as clean a piece of business as it is held out to be by the Law Reform Commission or by the government as it presently stands at all. I think perhaps a few moments of questioning of that and some debate about it won’t do any harm.

It is a good thing. We heard earlier today in question period about the condition of the courts, not just in Ottawa but all over this province; backlogs, you can’t get a taxation of costs, for instance, down at Osgoode Hall before next June. Do you know that? I know judges don’t do that, masters do, but it shows the general cluttering and conditions of the court which is becoming, anybody can see, scandalous at this time in history.

I was going to save this up for the minister for the estimates and we no doubt will enter into that gently at that particular time --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Warm up, you are in the bullpen.

Mr. Lawlor: -- but anything at this time in history that would have an alleviating effect upon the duties of the judiciary, even making them go to work, would be all to the good in this particular context.

So the solemnization being taken out -- not taken out of the hands of the judges they may continue to solemnize -- I suspect that the judges now will direct this sort of thing into the hands of justices of the peace, et cetera. They are more numerous, are not quite so highly paid, and certainly have the proficiency in that particular sphere. They may bind these fellows but I would have some hesitation about permitting them to loosen anything.

I should mention an interesting thing before I sit down, quite a novel thing really. Section 33 reads: “Where one person makes a gift to another in contemplation of or conditional upon their marriage to each other and the marriage fails to take place or is abandoned” -- or both parties abandon one another at the door -- “the question of whether or not the failure or abandonment was caused by or was the fault of the donor shall not be considered in determining the right of the donor to recover the gift.” If he wants it back again, you know.

I wonder about that one too, it’s a curious one. Here’s a guy, he gives the dowry; he hands over the bulk of his hard-earned pelf, which had been sitting in bullion in the bank, in a moment of dementia praecox he decides to confer it upon his beloved daughter.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s a Victorian diagnosis, Pat.

Mr. Lawlor: Then a few days later he says: “That future son-in-law of mine has irked me somewhat last night in our drinking session and I wouldn’t want to see my daughter marry that scoundrel. What is the best way for me to go about it to get that dough back again? I shall take every step to frustrate this marriage, if only to get back my gift.”

Can you see the Pandora’s box, the wasp’s nest, of human irritation and dereliction that is involved in that particular section?

With that I can show the minister how weak his legislation is; and a thing is known by its weakest link.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I must admit I’m very grateful to have the opportunity of participating in this debate with the member for Lakeshore. I know that both the member for York South and I regard this as yet another opportunity to accumulate memorabilia from the member for Lakeshore --

Mr. MacDonald: You might even be quoted 10 years hence.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That’s right, for future dinners honouring our good friend, because certainly Hansard has been a great source for other occasions -- both of us thinking, of course, of a more recent one.

With respect to the age of marriage, I think the original proposal was to leave the age at 14. We had some discussion in the committee, but certainly I was of the view it should be increased to 16, the minimum age. While not pretending to be aware of the total history related to this section, obviously part of the history was related to the stigma of illegitimacy that often attached upon children who were born of parents under the age of 16 years. So it was thought, wisely or not, that rather than have a stigma of illegitimacy attached to a child, the parents therefore should marry to avoid that, even though they might be 14 or 15 years old.

In view of the fact that we are in the process of very wisely and sensibly removing this stigma of illegitimacy, in my respectful view it certainly removes much of the reason for recognizing marriages of people as young as 14 or 15 years old. It’s my respectful view again that this change to 16 is very much in the public interest. Surely, as the member for Lakeshore has reflected on the problem of marriage counselling, since many people undertake this very important step with perhaps not the appropriate counselling, it’s hard to imagine when it would be in the public interest to recognize marriages of children of 14 or 15 years old.

I gather from the member for Lakeshore’s remarks that it is suggested there should be something in the legislation providing for marriage counselling, which implies to me the possibility of some mandatory provision for marriage counselling prior to a marriage taking place. While we all recognize that people should not get married without some considerable deliberation, preparation or reflection, I think that to make this mandatory would amount to an encroachment in the life of the citizens of this community which perhaps could be intolerable. While I’m sure most of us support the idea of marriage counselling, or some form of counselling in advance of a marriage, particularly with young couples, I don’t believe that it should be a mandatory feature of any Marriage Act.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It should be sought and not imposed.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Precisely. It should be sought and not imposed.

