role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 20, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L037 - Tue 20 Apr 1976 / Mar 20 avr 1976

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PCV ACT

YOUTH AND ALCOHOL REPORT

PRIVATE LABORATORIES

YOUTH AND ALCOHOL REPORT

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO ROUTE

SCIENTOLOGY AND MENTAL HEALTH

ASBESTOS PROBLEM AT HEDMAN MINES LTD.

MEDICAL INFORMATION BUREAU

SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDS FOR EDUCATION GRANTS

GAINS CONFERENCE

BROWNDALE OPERATIONS

PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

LUNG RESEARCH ON STEELWORKERS

PROTECTION FOR WOMEN OF CHILD-BEARING AGE

TAX REBATE ON CONDOMINIUMS

OMERS

PENSIONS FOR FORMER MPPS ON GOVERNMENT BOARDS

SELF-SERVE GASOLINE STATIONS

ALLEGED KICKBACKS TO FOOD PROCESSERS

DREE FUNDS FOR KIMBERLY-CLARK PROJECT

CHEDOKE HOSPITAL

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

DEAD ANIMAL DISPOSAL AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

PUBLIC UTILITIES AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

DEAD ANIMAL DISPOSAL AMENDMENT ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PCV ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow: Various members of the general public, the Legislature, the highway transport industry, the shipping public and the news media have raised many questions over the operation of the public commercial vehicles system, specifically as such operations concern the Public Commercial Vehicles Act. No satisfactory overall response has been developed or offered to address the criticisms which have been directed at the system

As the members are aware, Bill 4 was

an Act to amend the PCV Act and intended to focus on certain specific problems in this area. This bill was introduced on March 10. The Legislature has referred the bill to the standing committee on resources development.

Since that time, I have recommended to cabinet that the House appoint a select committee to fully examine the regulations and principles --

Mr. S. Smith: That’s what we said.

Mr. Reid: That’s what we told you to do.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- which govern the transportation of goods on Ontario highways. The government has agreed.

Mr. Roy: Who is running this province, eh?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Thus the House will be asked to establish at an early date such a select committee to investigate and make recommendations on the regulatory system governing for-hire trucking in this province.

Recommendations from this select committee could yield extremely valuable insights into the regulatory process. Public concerns could be allayed where they are unfounded. Should any adjustment to the present system be desirable, such recommendations would stem from this impartial group. This, I’m sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, will provide a sound basis for future policy-making.

At this time, I would also like to request that the proposed select committee produce, if possible, an interim report by no later than Sept. 30 and a final report by the end of the calendar year. I should like to add that if any of the interim report recommendations are strong enough, the government is certainly prepared to react to them as quickly as possible -- and I’m referring to the fall session. To this end, I would also like to request, with the agreement of the House, that the standing committee return Bill 4 to the House so that it may stand on the order paper until the select committee has reported.

YOUTH AND ALCOHOL REPORT

Hon. Mrs. Birch: At the end of the question period, I will be tabling a report on alcohol and youth which was requested by the Premier (Mr. Davis). The report was compiled by my parliamentary assistant following a series of meetings across the province.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

PRIVATE LABORATORIES

Mr. Lewis: Could I begin, Mr. Speaker, by directing a question to the Attorney General? How is it that such a large number of doctors -- I believe there are eight in total -- are now before the discipline committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, under explicit investigation for possible conflict of interest or related matters of abuse arising from investigation into private labs, and there are no equivalent or coincident activities before the courts? Must one await the other or has the Attorney General decided, on the basis of the evidence, that no charges are to be laid?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, no, there’s no reason why, to put it in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, that one must necessarily await the other. If we have evidence or if there is evidence of a breach of the Criminal Code, charges will be laid. I think it’s safe to say that to date there has been no such evidence or no such evidence has been made available to my ministry. But at the same time I should stress there are investigations pending and if we reach the stage where there is sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution, prosecutions in fact will proceed.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, it doesn’t follow then, if certain of the doctors are found in violation of medical ethics or practice by the discipline committee and are fined or have their licences revoked, that it means violation of the Criminal Code has taken place? They must be approached quite separately?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That’s correct, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ziemba: Supplementary: Could the Attorney General tell us how the College of Physicians and Surgeons is going to come up with this evidence if it is not really looking very hard for witnesses?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I’m not in a position to speak or comment on what is being done or is not being done by the College of Physicians; it’s not a matter that really falls within my jurisdiction.

Mr. Singer: As long as they don’t play at Maple Leaf Gardens.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: Could I ask the Attorney General whether he has anyone sitting in on these hearings, which are conducted in private, to see what does develop out of the material that is advanced?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Well, we’ve always requested professional disciplinary bodies to make known to us any information that would warrant the laying of a criminal charge. We can’t be assured that in fact this always does occur but that is the position we adopt. But I know of no practical way, legislatively or otherwise, to force them to communicate with us on each and every occasion which might well warrant such a communication.

Mr. Lewis: If I may, Mr. Speaker, one last supplementary: I take it from the Attorney General’s answer -- perhaps he can confirm it -- that in fact he has investigated the problems which arose from the relationship between the doctors and Abko Lab and, on the basis of the police investigation thus far, he sees no grounds for laying any charges, no violation of the Criminal Code?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition must be aware that one doctor has been charged already in relation to the Abko Lab matter, as a principal of Abko Lab. There are continuing investigations and, as I have already said, if there is sufficient evidence to warrant the laying of charges against any other doctor, such charges will be proceeded with.

YOUTH AND ALCOHOL REPORT

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Can she provide us with any more detail of the government’s intention or further opinions of the report which her assistant has produced for the government and the public? Is there one area or another on the alcohol report which the government intends to zero in on?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the report has not yet had consideration by my cabinet colleagues in any real detail, but I do understand that the House leaders have agreed there may be an opportunity for debate in the House on the whole issue.

Mr. Lewis: The government wants to have a debate? Then let it introduce legislation; we will debate it.

May I ask, as a supplementary, can the provincial secretary explain why the report was so generous and tender when it came to dealing with the industry’s obligation, either by way of funding a public education programme or by way of giving the government additional revenue to do precisely that?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, Mr. Speaker. As I say, we haven’t had the opportunity to really review all of the recommendations. The hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones) just submitted his report over a week ago.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: In view of the answer given by the provincial secretary about a public debate on this report, would she advise whether we will be supplied with the report of the policy division of Management Board, which proposed policies for the cabinet back in 1970? In fact, one of the first recommendations of this report is that this is one of the options that should be considered. Will the provincial secretary make that report public and will we have a chance to see the various options available before we debate it publicly?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, as I recall those reports prepared by the Management Board secretariat, they really had to do with theoretical administrative policies for the LCBO. I am not prepared to say that they will be tabled, but that was really the essence of those reports.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, if I may: If the government wants to give some weight to this report and feels we should consider this first recommendation, does she not feel that we should at least see what these policy proposals are before we debate them publicly?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, I am not prepared at this time to say that they will be tabled. Those were reports that were done by Management Board for consideration of cabinet.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary; the member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Perhaps my colleague and I are speaking about the same thing. Is there something called a red book report, which the provincial secretary received from, I believe, the Addiction Research Foundation on this very question about the same time, and will that be made available to us?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any report or so-called red book; no, I am not aware of that report at all.

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO ROUTE

Mr. Lewis: If I may, a question of the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. Could the Attorney General look into the opinions expressed by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) in this Legislature around the Georgetown-Bradley consider to see whether in fact they have not entirely prejudiced the expropriation hearings, which are to take place in June of this year, and where an inquiry officer is to find whether the expropriation is fair, sound and reasonably necessary, whether, therefore, the opinions expressed by the Minister of Energy in the determined taking of the land have prejudiced that inquiry? Could he do that?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such statements made by the minister that would prejudice such an inquiry. If the Leader of the Opposition would like to give me details of those statements, I would be happy to discuss them with the Minister of Energy because I’m absolutely confident that he would not want to make any statement that would prejudice or interfere with the fairness of such proceedings.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, he may not have wished to do that, but does the Attorney General know that the legal counsel for the Grey-Bruce and Wellington county associations, largely farmers, has now written to the Ombudsman suggesting that the Minister of Energy should be removed from his portfolio because of the prejudice done to the hearings by such explicit undertakings from government in advance of the inquiry? Can he perhaps look at the implications of what the minister has said in the light of the hearings which are yet to be held?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have no such information. As I say, I don’t think I have anything to add to my previous answer in relation to the position that may or may not have been adopted by the minister in this matter.

SCIENTOLOGY AND MENTAL HEALTH

Mr. Lewis: I have a final question for the acting Minister of Health, if I may. I don’t quite know how to phrase it but I’ll put it to her.

In the light of the story which appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning, the difficult case of the young mentally ill girl who was involved with Scientology, and since there is a kind of rhythmic repetition of the Scientology relationship to the mental health field, often I think with difficulty, has it occurred to the minister or to her ministry to take a look at this Scientology outfit and see exactly how bona fide are the activities in the mental health field which it undertakes and what some of the consequences may be?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that, in fact, a special committee on the healing arts did investigate Scientology at the time that it was developing its report -- which was finally tabled, I believe, in 1967-1968.

Mr. Reid: They weren’t complimentary either.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The special committee made some statements regarding Scientology which I believe are probably still valid. I think there has not been a farther investigation of this specific activity related to mental health except for an action which was brought by the Church of Scientology, which I gather has not as yet passed completely through the court mechanism. Whether it ever will or not I can’t say, but it certainly is something which is of concern to me.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, can I encourage the minister, in her capacity as the acting minister, to discuss with cabinet colleagues the possibility -- I don’t want to overdo it because I don’t think the activity of any group should be prejudiced -- of taking a look at the more worrisome aspect of Scientology’s involvement with mental health, which has caused intermittent concern for the profession and for many of us who watch it? Can I suggest that?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes.

ASBESTOS PROBLEM AT HEDMAN MINES LTD.

Mr. Lewis: Before I sit down, is the minister still in the process of getting me a reply to my letter of March 4 concerning Hedman Mines?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, we have not as yet received the final reports on the tests which were carried out. When we receive those, the member will have the reply.

MEDICAL INFORMATION BUREAU

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, regarding the medical insurance bureau: Will the minister please outline to this House under what circumstances an individual has the right to know what is stored in his record at the medical insurance bureau, which computer is in Boston, Mass., and which furnishes information to all insurance companies here? Does the protection offered by the Consumer Reporting Act,

section 7, apply to persons whose medical history is on file in a foreign country?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to the Medical Information Bureau rather than the medical insurance bureau. The Medical Information Bureau is a computer data bank which is located outside of Canada, containing medical information compiled on a number of insurance applications with the consent of the insured. Any person who wishes to obtain the information which is stored in that data bank with relation to himself may obtain it.

No, the provisions of the Act do not pertain to companies outside Canada. However, the company has agreed to comply with all the conditions of the Consumer Reporting Act on request from anybody in Canada.

Mr. S. Smith: If I might just ask a supplementary question. I thank him for correcting the name; he is quite right. Could the minister explain exactly how an individual who suspects that there is some error in the information on file about him in Boston goes about getting the information corrected, because I have heard from some people who were refused such information?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that he would go about it in the same way as he would under the Credit Reporting Act -- that is, by writing to the company which has the information and preferably talking to my ministry so that we can follow up and ensure a response.

Mr. Reid: I would just like to ask the minister if he has considered my private member’s bill of last session, which will be reintroduced, which will restrict the transmission of information stored in computers in Ontario to persons outside of the country? Does he not think that is a valid principle?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a valid principle, bearing in mind the consideration of cost benefits. I think we would have to ensure that the cost of storing information separately in Canada was not loaded onto the premium payers in Canada.

SUPPLEMENTARY FUNDS FOR EDUCATION GRANTS

Mr. S. Smith: To the Minister of Education: Could he please explain why the government did not bring in supplementary estimates for education, and instead passed two Management Board orders -- one on Jan. 6 for $57.4 million and another on March 16, when the House was in session, for $19 million -- for a total of around $77 million to make up for an insufficiency of general legislative grants money?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should rightly be directed the Chairman of the Management Board. We present to Management Board exactly, what the financial situation is in the Ministry of Education, and how that is then to be handled after that I think depends upon --

Mr. Lewis: On you and your board.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- the Management Board and cabinet decision. I think I would be quite happy to explain exactly what the money was needed for. I am sure that neither the member nor the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) would disagree with the need for that money. In fact, the grant system, as the member knows, to all intents and purposes -- at least to a large degree -- is an open-ended programme and it is impossible really to predict exactly what the final figure will be until all the school board estimates are in. As the year progressed, those estimates came in. Based on the supplemental figure that was announced in April, it revised the 1975 grant ceiling and we needed the extra money.

Mr. S. Smith: May I redirect the question then, Mr. Speaker, to the Chairman of the Management Board, who has arrived on the scene? I asked the question: Could he explain why the government did not bring in supplementary estimates with regard to education? Instead, it passed two Management Board orders. There was one on Jan. 6 for $57.4 million and another on March 16, when the House was sitting, for $19 million -- a total of $77 million.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could start off by saying that in terms of the total budget it is a relatively insignificant figure, a relatively small proportion.

Mr. Singer: That is a great answer.

Mr. Shore: It is more than $450,000.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: What’s $77 million?

Hon. Mr. Auld: It is a lot of money; but in terms of $12 billion, it is a small percentage.

Mr. Singer: What’s $77 million?

Mr. Mancini: What’s $77 million?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The policy regarding supplementary estimates has varied from year to year. Sometimes there have been significant supplementary estimates passed, other times there have not. I suppose one of the problems in doing supplementary estimates is the amount of administrative detail and paper work that is involved in presenting them.

Mr. Reid: What about responsibility?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The only thing I can say is, it was decided by the government not to bring in further supplementary estimates shortly before the budget --

Mr. Singer: The Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) would have had to reflect it in his deficit, eh? Or his cash requirement?

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- after the supplementary estimates that were brought in late last year.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Does the minister not agree that instead of using estimates, these Management Board orders have the effect of hiding from the House additional expenditures until such time as the Auditor makes his report? Is he aware that between 1974 and 1975 the use of these orders more than doubled over previous years -- in fact, to a total of $235 million?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to go into a long discussion about the principle of Management Board orders. The select committee of this House looking at that, along with some other matters, has had the Treasurer and me meeting with it to look at the whole question of reporting Management Board orders.

However, I don’t know that the Liberal leader is aware that Management Board orders normally would be processed at the end of the fiscal year. Where a ministry finds it is going to be short of money in a vote, and under the policy that we presently follow over budget in another, an authorization for commitment may be issued for supplement the vote which is underestimated, but generally a Management Board order will not be issued until toward the end of the fiscal year when we are sure the estimated under-expenditure, in effect, was correct.

To give the hon. member one example, last December Transportation and Communications came to Management Board and indicated they might under-expend very significantly on King’s highway construction because of a longer than usual construction season in the fall. I can’t remember the exact figures, but when the smoke cleared away it turned out their original estimate on over-expenditure was about four times what it actually turned not to be. When the Management Board order was issued it was for the actual amount rather than the original estimate.