Mr. Nixon: What a nice turn of phrase that is.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In section 20 we have attempted to recognize the legitimate wishes of groups such as the Quakers and the Baha’i religions. These groups specifically have been consulted in relation to this legislation, and the legislation is framed accordingly.

With respect to any other possible amendments of which the member for Lakeshore speaks in rather general terms, without specifying precisely what these amendments might be, all I can say at this time is that we would certainly be quite prepared to consider any amendments that would more effectively carry out the intent of the legislation. I would be quite happy to consult with the member for Lakeshore in that context.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole.



Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 65, An Act to amend the Surrogate Courts Act.

Mr. Lawlor: This is the Surrogate Courts Amendment Act, I take it. You take it. Anybody who wants it can have it. There are several things in this particular bill. Again, I am going to be asking to have it sent to committee, particularly with respect to section 4.

Mr. Nixon: It is going to postpone the inevitable, Pat. You are going to have to talk about it some time.

Mr. Lawlor: What I have to say at the moment is explosive in the extreme. That detailed inventory that you are seeking to abolish -- I have really severe misgivings about it. As the legislation reads, it seems it is going to give a lump sum -- in the papers filed in the surrogate court. But I am told that that’s not exactly accurate; as between movables and immovables there will be a breakdown in valuation.

I know that on many occasions, I have gone into the surrogate court office precisely in order to take a look at that inventory on behalf of heirs or on the part of people who are thinking of contesting an estate in one way or another. They, first of all, want to know whether it’s worthwhile; but they are very often asking about a specific item -- what was the farm machinery worth or what was that house at 22 Summerhill Road worth? If you are going to make a lump sum, we are not going to know what valuation was placed upon these particular items. I am not going to be particularly assertive about this. I would like to hear good reasons given as to why this particular step is being taken. I know that the judge of the county court, designated as the judge of the surrogate court, says that it’s effete, it’s archaic and not much value. But I just wonder if the practising bar and profession think that’s the case -- if they think that it is, on occasion, of very considerable value, indeed.

If you don’t get a detailed inventory from that court, you can write a letter to the executor, let’s say, or the administrator appointed by the court but you may not get a reply; and time to coerce the reply is an extremely difficult thing. They say, “Whatever is filed is filed and that’s all you are going to knew.” So I am rather willing to err on the direction of filing too much than filing too little, in this particular context.

Section 5 is quite beneficial with respect to the bonding provisions and so on. But in committee I think it deserves dwelling on for a few moments in order to clarify the use and range of a bond.

With that, Mr. Speaker, we accept the principle of the bill.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, before the minister is asked to reply, I wonder if he could clarify for me the provisions of this proposed amendment as it relates to the other statutes which are before us. For example, if an illegitimate child could come forward and claim at some time later in the process and looks to the heir or to the beneficiary of a certain specific gift for redress -- I think the Attorney General is aware of what I am addressing myself to -- would it not be appropriate that that kind of information should be in the court where one does one’s searches? Perhaps I have missed something in this, and it is only really a matter of clarification that I would like on that particular point, or how in the practice of the law one goes about advising such a beneficiary as to whom to look to for some of these things. I suppose in the will itself, it’s clear. But the question of the amounts and so on, and if some of it has been dissipated, is the kind of thing that is troublesome to me.

Mr. Stong: Briefly, and probably more by way of reiteration than anything else, I would echo the words of the member for Lakeshore. With respect to the value and the way the Act reads right now, it would seem to be a lump sum and probably no differentiation, where in fact it may be advisable to have some type of a minimum differentiation. Perhaps an amendment to that section would be forthcoming in third reading.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In ongoing consultation with the practising bar and the judiciary, it has been their view that the total inventory provisions are quite unsatisfactory, and again this is not a field in which I have had any practical experience. The existing inventory provisions are satisfactory in view of the fact that they do not provide the true nature of the assets, and that places an onus on a judge to satisfy himself or herself as to the valuation, without giving the judge the means to do so. For example, the present inventory doesn’t provide requirements, and fails to give any particulars of stocks and bonds. It doesn’t provide for insurance at all.

I understand there is a set of rules that has been developed by the surrogate court to provide a means whereby a surrogate court judge can obtain details where there is a legitimate request for these details. This is at present before the rules committee and will be available, hopefully, in the near future. It is hoped that these rules will provide a much better method of ascertaining what the true assets are. In so far as dealing with a child born outside of marriage, the will would be on file with the valuation. The rules, I am told, would permit any person entitled to compel disclosure from the executor. I think the rules will accomplish a lot of what appears to be the very understandable concerns of the members opposite.