In many things, in welfare for instance, it is very difficult to estimate at the beginning of the year the proportion of money which will be expended, say under general welfare assistance on the one hand and family benefits on the other. It may well be that if there is an under-expenditure in one there is an over-expenditure in the other; and that would be dealt with by Management Board order.

Mr. Roy: That is why you have supplementary estimates.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I want to ask Anastas Mikoyan just one small supplementary to this question. It is in two parts.

First, why did the minister not stand and indicate to the Legislature, since estimates and supplementary estimates had both been though, that an amount of this very large dollar value was to be put through in addition by Management Board approval? Second, is it not true that given the additions to the supplementary estimates now indicated, plus the farm income stabilization plan as yet unbudgeted, we may well have an already predictable addition to the provincial deficit this year of close to $200 million, making quite a shambles of the Treasurer’s announcement on April 6 last?

Hon. Mr. Auld: To answer the second question first, Mr. Speaker; no. It may well be that if, as it appears, there will be over-expenditures in items presently estimated -- and the. Leader of the Opposition is aware that the estimates which have been tabled and will be tabled later on this week were really put together last fall; and finalized, say in January -- as I say, if, as it appears, there will be over-expenditures in some items there may well be offsetting savings found elsewhere.

Mr. Lewis: Where?

Mrs. Campbell: Like hospital spending?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Within the whole total of the estimates of the government.

Mr. Lewis: Where? Money from what source? Name one.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I can’t name one --

Mr. Lewis: Of course you can; that’s nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- that we will find, next fall, to look after an estimated over-expenditure; but I can tell the hon. member that last December, when we had an idea what some of the over-expenditures were, we went through the estimates of all the ministries and asked for explanations of whether the remaining funds would all be spent or not. In a number of cases they had not been committed. In effect they were embargoed and were not spent, so that we were able to cover some of those over-expenditures.

GAINS CONFERENCE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: Could he explain how he could have permitted his colleague, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), to go to a major federal-provincial conference on the guaranteed annual income and table a proposal which is totally based on an obsolete federal proposal, when he knew full well that a new proposal had come in in February and had all the figures attached to it? How could this minister let the Treasurer make a laughing stock of Ontario by presenting a detailed refutation of a proposal that had already been taken off the table? When he knew there was a new proposal, why couldn’t he tell the Treasurer about it?

Mr. Yakabuski: You are still in bed with those feds, aren’t you? That is where you get that kind of information.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Surely the leader of the third party realizes that I don’t keep the provincial Treasurer on a leash.

Mr. Sweeney: Somebody should.

Mr. Good: The blind leading the blind.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The Treasurer went to Ottawa with some very sound material. If I know the provincial Treasurer, he would have discharged his obligations with singular skill.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: I’m interested to hear that the minister doesn’t keep the Treasurer on a leash, but he might at least keep him informed.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Is it not true that the minister was in full possession of a document which was acceptable to all the provinces and to the federal government -- which accepted all the criticisms previously made of the original proposal -- and that instead of insisting that the Treasurer speak on that document the minister acquiesced and permitted him to present a refutation of a non-existent, basically obsolete, document and to represent Ontario’s position in this disgraceful way? Does the minister admit he had the information and can he explain why he didn’t use it?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I don’t accept that statement by the hon. member of the third party as being correct.

Mrs. Campbell: Answer it.

Mr. S. Smith: Call it the fifth party. I don’t care; get to the point.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The fact remains that the latest proposal advanced by the federal authorities, in February, was a proposal for discussion purposes only. I think that probably other provinces in Canada had some concerns about it. I certainly expressed my concern in terms of that particular proposal. So it wasn’t --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- something which was universally accepted throughout Canada.

BROWNDALE OPERATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: I have one final question. This is for the acting Minister of Health.

Is it still government policy that no one associated with Browndale Ontario, supposedly a non-profit organization, is to have a financial interest in property leased by that organization? Is that still the policy of the government?

Hon. B. Stephenson: To my knowledge it is, sir.

Mr. S. Smith: As a supplementary: Is the minister not aware that documents sent to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) indicate extensive leasing to Browndale Ontario by several private companies controlled by John Brown and others, and by Deborah Brown. I wonder what became of the commitment made in June, 1974, by John Brown that certain of these properties would be sold to Browndale Ontario or to the public? Brown Camps Ltd., Brown Camping Supplies Ltd., Brown Camps Leasing Ltd. are all leasing extensive properties to Browndale Ontario.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I’m aware that the documentation has been sent to the Attorney General. I trust I shall be hearing from the Attorney General in short order regarding our actions in this area.

Mr. S. Smith: May I, at this point, direct the question to the Attorney General? Is it a fact that we’ll be hearing in very short order about this very interesting leasing arrangement going on between John Brown and Browndale Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as already indicated, certain documentation was sent to my ministry. There is, presently, an investigation into the allegations which accompanied the documentation. I would hope I’ll be able to make a statement shortly to the Legislature but I can’t guarantee that. It’s a fairly extensive investigation.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The hon. Solicitor General has the answer to a question which was asked previously.

PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On April 13, the leader of the Liberal Party asked a question concerning a newspaper report about the residents of a housing project in Kitchener who formed a committee to protect their property because, as he stated, protection by the police was insufficient. The member asked if any other communities had set up such vigilante groups.

Let me say at the outset that the word vigilante, as used in the report, may have been used for dramatic effect. In fact, many neighbourhood groups, residents’ associations and cottage owners have developed ways to work together to prevent crime in their communities. The Ontario Provincial Police and the other police forces in the province are supporting them in their efforts, through informal advice and even more structured lectures.

To complain that police protection is inadequate is unjustified. I am sure members will agree that a constant police patrol of underground garages and apartment lobbies would require additional manpower, thereby increasing the cost of what is already an expensive service. However, private security guards are not available in all residential complexes; therefore, to have citizens assist the police and each other in protecting their own property by being watchful of their own neighbourhoods seems to me to be a most satisfactory solution.

I do not condone vigilante groups as common use of the term implies. Untrained and unsupervised citizens’ groups should not be, and are not, permitted to take the law into their own hands.

It is not known how many citizen groups have organized to assist law enforcement agencies in protecting property. However, if they conduct themselves within the recommended limitations of the powers extended to members of the public under the Criminal Code, they render invaluable aid to police forces in Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: In his condoning and congratulating these citizens for supplementing police work, do I take it the Solicitor General is also condoning and congratulating them for keeping three rifles and extensive ammunition in the car with which they are protecting their garages? At what point does he draw the line? When does action of this sort become something to be condoned as opposed to being something to be feared?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, I don’t condone that kind of vigilante work or action.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s what was happening.

LUNG RESEARCH ON STEELWORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, with reference to a question I asked a couple of weeks ago in the House: In view of the urgency and importance of the work, has the minister arranged any alternate funding for the work of Dr. Ronald Woulf at McMaster University on the lungs of workers in the steel mills in Hamilton?

Hon. B. Stephenson: To this date, no, that has not been possible.

Mr. Mackenzie: Does the minister anticipate that she is going to be able to do so before he leaves the country within the next month?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am still trying.

PROTECTION FOR WOMEN OF CHILD-BEARING AGE

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the transcript of the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health prepared for a US congressional committee that identifies 20 chemical agents, exposure to which might cause birth defects and miscarriages to women of child-bearing age?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, I am aware of that list.

Mr. B. Newman: Does the minister plan to introduce legislation that will protect women in the work force who are of child-bearing age?

Hon. B. Stephenson: This entire matter has been referred to the occupational and environmental health advisory committee for their recommendations.