Coming back to the evaluation section, I don’t know whether it is possible between now and third reading for committee of the whole House to consider a further amendment which might provide a more satisfactory method. In order to respond to the concern of the member for Lakeshore, we are quite prepared to consider this over the supper hour.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if I might consult with representatives of the other two parties with respect to Bill 61. I’d like to ascertain whether or not that bill is considered one that we want to include with the three to which we’ve just given second reading; to go into committee and to go right though for royal assent now, or whether it, along with Bill 59, is to be referred to standing committee.

If there’s no agreement on that, we could go into committee and do the committee work on the three we’ve carried and complete them, and then start the second reading debate on Bills 59 and 61. But there seemed to be some question as to whether Bill 61 was to go to the standing committee or to be treated in the same way as Bills 60, 62, and 65. Could I have some direction, Mr. Speaker; rather, some indication as to what the other two parties feel?

Mr. Roy: We have certain concerns. There are certain aspects of Bill 61 which we had some concern about, but of course if the Attorney General was prepared to go along with some of the suggested amendments it could go to committee of the whole. I don’t think it’s a specific matter in the bill, so that it may well be that we’re able to solve our problem and expedite the passage of this bill by going through the process of the other three that precede it in committee of the whole; but we will be having some amendments to propose on that one.

Mr. Lawlor: As far as I’m concerned, Mr. Speaker, it could be taken along with the last three bills. It could form a package as the fourth in that series and be taken into the committee of the whole House.


Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 61, An Act to reform the Law respecting the Status of Children.

Mr. Stong: One of the most profound concerns I suppose we have with respect to this bill arises out of section 10, the proposed section. It seems upon a reading of subsections 1 and 2 particularly, and then continuing on down with respect to the blood test. It would appear from that section that a very basic principle underlying our law is breached. By including that section in this bill we would seem to be jeopardizing the rights of an individual -- the right, for instance, of freedom from interference.

What I’m concerned about, basically, is that section 10 would seem, as I understand it, to call upon a court to make an order, upon application by a given individual with respect to the determination of the parentage of a child, that determination being based upon the results of a blood test. As I understand the situation to be with respect to the medical profession and medical science, the results of a blood test are certainly not conclusive, by any stretch of the imagination, in determining the parentage of an individual. One thing they do give assistance with is the finding that a person is not the parent.

If the section remains in this Act, as I read it -- “upon the application of a party in a civil proceeding, such a blood test may be ordered” -- if that blood test is ordered, then subsection (4) comes in and it’s dealt with upon its application to certain people as set out. But if a person refuses a blood test, then the court, by virtue of the operation of section 10(2), may draw an inference “as it thinks fit.”


To me, that reads the same as giving the court permission to draw an adverse conclusion, which would seem to me to be giving the court the power and the authority and the jurisdiction by virtue of an inference that cannot be drawn from scientific or medical methods. In my respectful submission, through Mr. Speaker to the minister, why should the court be given powers to be drawn from a mere inference that it could not draw from more conclusive evidence if such evidence were available, namely a blood test? So what we are really saying is, a blood test is not conclusive of proof of parentage, but if you refuse to take that blood test I can draw the conclusion from that that you are the parent by virtue of the fact that you refuse. A court can draw an adverse conclusion from a situation that it could not otherwise draw a positive conclusion from.

In my respectful submission, that is such a breach of right that it goes right to the gravamen, right to the substantive effect of this Act, right to the principle, and breaches the principle of the individual’s right to protect his own freedom. In that sense it would seem to me that this bill in that particular section should fail on its principle.

Mr. Lawlor: I have, Mr. Speaker, some misgivings about my friend the member for York Centre’s position on this. If one refuses to give a blood test it says the court may draw such inference as it thinks fit. It is going to do so anyhow. If a guy says, “No I am not prepared to give a blood test,” et cetera, some judges will place greater weight upon it. Some of them will ignore it.

After all, a child has been brought into the world and there are probably some other surrounding collateral circumstances pointing towards this particular person as having been responsible, and in order to escape that area of responsibility, apart from any of the numerous other things he may seek to do, such as taking off for Alaska, he may refuse a blood test. Nobody pretends the blood test is conclusive in the legislation as such, and the whole basis of the presumptions are set upon the basis of the balance of probabilities.