TAX REBATE ON CONDOMINIUMS

Mr. Leluk: A question of the Minister of Revenue: Does the minister plan on meeting soon with the mayors and reeves of the various municipalities affected by the court decisions regarding tax assessment of condominiums to resolve the problem of tax rebates?

Hon. Mr. Meen: In short, I have made no arrangements in that regard and I was not anticipating any such meetings.

Mr. Leluk: Supplementary: Does the minister feel an immediate tax rebate, or a tax deferment plan based on future taxation years, is the most appropriate procedure for handling this situation?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I would anticipate the municipalities involved would have a number of ways in which they could work that out. In some cases the taxpayers have withheld payment audit in those situations they will receive bills for the years concerned that will relate to the net amount owing, together with accrued interest on that net amount. In other cases, I would expect they have paid the full amount of the taxes, notwithstanding appeals lodged by them.

In those cases, they might seek a rebate of the overpayment from the municipalities concerned or they might simply determine they would leave that on deposit as a credit, perhaps against the current year 1976. I think again, that would be a matter that would be worked out between the taxpayers and the municipalities concerned.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Now that the courts have ruled that the condominiums were wrongly assessed, does the minister intend any action in order to compensate retroactively those condominium owners who were not covered by the court cases?

Hon. Mr. Meen: No. This matter was fully discussed by us during the debate last fall, and the answer is simply no.

OMERS

Mr. Bounsall: I have a question of the Treasurer with regard to a couple of aspects of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System. As most of the employees, and certainly their employee representative groups, have requested a change on the plan to a five-year terminal earnings average from the career earnings average, and since the OMERS board has also recommended that to him, when might we expect the Treasurer to give the favourable answer that that plan will be changed? Secondly, with six distinct employee groups covered by OMERS, when might we expect a change of employee representation on the board from four to six?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Answering the second question first, they have rotated among those groups from time to time. I can’t tell the member now who is represented and who isn’t. Some of them are much larger than others, and feel that they should be represented at all times.

I can only say in response to the second part of the question that changes are made from rinse to time in the board as appointments come up for renewal. I think they are all on three-year terms and we try and achieve a balance when those appointments are made. In response to the first part of the plan, I think it’s fair to say that the board had not, in fact, formally recommended to them.

PENSIONS FOR FORMER MPPS ON GOVERNMENT BOARDS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Government Services: Would the minister advise me if former MPPs who have been appointed to certain tasks as chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or on the Liquor Licence Appeal Tribunal, or who have been named provincial judges, still receive their pensions from the government over and above the remuneration they receive in these new positions?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I would expect so, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Doesn’t the minister feel that when people are being paid $35,000 to $40,000 a year from the provincial coffers, that this is sufficient and that the pension should not be paid as long as they are on the provincial government payroll -- and that that’s the policy that is adopted at the federal level in many instances?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can’t tell whether the member has two standards; whether there shall be one rule for one group of people and one rule for the other.

Mr. Roy: One further supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Roy: This is a matter of policy. When people are on the government payroll, whether as judges or otherwise, doesn’t the minister feel that if they are drawing something like $35,000 or $40,000 a year they should not be getting further funds from the province through a pension -- and that the pension should be suspended during the time they hold that position?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, the member is working on the premise that these retired members actually do get the pension.

I cannot confirm that they do, and therefore I will report to the member.

Mr. Roy: That’s what I asked in the first place.

SELF-SERVE GASOLINE STATIONS

Mr. Philip: A question for the Treasurer: Would the minister kindly inform the House whether any decision has been made regarding the Dec. 9 resolution by the city of Windsor and subsequently approved by other municipalities which asked that the minister be requested to introduce an amendment to the Municipal Act to clearly establish the authority of municipalities to control the number and location of self-serve gasoline stations, as distinct from retail gas stations?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I think no decision has been made.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary: Can the minister tell us then, considering his letter of Jan. 9 to the city of Windsor that stated that “careful consideration to an amendment would be given at the earliest possible time” -- can he give us some indication of what he means by the earliest possible time?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We are still on that timetable, Mr. Speaker.

ALLEGED KICKBACKS TO FOOD PROCESSERS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Is he aware of the allegations of kickbacks required from the Omar food processers and the produce processers in Trenton, out., and if so, has he launched any investigation into that situation?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, to be more specific, is the member talking about the canning industry down there, or the fresh corn market for canning?

Mr. Peterson: I am talking about requesting kickbacks from farmers to bring the price of corn down per ton.

Hon. W. Newman: I am aware that there have been negotiations going on, but I am not aware of any kickbacks -- if that’s what the member is talking about.

Mr. Reid: Negotiations are now called kickbacks.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister aware of any problems in that particular area with requests from the food processers to have a kickback from the farmers, in violation of the marketing board legislation? Is he aware of that situation at all?

Hon. W. Newman: I am aware that they have established a price for corn this year. I am aware of the fact that there will probably be overseas markets. I am aware they are negotiating, but I don’t like that word “kickback”. There is no kickback involved at all.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: The final supplementary on this.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: What is the minister doing to ensure that the farmers get paid for their 1975 crop, which matter is in contravention of the marketing board legislation?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, is the member referring to the 1975 crop at the Co-op plant down in eastern Ontario?

Mr. Gaunt: Yes.

Hon. W. Newman: I am not aware of any specific problem in 1975. I am aware of what could be costing up in the 1976 crop year, and I will be glad to look into that for him.

[2:45]

DREE FUNDS FOR KIMBERLY-CLARK PROJECT

Mr. Stokes: I have a question for the provincial Treasurer. Is the provincial Treasurer aware that the five communities affected by the $240 million expansion by Kimberly-Clark in northern Ontario are anxiously awaiting the details of a sub-agreement between DREE and Ontario for infrastructure money so that they can accommodate the 900 new employees who will be employed in that expansion by Kimberly-Clark?

Is the minister aware that announcements have been made by the federal government that those funds will be made available, to the extent that the federal government is prepared to participate, as soon as the provincial government makes up its mind as to the degree of involvement? Is he also aware that the five communities can’t really strike a budget until they find out what the federal and provincial involvement might be in the infrastructure sub-agreement?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that the federal government had made any announcements. I’ll be glad to look into that. I am aware or, at least, I assume that those municipalities are concerned. I can only tell the member, as I’ve already indicated to him, that negotiations are proceeding -- I think on a satisfactory basis -- and I would hope that within the next two months we would reach a conclusion to those negotiations.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the Treasurer indicate what the government’s principles are in regard to expansion and founding of resource communities and the way in which the industry itself is to pay for the infrastructure, both social and otherwise, which has to be set up? What is the formula the government uses in approaching the expansion of Kimberly-Clark or the establishment of Umex or resource communities like that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the member might want to direct that question to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Irvine) who has an ongoing oversight of this particular problem -- or challenge would be a better way of putting it.

I think, generally, if it’s a brand new town site our policy is that the originator of the town site, for whom the town site is created, is going to pay the shot. What complicates that rather simple formula is that often there are two in one place or there is an existing community which, perhaps, is sadly in need of infrastructure in any case and where the province and the local municipality have some ongoing responsibility or should have. Therefore, it would be unfair or wrong to ask the new industry or industries coming in to pick up all of the cost or the great proportion of it.

Generally, these matters are dealt with on their respective merits; there’s no hard and fast formula. We start from the position -- I think it’s fair to say -- that the originator of the condition is, in the first instance at any rate, asked to pick up the majority of the cost.

CHEDOKE HOSPITAL

Mr. Cunningham: My question is to the acting Minister of Health. Given that she met with the Hamilton district health council on April 9 and that her letter in reply and in response to that meeting was dated April 14, does she find the short period of five days an appropriate amount of time to evaluate her decision as it would affect Chedoke Hospital and the delivery of health care in an area which affects almost half a million people?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the district health council of Hamilton is one of the oldest and most experienced in the Province of Ontario. Its members’ deliberations, I felt, were very worthwhile; the decisions and recommendations which they made, I thought, were very thoughtful and probably in the best interests of the people of that area. I do consider that they have spent a good deal of time and a great deal of intellectual effort in arriving at the recommendations which they made and I thought they were almost all valid. We have responded to it within a reasonable period of time as well, I think.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary: Since the minister has expressed such admiration for the work of the health council and since it did reduce the number of beds to the level which was indicated as desirable by the Ministry of Health, why does the Ministry of Health now find it necessary to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the health council rather than to leave it up to the council to decide how the bed distribution should be made in the city of Hamilton and the surrounding area and adopt what it proposes to her with regard to the Chedoke Hospital?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the letter which I sent to the district health council in Hamilton contained a counterproposal. I asked for further validation of support for their proposal. I expect to hear from them. I have not made any further decision since I sent that letter; and I simply announced to them that I was waiting to hear from them regarding my counterproposal.

Mr. Deans: May I ask a simple supplementary?

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Wentworth North who asked a question and wished a supplementary -- there is time for that, I believe.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, given that the letter stated that these bed cutbacks were to be made by June 1, doesn’t the minister think there is some sort of inconsistency in what she is telling us right now?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Since, Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen seem to have read my letter to the chairman of the district health council -- and I did not make it public, I sent it to him directly --

Mr. Deans: I haven’t read it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think that if they read the letter they will find that that is not what I said.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I received a notice from the Clerk advising that the standing committee on private bills will meet tomorrow to consider bills Pr5, Pr16, Pr17 and Pr15. Looking at my private bills book I find that bills Pr16 and Pr18 are not in it. Pursuing inquiries beyond that, I find that they are not printed. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how the committee is supposed to be reasonably able to study these bills tomorrow in committee when the bills are not printed and won’t be available apparentljy until tomorrow morning?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Do you really look at them before tomorrow morning?

Mr. Singer: That’s how I found out they weren’t there.

Interjection.

Mr. Roy: Is the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) packing a gun yet?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the bills you mentioned will be ready. They will be up either later this afternoon or tomorrow morning. We will get them to you just as quickly as possible; and beyond that I have no control over it.

Mr. Singer: But surely, Mr. Speaker, as is the practice with other bills -- in fact, there is a positive rule with general bills that they cannot be considered until they are printed. It’s only logical that that rule carries over to private bills. It’s unfair to expect members of the committee or members of this Legislature to deal with bills that aren’t before them --

Mr. Eaton: Stand them down.

Mr. Singer: -- and we are entitled to at least 24 hours’ notice, and that’s logical. I would ask you, therefore, sir, to order that the private bills committee do not consider bills Pr16 and Pr18, until copies have been made available to the members.

Mr. Speaker: I think the committee can deal with that tomorrow morning, if we haven’t got it solved in the next few hours.

Mr. Singer: How is it going to be solved if they won’t be provided?

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Hon. Mrs. Birch presented a report entitled “Youth and Alcohol,” which was prepared by the Ontario Youth Secretariat at the request of the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Leluk moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of proposed changes here. In

section 1, the new subsection sets out qualifications to be met by a person serving as a director of a condominium corporation. A candidate for a directorship would, therefore, have to be 18 years of age or over, an owner in the corporation, and the holder of a condominium director’s certificate issued by a prescribed institution, where such a course is being offered, or such other qualifications as may be prescribed by the regulations.

The subsection would also allow directors to be paid, where the declarations so stipulate.

Section 2(1) requires that notices for meetings be in a prescribed form.

New subsection 5(

a) is enacted to eliminate the expensive practice whereby corporations always have to call two meetings to get a quorum. The new subsection would allow corporations to call a meeting notwithstanding that a quorum of members may not be present. The subsection would therefore encourage better attendance at meetings of the corporation.

New subsection 5(

b) provides that proxies must be in a prescribed form. The intention is to make owners more aware of what they are signing when they sign a proxy.

Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and I have been changed so that, in order to carry out the particular business indicated in the particular section, the corporation need only get a majority vote at any meeting duly called, instead of the 66 2/3 per cent or 80 per cent, as the case may be, of the owners of the common elements agreeing to the proposal. These changes are enacted so as to encourage a greater turnout and participation at meetings of condominium corporations.

Section 8 is consistent with the changes in

section 1.

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Leluk moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for a condominium registrar, who would be available for consultation and who would build up an expertise in the condominium field. Corporations would be required to file minutes of annual meetings, lists of directors, financial statements and any other documents required to be registered in the condominium register with the registrar.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

DEAD ANIMAL DISPOSAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. W. Newman moved second reading of Bill 56,

An Act to amend the Dead Animal Disposal Act.

Mr. Riddell: We certainly have no objections to this bill, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that we had a bit of a problem a year or two ago with some people who were dealing in dead animals and disposing of the meat for human consumption. I know I brought this to the attention of the minister last session, for it was my understanding that the licences of some of those people had been renewed to establish slaughtering plants. I fail to understand why a licence would be renewed to a person who was actually found guilty of disposing of meat from dead animals for human consumption.

As I see it, this bill prohibits anybody who is dealing in dead animals from disposing of such meat for human consumption, and I’m a little surprised that this wasn’t incorporated into a bill some time ago. I think it is a very necessary part of the Dead Animal Disposal Act, and we certainly have no objections to it.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Beef Improvement Association has from time to time recommended that any company picking up dead animals should have to obtain a bill of lading for that animal and that those animals go to a rendering plant, at which time the bill of lading would be presented.

It seems to me that that sort of system would be a good one from the point of view of stopping a lot of the illegal traffic in dead meat, particularly as it moves through the human consumption channels. I am wondering has the minister given that any thought, and if so, does he consider it to have some validity?

[3:00]

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other hon. members who wish to speak to this bill? The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: The legislation bemuses me a little. I was around the back of the Throne trying to find the statute in question. Does it mean specifically what it says in terms of the Act: “No person shall give, sell, offer for sale, process, transport, or deliver to any person as food for human consumption meat obtained from a dead animal”?

I would have thought every meat we had to eat was so obtained in the first instance. What is the wider implication of the section? Apart from that, which is possibly simply a semantic difficulty, I think we can be brought, reluctantly and with great hesitation, to approve of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill?

Mr. Breithaupt: He seemed not to have heard the comment

Hon. W. Newman: I couldn’t hear a thing over here.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think not. I am wondering if perhaps the member for Lakeshore would repeat it, or I can attend to it. The point is surely meat used for human consumption must always come from a dead animal unless that is otherwise defined in the Act?

Mr. Worton: It depends how dead.

Mr. Breithaupt: It depends how dead, I suppose.

Mr. Gaunt: Real dead.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I suppose they have a very good point there, but this is to deal with animals that have died for one reason or another and not been slaughtered in the proper manner.

Mr. Gaunt: Other than from natural causes.

Hon. W. Newman: Right, other than from man-made causes. The intent of the original bill was exactly what we are saying here, and also under the federal Food and Drug Act we had some protection, but we felt that it should be put into an amendment to the Dead Animal Disposal Act to make this just a little bit tighter for our own inspectors as far as handling of dead meat is concerned.

We haven’t looked at the bill of lading situation. It might have some merit and I am quite prepared to look at it, but really this is to tidy up and tighten it up a little bit. As a result of certain charges that were laid earlier this year we felt that the Act could be tightened up just a wee bit. So the intent was there. There is protection as far as consumers are concerned under the federal Food and Drug Act, but we feel that this piece of legislation spells it out a little more clearly by adding this to our

section 4 of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 56.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Lawlor: Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Norton, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moved second reading of Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few brief comments on this bill. There is nothing in the particular bill that I would particularly oppose.