By the way, I want to thank the ministry staff and the Attorney General for giving us, on several occasions within the past few days, background papers. Last Friday afternoon we received this one, called a compendium of background information relating to the Children’s Law Reform Act, where it goes into a quite erudite discussion of the nature of presumption generally in the law of evidence and of the particular presumptions involved in the legitimacy of children. Of course on the basic presumption as to legitimacy, a child born in lawful wedlock is presumed; and here it weighs the various levels of the presumption as to say probability, certainty, conclusively presumed, all that sort of thing. I find it not just aesthetically delightful, from the point of view of returning to my law school days, but actually having real substantive merit in the context of this particular debate. Anyhow, we will come to it with greater penetration in committee.

I want to read into the record an historic section. When I read it I think of Thomas Hardy and Jude the Obscure, I think of half the plays of William Shakespeare, and I think of all the aeons of western history and that sometimes handsome, but usually hulky lad who is the second son, the illegitimate one, who did all the work on the farm and who got none of the bloody recognition and who is treated like some form of coolie throughout all human history.

I want to read of the historic abolition of the coolie, if I may: Section 1(4), “Any distinction at common law” -- common law is a pretty cruel business all the way through; incredible the insouciance of the English -- “between the status of children born in wedlock and born out of wedlock is abolished, and the relationship of parent and child and kindred relationships flowing therefrom shall be determined for the purposes of the common law in accordance with this section.”

Bless the year, jubilee 1977, that we have finally come to that. There isn’t much further substance to the legislation. As far as I am concerned that’s substance enough and we may have further discussion on it.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in our discussion of Bill 61 in caucus we quickly came to a consensus that the comments made by my colleague the member for York Centre is something that was arrived at; and we were pretty unanimous on that, we have serious doubts about it.

Generally speaking, we agree with the fact that the legislation removes any distinction in law between legitimate and illegitimate children. We agree with most of the principles all the way down which deal with the question of the establishment of parentage; the maternity is generally ascertainable through statistics, records and things of this nature. Generally speaking, as far as the legislation is concerned, that’s fine.

But then we proceed along to the point that has been made by my colleague and we arrive at section 10: First of all, section 10 allows one to make an application in a civil proceeding to obtain a blood test from certain individuals. We have to be careful we don’t start eroding away what I consider to be basic principles of our justice. The first basic principle is the right against self-incrimination. That’s a principle which dates back centuries.

We have made exceptions to that basic principle. I suppose the major encroachment on that basic principle against self-incrimination was the forcing of individuals to take breathalyser tests. You recall the fuss that was caused over that. In fact you were forcing people into situations where they had to co-operate; they were obliged to undergo a breathalyser test, and of course that evidence then was used against them.

So that’s the first thing we had some serious concerns about, that we don’t go ahead with this in a cavalier fashion. We appreciate that it is in the public interest that in a paternity suit the establishment of the father -- I suppose mostly it will apply to the father -- is a situation which is in the public interest and that that should be determined in the most efficient and effective way possible.

But is that a principle which should allow us as a Legislature to say, in the process of doing that, that we feel that this is an important enough principle and of sufficient concern to the community of this province that we should say, “Yes, we will go a step further and we will say the right against self-incrimination will be encroached in this case and you will be forced into a situation where you will have to give a blood test.”

So that is the first thing. I appreciate that this law is not like the breathalyser law which says, “If you don’t take a test then you are guilty of a particular offence.” The consequences in fact are as bad, because even in the breathalyser legislation a court can draw an inference from one who refuses to take a breathalyser test. But the inference that the court can draw is at least consistent with the breathalyser test which will show if you are in fact over .08 in blood alcohol level, whereas in this particular case it permits the court to draw an inference which, as my colleague has said could not be made scientifically. Experts could not draw an inference, for instance, from this blood test, that this individual is obviously the father of the child, but it gives permission to the court to do that. I hope that the Attorney General looks at this, because in committee of the whole we’ll be certainly proposing an amendment to this particular section.

We’re in favour of the principle of the bill; but I think those of us who are concerned about encroachment on the rights of certain individuals, or individuals generally in this province, have to be concerned that in a sort of a quiet way -- and I shouldn’t say surreptitious, but in a way that goes somewhat unnoticed, that again we trample on a basic principle.