I am just a little concerned, relative to questions on another matter which I raised in question period today, that there be more changes in this bill than what we have before us, specifically the fact that the OMERS plan be changed to a five years’ average of your best or final five years as the means by which the plan should be funded. I was led by the executive director of OMERS to believe that that suggestion had already been formally presented to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough). I asked the Treasurer today when we could expect that change to be made and he said it was not as yet formally presented.

So one or the other of those two gentlemen is not being honest with myself, and I intend to inform myself further on that particular matter.

I have nothing against this particular bill as far as it goes. I would just hope that there would have been much more in this bill to make worthwhile its presentation; some real changes in OMERS, a decent, more equitable interest rate paid and some say by OMERS employees as to where some of that investment may go and that it should not be, as it is now, virtually all channelled into the government coffers. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the OMERS bill before us do, in fact, broaden the whole principle of the OMERS legislation. As mentioned, it certainly doesn’t incorporate many of the things that are being asked for by various groups that are under the plan.

I understand the first amendment, which broadens the definition as to those who can be covered, will now include officials who work for any board or group connected with the municipality, and specifically I understand that a secretary or a union official working for a firefighters’ union or a police association could now be covered under OMERS, which was not permissible previously.

The expansion of the transferability, as I understand those amendments, would now mean that service with any board anywhere in Canada or with any municipality would now grant portability to one’s pension plan from other parts of the province or other parts of the country, as a matter of fact, if that particular board or commission or municipality was of a similar nature. We applaud that which makes it more portable.

The inclusion under OMERS which has been granted previously to the civil servants allowing them to make back payments for war service is good, and I believe practically every pension plan in the province now includes that principle except the one which applies to members of this Legislature. Maybe someday that will even be amended to give members of the Legislature that particular privilege, which is now enjoyed by every other civil servant in OMERS and everyone else.

On the retroactivity of regulations made by cabinet, I inquired about this and I understand there could be certain specific instances where cabinet would have to deal with individual problems and it would need the right to make the regulations retroactive.

There are certain things that do concern me. For instance, I understand the police and firefighters are the only groups that can gear their OMERS benefits so that they can retire at age 60 rather than 65. The utility workers across the province have been campaigning heavily for certain things which they feel should be changed in the OMERS legislation. While these amendments do, in fact, broaden the scope considerably there are still a great many things about the plan that could be improved, in fact, the OMERS board when it deals with them does make recommendations to cabinet and the legislation is changed.

I’m thinking particularly of the supplementary plans which are available to certain people and not available to others in the same scope. I believe police and firemen do have additional benefits under supplementary plans whereby they can pay an additional sum -- seven per cent rather than five per cent -- and then, therefore, enjoy an earlier retirement with full benefits.

I think in the time I’ve been here, every year there are changes asked for by various groups and they seem to be so slow in coming. We certainly support these benefits which do broaden the whole scope of the OMERS Act, but I see no reason why the OMERS board can’t deal more quickly and mere vigorously with the requests that come from groups such as utility workers, and then recommendations to cabinet should be dealt with end expedited. As has been mentioned previously this afternoon, these are important issues with the people, because their retirement depends upon them, and it’s unfortunate that groups are at the mercy of the slow mechanics of governments in this regard.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on the bill. I’m sure the minister is aware, as are most members of the House, of the numerous letters and petitions from various utilities workers throughout the province in an attempt to get changes in the OMERS scheme.

One of the suggestions the utility workers make concerns reducing the retirement age from 65 to 60, as is enjoyed by both fire and police. Today, when unemployment is a major factor in some communities, earlier retirement would be another partial answer to lessening the unemployment situation.

I hope the minister, or the parliamentary assistant piloting this piece of legislation through the Legislature, will look seriously at the recommendations and suggestions by the various utilities employees and will do his best to convince his cabinet colleagues that changes in the OMERS scheme are long overdue.

Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief. First of all, perhaps in response to the specific question of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, I should say that I personally am not aware of there having been any communication on the specific matters that he raised. I will, however, take that op with the executive director of OMERS and see if there was any communication that has not come to my attention and discuss those matters further with him.

Likewise, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Waterloo North and certainly I do undertake to follow up on the matters that he has raised as well. If the hon. members do have any other matters they would like to king to the attention of me and members of the ministry for consideration for subsequent amendments, I would encourage them to communicate with me on those matters and I would be pleased to discuss them on a policy level with the responsible minister.

With regard to the specific legislation before us, I think it’s apparent from the comments that have been made by the members of the opposition in the discussions up to this point that there are few questions or no particular questions with regard to the specific content. Therefore, I think little would be gained by my going through the matter at this point, discussing the principle on a clause-by-clause basis. I am very pleased there is obvious support from the opposition members for the existing legislation.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion;

Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act.

PUBLIC UTILITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Norton, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moved second reading of Bill 41,

An Act to amend the Public Utilities Act.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding the principle behind this bill. This bill now eliminates the

section which required the public utilities commission to pledge, as security, land or buildings it was purchasing and for which the municipality was issuing debentures.

As hon. members know, under normal circumstances, municipalities, when they are raising debentures, do not have to pledge as security anything other than that municipality’s ability to raise taxes and pay off its debentures. When a municipality guaranteed the debentures for a public utilities commission, there were requirements under the Public Utilities Act that such debenture issue would be guaranteed by the lands or buildings which were being purchased by the public utility. Now that principle is eliminated, so that neither the municipality nor the public utilities commission has to guarantee any property in the form of a mortgage or any other kind of guarantee against those debentures.

[3:15]

However, last fall, as I remember, we passed an amendment to the Municipal Act which completely reversed this principle. That took place when a municipality borrowed money from the Ontario Development Corp. or one of the Ontario Development Corps. under the Ontario Development Act. In that instance, when a municipality borrowed money from ODC or Eastern Ontario or Northern Ontario Development Corp. to buy land for industrial park purposes, we amended the Municipal Act so that the municipality then had to pledge and mortgage that particular land as security for the money borrowed from the ODC.

I find it strange that we should establish that principle as a new principle last fall in one instance when the municipality borrows money and gives the land as security, and now we wipe that principle out in the public utilities commissions to make it coincide with all other aspects of the municipal financing. Really, the security of a piece of land is not what establishes a municipality’s ability to pay off its debentures; it is that municipality’s ability to raise money and to raise taxes to pay off its debentures.

I agree with this legislation but I would certainly like an answer as to why we established that new principle last fall with amendments to the Municipal Act and now we eliminate the same principle under the Public Utilities Act?

Mr. Lawlor: Just a word or two about the legislation. It’s an advanced step into a more sophisticated financing area. When municipalities issue bonds, debentures or any notes, etc., placing them in species, placing them against individual objects and pieces of property, real or personal, is an outmoded and antiquated version which, as they point out, is not done within the debenture instrument itself. It is a blanket instrument; it covers all assets. It has full backing.

In the same way as the Province of Ontario borrows against its total acquirement and its total complement of assets, without allocating and earmarking this or that one, so, too, should municipalities -- and they do presently -- raise money through debentures in a blanket coverage situation.

All the legislation is doing is to give recognition to that particular financing principle, and certainly one can’t have any objection to it.

Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I am not able to respond to the question raised by the hon. member for Waterloo North; I was not aware of the specific amendment he refers to. However, I will undertake to make inquiries about that and communicate to him directly on the matter or, should this come up again in the committee of the whole House, hopefully I will be prepared to respond at that time.