I think that the comments of my colleague the member for York Centre on this legislation are very proper and I would hope from the comments of the Attorney General that he would allay our concerns about this. Maybe there is some explanation on this that we haven’t seen down the way, but on the basic premise that we find that that is an offensive approach in this particular section and subsection when it allows the court to make such inference as it thinks appropriate, we think that that is going too far. We don’t think that we can support a section that would say that.

As I say, we support the principle of the bill, and hopefully the Attorney General will agree with us, or will give us an explanation.

Mrs. Campbell: I would just like to draw some other factors to the attention of the Attorney General. In the first place the member for Lakeshore has stated that there would be a body of evidence before a judge presumably before he or she would give leave. I wonder where we reach that conclusion, since in section 10(1), it seems to me it’s contemplated that a judge may give an order against a number of persons to give leave to obtain blood tests from a number of people.

Perhaps if at least in the legislation it were indicated, as the member for Lakeshore has presumed, that at least at some point there has to be some evidence before this could proceed that might at least go somewhat to alleviating some of the concerns.

The other thing I would like to point out is that where in subsection 3 it is spelled out that one may draw such inferences, as the member for Lakeshore has stated it is unquestioned that judges do draw inferences from all sorts of evidence in such cases. What would occur to me is that if a person refused the inference would be adverse, in all likelihood, but if they consented would that automatically be an inference in the other direction?

It does seem to me that this particular section ought to be looked at again, unless the Attorney General can give us some sort of assistance. Obviously there is a crying need to try to resolve the problem of the conclusions of the parentage of a child, and it is in the best interests of a child, it seems to me, if one can move to that kind of conclusion. But where a blood test simply rules out those who could not be parents, I am of the opinion that we ought to look very closely at this section for those various reasons.


Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of comments I could make about this bill but I just wanted to reiterate what my two colleagues have said. It seems to me, not being a lawyer, but from looking at it from the common sense point of view, that in fact --

Mr. Roy: Practical.

Mr. Reid: Yes. Really, in fact the blood test, as has been pointed out, does not prove paternity. It can only prove that one is not the father. Some of us are more concerned about these matters, no doubt, than others but --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I can see where the concerns are settled.

Mr. Reid: Yes. It seems to me rather strange really that this section --

Hon. Mr. Welch: How liberal is that bill?

Mr. Mancini: It took us 2,000 years to get this.

Mr. Reid: -- should even be in the bill. My colleague from Ottawa East has referred to the breathalyser, but there’s a different twist to this section in the bill in that it doesn’t prove something conclusively -- it proves only that something is not. I believe there are a number of different blood types but there are only two or three major blood types that most people fall into.

Mr. Foulds: Hot and cold.

Mr. Reid: The others are somewhat rare and exotic perhaps. It seems to me that this section of the bill is contradictory to natural justice. I presume the Attorney General is going to address himself to why this particular section is in the bill.

Mr. Lawlor: Natural justice now. My God.

Mr. Reid: It is if you’re up on a paternity charge.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this issue was quite exhaustively reviewed by law reform commissions in Canada, the United States, Great Britain and Australia, for example, and it’s interesting to see what the result was. In the United States, in virtually every jurisdiction I am advised, there is compulsory testing. The Ontario Law Reform Commission and the British Law Commission reviewed the matter exhaustively and stated that it should be a matter of consent. But again, the legislation reflects their recommendations that it is a matter that the court can take into consideration.

These law commissions and law reform commissions considered the issue of individual rights very exhaustively, and of course they realize that this could hardly be regarded as self-incrimination in the sense as advanced by the member for Ottawa East, because it is not conclusive. It can only prove a negative. But having considered this matter very carefully, the law commissions in all these areas -- and I think in Australia it’s also compulsory -- considered the fact that it was a matter that could be of assistance to the court in certain circumstances and that the right of the child -- and I know that the rights of children are a paramount concern, particularly with respect to the member for St. George.

Having had the benefit of the wisdom of all these law reform commissions which, as I say, only split on the issue as to whether it should be compulsory or not compulsory, as reflected in our legislation, it was felt that although in many cases it would be obviously of no assistance to the court for the reasons advanced by the members opposite, there are a sufficient number of cases, they thought, where an inference could be drawn, that it could assist the court in arriving at the justice of the cause. It was therefore recommended by these commissions that legislation be drafted accordingly.

I would, therefore, ask the members opposite to consider the fact that this is a matter that was not so lightly arrived at. Very credible commissions about the English-speaking world, as I say, have entered into the very exhaustive review about which I’ve just spoken. They have indicated that on balance it is really not a significant intrusion on the rights of the individual because, as I say, it can’t prove conclusively that a person is the father, but it is of assistance and the rights of children require that the court receive every possible assistance in the individual case.

As you know, under the existing law blood tests are admissible in evidence in affiliation proceedings on consent. We are not changing the law in that respect as consent would still be required. What we’re simply saying is that if a person does consent, in certain cases it would be of assistance to the court. Again, in assisting the court to arrive at a just result it is in the interests of the child anti therefore in the interests of the community. I would therefore respectfully invite the members opposite, the official opposition, to reconsider their concerns in the light of what I have just said.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole.


Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might just interrupt the order of things for a moment and have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions. There’s to be a substitution for a committee meeting tomorrow morning and this might be the appropriate time to accommodate that.

Mr. Breithaupt: Great.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there a unanimous consent?


Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. Lawlor be substituted for Ms. Gigantes on the select committee on the Ombudsman.

Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, now that we have second reading of Bills 60, 61, 62 and 65 it’s felt there may be some advantage, before going into the committee consideration of these bills, that opposition members who have raised some points for clarification in amendment get together with the Attorney General at 6 and discuss those points so that his staff can give them some thought during the supper time and perhaps facilitate the consideration of these bills at the committee stage at 8 o’clock.

We might then start the second reading debate of Bill 59, interrupt it after supper until such time as we do the committee work on the other bills and then resume the second reading debate of Bill 59 in order to provide some time for people to discuss their concerns with respect to the four bills just carried. If that would be in order then we can proceed.

Mr. Breithaupt: Might I suggest that if it is felt that it would be more convenient to give additional time, it might be just as convenient to call it 6 of the clock in order to allow an extra half hour or so to resolve, perhaps, some of those concerns.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We have a lot of work to do. Twenty minutes is not sufficient.

Mr. Breithaupt: Fine. It was just a suggestion.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Then the Attorney General will be pleased to meet with members who want to consider amendments at 6 o’clock. I really think he should have some notice about planned amendments because we would normally have them on Friday for today.

Since we’re trying to accommodate the general wish of the House to proceed with these four bills, it would be in order, perhaps, to make sure that the Attorney General has some notice of what the members plan to do with these four bills in committee so that his staff can give some consideration, rather than have the House caught somewhat by surprise tonight in so far as the wording of these amendments is concerned.


Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 59, An Act to reform the Law respecting Property Rights and Support Obligations between Married Persons and in other Family Relationships.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, Mr. Speaker. A great deal has been said about this legislation. We’ve discussed it fairly exhaustively in committee and I don’t think it would be of any assistance for me to say anything more at this time. Of course it will be going back to standing committee.

Mr. Roy: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker. We have gone through second reading of this. Many of us have made relatively lengthy comments at that time. I would only just briefly mention a few of the matters that I find of interest in the new Bill 59.

First of all you will notice that we are now facing a preamble to Bill 59. I am told by the Attorney General that the reason for the preamble in the bill is that there was a feeling out there in the community that the bill was viewed as something that was more negative than positive. In other words, it was some sort of a mechanical thing to fix up a situation which had broken down and the Attorney General felt that there were some positive aspects to the legislation which could be expounded appropriately through a preamble.

So the preamble was inserted and in some measure it is in keeping with the major principles of the bill. First of all it says it’s going to strengthen the role of the family in society. But as I go down the preamble, I am still concerned about one aspect that I mentioned on second reading. It is that when the preamble talks about the recognition that marriage is a form of partnership and then the legislation goes on to talk about how we are going to in some ways legitimize or give legal sanction to common law unions, I can see some contradiction there between what is recited in the preamble and what we actually do in the legislation.

While I am on that topic, I had reservations at the time that we discussed in second reading this whole common law relationship thing. It has been changed now from three to five years. There has been some other flak on it, some of it which apparently was pretty sharp towards the Attorney General. Now we are involved in the common law relationship where there can be contracts now in some ways which can control or can at least give both partners some status within the common law relationship.

I don’t know. I still have reservations, and somehow I have some difficulty in expressing this concern about the question of common law relationships. We are into a situation where we say: “Yes, we believe in the family. Yes, we think that the way to control the family or the best setup for the family or the institution of the family is through a form of marriage.” That’s what society, or at least society here in Ontario and most societies throughout the world, are built on -- on that particular unit.