Once again, I think there is little I can add here except to reinforce what has already been said by the hon. member for Lakeshore, that this is a progressive step. It enacts in legislation what has already been taking place in practice for many years and reassures those persons who are engaged in the field of municipal finance of the kind of security, reinforced by legislation, which we have been proud to ensure in the Province of Ontario.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 41,

An Act to amend the Public Utilities Act.

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

DEAD ANIMAL DISPOSAL AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 56,

An Act to amend the Dead Animal Disposal Act.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The parliamentary assistant to the minister is here to take the bill through.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s nice. Hello, over there. What was the answer to the question having to do with all animals which, I take it, are eaten by way of beefsteaks or lamb chops in various forms of restaurant and are presumably dead at the time? The

section as it reads would say that that’s quite illegal. Is it your intention to institute a vegetarian feast in the Province of Ontario?

Mr. Eaton: No, it means what it says basically and it’s interpreted in the Act under 1(b). Dead animal means the carcass or any part thereof of a horse, goat, sheep, swine or head of cattle which has died from any cause other than slaughter. It’s covered.

Bill 56 reported.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 25,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 25, I understand, is going to be dealt with jointly by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications and the hon. Attorney General. Does either of the ministers have any opening comments? The hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that when we come to the sections I will have amendments to move to sections 5, 10, 12 and 17. My colleague the Attorney General will be dealing with the debate on sections 3, 4 and 20, I believe it is.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, before the debate continues, can the minister advise us as to whether any of the particular amendments with respect to this Act would be matters he is considering with reference to the new select committee? In other words, are there certain things with which we would not have to deal at this time or are all of these amendments wanted by the ministry now, no matter what the work of the select committee may be?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, we would like to proceed with all the sections of the bill. I have given your colleague to your right a copy of the amendments so you have them there. Really, any action taken on this bill does not deter the select committee in any way from looking into these particular matters. I don’t know what particular sections the hon. member has in mind which might be deferred, but none of these sections really deals only with vehicles under the PCV Act. They may deal with the total class of thick, whether they be privately owned, leased, licensed PCV or not. There isn’t anything here that I would like to delay at this time.

Mr. Lawlor: Just one question if I may. Has the Attorney General amendments to

section 3 or 4 of the sections he’s handling?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No.

Mr. Lawlor: You are okay? Fine. Thank you.

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Chairman, the minister alluded to the fact that he would be proposing an amendment to

section 5 in this bill, and I also have an amendment to

section 5.

Mr. Chairman: I think I should start off by asking if there is anything on any previous

section of the bill. I believe the hon. Attorney General indicated he had something on

section 3.

section 3:

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to fill the gap with respect to the suspension of licences following conviction for a criminal offence involving the use of a motor vehicle, left as a result of clause 19 of the federal bill, C-71.

Clause 19 of the federal legislation repealed those provisions of

section 238 of the Criminal Code which permitted a judge to make an order suspending a licence for up to three years where the person is not liable to imprisonment for life and for any period the judge considered proper where the person is convicted of an offence where the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Subsection 3 of

section 20 will permit a judge to make such orders under the Highway Traffic Act instead of under the Criminal Code.

The purpose of this amendment, as the legislation states, is to safeguard the interests of the public using the highways and, therefore, to give a judge the power to suspend a licence, even though an accused may have been given a conditional or absolute discharge under the Criminal Code.

Section 4 really is in furtherance of that same intent.

I might just say, as a matter of brief historical background, that at the federal-provincial meeting of Attorneys General and Ministers of Justice in Halifax in October, 1975, I indicated to the federal Minister of Justice that we in Ontario opposed the removal of the power under

section 238 which gave a judge the power to impose driving suspension for three years unless it was an offence punishable up to life imprisonment. They took our objection under consideration and the last word we had, when they proceeded with Bill C-71, was that we could provide for this suspension under our Highway Traffic Act. We have moved accordingly.

I think most members of the Legislature would agree that in certain circumstances it is in the public interest to allow a trial judge, the person who actually bears the circumstances related to the offence, to impose a greater suspension than the automatic minimum suspensions that have been traditionally provided under the Highway Traffic Act.

In view of the fact that this right was taken out of the code -- and I might say it was taken out of the code because of the conflict that you will recall existed between the intermittent driving privileges that were provided for in the code and the absolute suspensions which were provided for under the Highway Traffic Act -- all the provinces expressed their concern with relation to the conflict between the intermittent provisions and the mandatory suspensions provided under the provincial legislation.

The response of the federal government was simply to get out of the field of driving suspensions entirely. Therefore, we believed it was in the public interest that we fill the gap that has been left by Bill C-71, which, if it has not already been proclaimed, will be proclaimed any day. I’m sorry I don’t have the exact date of the proclamation.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question of the Attorney General on a point I’m not quite clear about. In connection with the discretion that a judge previously exercised with respect to intermittent sentences, does this now remove that discretion from the bench?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes.

Mr. Reid: So there is no such thing then.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There is no such thing; that was under the Criminal Code, and I understand that is removed by Bill C-71.

Mr. Roy: That’s removed from the code.

Mr. Bullbrook: It was removed from the code, not because of a motivation on the part, as I understand it, of the Minister of Justice at Ottawa to fetter judges in exercising the discretion with respect to intermittent sentences. The motivation of the federal jurisdiction was that we shouldn’t be in there anyway. I think the Attorney General will agree with that.

I want to express some personal concern -- probably not caucus concern in this respect -- in not permitting the continuation of some intermittent driving privileges and some discretion in the bench. Frankly, I expressed this several years ago and it’s a very difficult and delicate subject. The very activist attitude of the present Attorney General in connection with those offences enunciated in subsection 3 is something very worthwhile and he is to be applauded by those people on this side of the House.

On the other hand, I want to go back to 1971 and 1972 when I stood in this chamber and said it seemed to me that justice isn’t entirely equal when someone who is wealthy enough to lose the privilege of driving is also concurrently wealthy enough to hire somebody to drive him. Yet it causes me no little concern, and I am sure it causes the Chair and other members of the House no little concern, to recognize that some constituent of mine -- without in any way defending his personal impropriety or minimizing the seriousness of the offence -- may lose his livelihood because of the lack of discretion in the court.

I am very interested, therefore, in attempting some type of debate in this respect. As I see the two balances, we have the understanding by the public that if we issue intermittent driving privileges we then don’t regard the fight on drinking and driving is a very serious one, and I want to say that I do regard it as a serious one.

But I am more concerned from a professional standpoint in the removal of the right that the courts had to recognize the personal implications of the penalty -- which in some circumstances don’t seem to be commensurate as between the same offence committed by two persons, so that the effect of the suspension is a personal and continuing family tragedy for one and is less than nothing for another.

Since it’s not our intention at this time to put forward any amendments, as I understand it from my colleague who is the official critic, I would like to get some response on balance from the Attorney General in that respect.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the issues that have been raised are very legitimate ones and I know are of concern to any of us who have been called upon to represent people in the courts who are going to lose their livelihood by reason of a driving suspension. On the other hand, there is no doubt, without being overly critical of the provincial judiciary, in certain circumstances this power to grant intermittent driving privileges in certain areas of the province quite frankly was abused somewhat, so that the suspension became rather meaningless.

It’s a difficult question. I think because of the increasing toll of deaths and serious injuries on the highways there were many of us who felt that perhaps more Draconian measures were required. Notwithstanding that I think the issues that are raised are not easy to deal with as there is no question that there is a certain degree of inequality in the application of the suspension for the reasons that have just been mentioned.

I would think this might well be an issue that might be referred in some way to the select committee which, I understand, is going to be established in relation to highway traffic safety.