The reason that people were going in the direction of common law relationships was that in some measure they wanted to avoid the law dealing with marriages. They wanted to avoid the rights and responsibilities and so on. Again we are into a situation where giving it legal sanction -- apart from children I mean -- the courts from a jurisdictional point of view have always recognized the responsibilities of the parents whether it was in a common law relationship or otherwise.

But when you get apart from the children and get into a situation where they can enter into marriage contracts, where after living together five years there may be certain rights and responsibilities, I still have some reservation about that aspect of it -- whether we shouldn’t have just left that alone, except for dealing with children.

We will be hearing some more submissions on this bill because it is going before committee.


The other aspect, since the bill has gone to committee and many of us have sat a long time listening to submissions from all sorts of groups on the legislation, is that the major concerns that were raised at the committee from various groups were first of all the question of family assets.

A lot of groups felt that the definition of family assets was far too restrictive. Some groups suggested that it was going too far. I can recall some of the submissions saying it was going too far, whereas some groups, especially women’s groups, were suggesting it wasn’t going far enough, that it should include all assets accumulated during the period of cohabitation. I can see that causing all sorts of problems.

As I tried to explain to some of the groups that were before us at the committee level, if we tried to be too all-encompassing with this, we would end up in a situation where we would drive the chiselling husband, as they used to call him, the person who was trying to get away from his responsibilities, into a marriage contract situation. There are going to be more and more marriage contracts. They are just going to contract out of their responsibilities. I am suggesting basically that that definition, unless convincing is done in a more effective way than it was done in the past, is relatively adequate for the circumstances.

The other major complaint by many groups appearing before the committee is that there is far too much discretion in this legislation left with the courts and the presiding judge. Again, we tried to explain that when one is dealing with a human relationship, with human beings, there are no two situations alike. It is very difficult to specify and to cover all bases on this type of legislation. It is very difficult to cover all possible permutations and combinations that may well happen in a marriage relationship. In the process of doing it, every time you want to cover it, you are going to miss something. So for those of us -- and I say this humbly, as one who has worked in that field in the family law section -- it is always important that there be some discretion because no two situations are alike. It seems to me that, as much as some people have reservations and as much as I would like to see much more specific legislation, it’s impossible to do justice to this whole family law situation by being more specific or by taking more discretion from the court.

The other great complaint in submissions made before the committee was the question on support obligations that the conduct of the applicant was a factor. Again, that is not the type of thing you can remove or just leave in the way it was before. There have been some changes. It is going to be interesting to hear submissions before the committee as to what people consider to be gross misconduct. I think repudiating the relationship is defined as gross misconduct. It is going to be interesting to see what couples or what applicants or what people in 1977 Ontario society consider to be gross relationships. I suppose that a whole system of jurisprudence will develop to determine what in fact is conduct on the part of the parties amounting to this type of gross misconduct.

As an example, some years ago I think the Highway Traffic Act was amended to say that a passenger could claim against the driver of a motor vehicle if he could prove that he was grossly negligent. It is very interesting to look at the case law and the jurisprudence that have evolved from that. Determining or defining what is gross relationship, I tell you is not easy. I suppose it would be even more interesting in the question of a marriage relationship.

Again, for those who said we should have it out completely, that the question of conduct should not be a factor at all, circumstances were given by many of us who had had practical experience in this field indicating that it was not quite that easy. Human relations are such that it is very difficult to tell one party or the other in a marriage that sometimes conduct, which can be conduct that can only be termed gross, if you will, should not be considered a factor in the determination of support.

In looking at this and sitting on the committee when we get some more submissions, I can recall our colleague who is not with us from Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) during the discussions before the committee had given some examples where not just conduct but other factors should be taken into account on the question of support and the amount of support that should be awarded by the court. So we look forward to having this bill go before committee again. We look forward to quick passage, because this is another piece of legislation which the law profession and people in this province have been waiting for for quite some time. Any delay again could certainly not be left on the shoulders of the opposition.

I look at one of the little pieces of paper that was in this red book, Family Law Reform -- I think the minister said he’s handed out 40,000 of these, which gives you an idea of the amount of interest in this. It states in here, “It is now planned to have the new legislation in force by September 1, 1977.”

As I recall it, the minister’s first date was sometime in 1976-77. So it looks as though we’re going to see this legislation, hopefully -- I would think the date now would be the summer of 1978.

Mr. Foulds: March.

Mr. Roy: March? March 1978. In any event, we just want to say that I think we on this side have co-operated in every way possible in being responsible in studying the legislation. I don’t think we’ve done anything in any way to delay the passage of this legislation -- and I say it again because there was some implication on the part of the Attorney General that there was some impatience out there about the passage of this legislation.

If there is, I think we’ve done everything possible to see the expedition of this type of legislation and we’ll continue to do so and take the responsible approach towards a problem that’s as important as this one.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, we only have a few moments left, so I’ll regale you. Then we’ll go off and have a gourmet dinner, I suppose, at the local restaurant downstairs.

This is Hesketh Pearson’s book on Bernard Shaw and in preamble, since preambles are all around us at this moment, I will say I have never spoken in second reading on this legislation and so I will probably take a little longer than anybody can possibly bear.

“Like Peel, she” -- “she” being a person by the name of Annie Besant, known to everyone in this assembly, intimately, as Madame Blavatsky, the great theorist and theosophist in Britain; she had a rather close alliance with Bernard. “Like Peel, she had no small talk. Like Bradlaugh, she was a wonder on the platform and in private life nothing.” How many people are like that?

Mr. Reid: Most of us and the Ombudsman.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s usually the reverse.

Mr. Reid: Not referring to you.

Mr. Lawlor: In private life they’re stupendous, but on the public platform -- God help us all.

Mr. Reid: That’s what I was referring to, not you personally.

Mr. Lawlor: “Bradlaugh in private life was a bore when his monologue lost its novelty (Shaw declares that the only men he ever met who were totally incapable of conversation were Bradlaugh and Charles Dilke); but Mrs. Besant was not even a bore: She was either a great priestess or she was nothing.

“Nothing was just what happened between the piano duets” -- they used to do duets together -- “and these were terrible. At last she found herself waiting” --

Mr. Reid: In relation to the bill.

Mr. Lawlor: “At last she found herself waiting for him in the evenings, and waiting in vain. But Annie was not a woman to be neglected or trifled with.” Shaw insisted on their relations being put in order. “As her husband was alive and she could not marry, she drew up a contract setting forth the terms on which they were to live together as man and wife and presented it to him for signature. He read it. ‘Good God!’ he exclaimed, ‘this is worse than all the vows of all the churches on earth. I had rather be legally married to you 10 times over.’” And he refused to sign it.

That’s what we face with the marriage contract legislation? The prospect of these innovations quite tortures my conservative soul. Imagine launching out into that void. Now the legal profession will thank you. And with a plenitude -- even plethora -- of young students emerging on to the market, we do have to find work for them to do, don’t we? But that is really not in your domain. That is really the realm of the fellow up behind you -- Harry Parrott.

Mr. Breithaupt: Especially when we are cutting down automobile accidents.

Mr. Lawlor: That is his responsibility. Well, the legislation has been around for a long time. I have almost come to believe that it is in effect, advising everybody on that belief. There is a certain time when that needle keeps on working and erodes the record. Well, my particular record has now adapted to the whole thing, so much so that my colleagues can tell you that I am almost convinced that there is some merit in the legislation.

You had four approaches to the legislation. You had full community property; you had third community property; you had a British judicial discretion approach; and you had what we have before us. But you took what you have and not the other things. You ignored your own law reform commission in order to bring it into being. Subsequently, the Manitoba legislation has come through.

Why the devil don’t you get your legislation through a little earlier so that we wouldn’t be embarrassed to have been sporting this wretched piece of legislation when we see how resplendent, how full of wisdom and light the Manitoba legislation is? How could they ever get rid of a government that enlightened? They divided between full community on one side and, with respect to commercial assets as such, into a deferred community concept. We will all come to it. We will come to a full community concept within -- as Betty Friedan might say -- five and three quarter years. You might even be in office. Do you think that you will have brains enough to do it? We might even be in office. Do you think that we will?

Mr. Breithaupt: No -- on both points.

Mr. Lawlor: In any event the Conservatives aren’t likely to -- as things stand. This is rather warped and weird and we would rather not support the legislation. But we know it would be impolitic in the extreme for us not to do so. After all being impolitic in politics is a contradiction in terms. And we wouldn’t possibly want to consistently contradict ourselves.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Why?

Mr. Breithaupt: Why stop now?

Mr. Lawlor: So we peacefully go along towards our dinner break.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member might find this a convenient spot to break his remarks?

Mr. Lawlor: I’d find any spot convenient.

Mr. Breithaupt: So would we all, Mr. Speaker.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.