Mr. Bullbrook: In that respect, if we could just have for a moment some type of dialogue which I think is very effective and beneficial, I would really like to see that. Basically those people who are so adversely affected by the lack of elasticity in the bench are the people who are public commercial drivers, and those are the people who are mainly losing their livelihood.

One can say legitimately -- and I am sure the Attorney General had to hold his tongue back in not saying that -- they are the very people who should not be convicted of impaired driving because they are professional, and there’s great merit in that. I’m glad he didn’t take it upon himself to say that, but that would have been a logical response.

On balance I would really like to see this; I would like to see the continuation of some discretion in the bench. I really feel it isn’t the function of the legislative process to assess the impact of sentences on an individual basis. I, as one person in this assembly, prefer to see the eyeball-to-eyeball approach that takes place in the courtroom. I prefer to see, on the basis of reports given to an individual judge, that when he’s meting out justice he metes it out with a discretion, and a temperance at times, that is more equitable on balance.

The Attorney General might turn to his colleague on the left and I think he might well consider as one of the terms of reference of the select committee, the implication of driver control programmes on those people employed under public commercial vehicle licences -- something of that nature.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in this debate on this particular point that’s being discussed. There are some questions of a more legalistic nature maybe rising out of the

section itself. I’ve long felt that however Draconian, and how much of an iron rule is set up, the administration of justice in this province must, if it’s to be justice -- with the people leaving the courtroom with a sense that they’ve been fairly dealt with -- be somehow individualized to some degree. How do you do that?

You can’t do it by iron codes and by laying down sections as we do -- because the sections, by definition, are universal, categorical and impersonal, and they apply to all alike, right across the board. But there is an interposition there; there is such a thing as a judge. He’s between our laws and what we lay down in terms of strict strictures and the accused person standing in front of him. Every case is different and some provision must be made for that in the administration of justice. Simply to pick an iron rule is to create an iron cage in the society. Therefore, I’m in favour by and large of the widest possible discretion being conferred upon judges.

There are circumstances. You and I in our practice before the criminal bar over the years have had cases where, without being a bleeding heart, one’s heart bled after the case was over for the position, through his own fault, that a truck driver or a taxi driver or any number of people in the commercial field, driving for a livelihood found himself -- emerging from that courtroom with his family with his prospects not dimmed, but completely damned, blotted out. He pleads with you afterwards to take an appeal -- to do this, that and the other thing.

With a driving-with-ability-impaired charge the chances of winning on those cases are 1 in 100 these days, particularly if you are over 1.0 -- 1.2 and you’ve had it. We will discuss this on some other occasion, but as a matter of fact it should be taken out of legal aid, probably -- representations under those particular sections of the code; 234, I think it is, and 235.

So, leave in some provision for the maintenance of a livelihood, not to send them out on relief, not to place them in the hands of welfare, not to exclude their future prospects of employment -- and that’s what’s happening. I’ve had an awful lot of these cases. It’s all right for the bone-headed or the hard-headed, or whatever heads they may have, to say, “Throw the book at them; throw them in jail.” They seem to think that they somehow go away. But the fact of the matter is they are plunged, with their whole families and whole futures, on the doorsteps of every taxpayer in the province. There are all those people who seem to be so oblivious of what the impact is.

Therefore let’s have an element of the intermittent sentence. It’s like the guys going in and serving the weekend in the Don Jail and serving their sentence by that particular process. Also, with respect to driving, if the people in certain areas of employment are fatuous enough, foolish enough, twisted enough, boonswaggled enough or idiotic enough to get themselves into a position, they nevertheless must not afflict the whole of society and we must not afflict their families and everyone else around them in this particular.

Haven’t we got sufficient confidence in our judges -- I have -- for them to weigh and assess this person, his characteristics, his predilection, what he is given over to and what he isn’t? Is he an alcoholic? Is he deeply addicted to the grape? How far has this gone? What is the impact? All these hundred factors, all the variables that make a human life, a judge can take, by representations from counsel, into consideration.

We have some obligation to give him that opportunity so that the very right and justice of the case is met in particular circumstances and that no lives are blighted because you say, in a blanket way, “We will damn well cut out this drinking and driving” and bring the full force of the law to bear as the sanction in this particular regard. The consequences of that are not just deeply looked at on the basis of that particular categorical imperative. That’s the trouble with categorical imperatives; when you set up things in terms of pure duty, you stop there.

There is a whole school that says you ought not to go any further. But at least the utilitarians had this much good behind them -- they took a look at consequences to see what flowed from any action.

It is all right to damn a particular action and say that that Act is intrinsically wrong, the devil come what may, and what may flow out of it is not to be taken into countenance in judging the thing. Well, you and I don’t look at it that way. No lawyer really does. We are not moralists in those terms. We want to see how it creeps through society, and how the stream flows, and what the repercussions are, and what the ultimate effects upon a very wide body of persons may be, and we have to make provision for that. The way to do it is, with respect, giving some flexibility to the judge in this particular regard.

So far so good. A more legalistic point, under the federal legislation -- this legislation was visited upon me as I came into the House today; I have not had an opportunity, although I have in front of me the Criminal Code, 1975 -- it seems to me that the

section with respect to roadside testing, winch I understand is a new

section 234(1), that was subject under the federal bill to proclamation by the province. You have not, as I understand it, proclaimed that

section yet. What is your intention with regard to proclamation? Does it involve the roadside testing concept? Just what is the weight of that? I mean, how broad is that roadside testing power, and is that part of this legislation in front of us at the present moment, the initiation and coming into being of that principle?

You won a certain amount of notoriety in the press around Christmas-time about stopping people and questioning them, and the police officer involved, on a quick assessment, on a shrewd appraisal of the individual’s deportment, his gait and other characteristics, could take him tight off the road. Is that all involved here today? I am not clear on the point.

Mr. Breithaupt: I have been interested, Mr. Chairman, particularly in the response which the Attorney General gave to my colleague from Sarnia and his view that in some areas, dealing in this particular section, discretion has perhaps been too widely used. The only unfortunate problem that flows from that is that the minister now apparently would replace the possible abuse of discretion with no opportunity for discretion. I think there should be some opportunity for discretion in this particular matter of intermittent driving.

[3:45]

The sentencing which has taken place has, of course, received wide support in most areas of the public, because it is clearly apparent that the drinking driver is a particularly serious menace not only to himself or herself but to the general public, considering the costs of hospitalization and all these other matters that so concern the members of the Legislature.

That being said, I am drawn to the comments by the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) who says it may well be in the public interest to allow some form of balance in this kind of programme, rather than throwing entirely perhaps on the welfare system or on some other source of public assistance, the person and his or her family, who as a result, suffer because of the loss of livelihood; or the impossibility, because of education or skills, of obtaining any other kind of occupation commensurate with that which perhaps the person had, shall we say as driver of a transport truck or whatever it may be.

I agree with the comments, of course, that those persons are the last who should risk their own livelihood by getting in this kind of position, because they should be the ones most aware of the dangers of traffic accidents and the loss of life and injuries which result from this kind of problem.

However, I do feel, to repeat my earlier comment, that because some judges have, perhaps, given discretion too freely, it should not be the entire basis upon which we come to this conclusion. I would far prefer the matter of discretion to remain so that it is not, of course, abused but that it does exist for the occasional case in which justice would be seen to be done if that person is treated somewhat differently from his or her fellow citizens.

I agree, of course, that the matter of having the law as changeable as the length of the chancellor’s foot is not the answer. Surely, it is also not the answer to attempt to fit everyone into what becomes this Procrustean bed of making sure that each person is dealt with in precisely the same manner and so there is no balancing of the justice we seek, with the possibility of the application of some mercy which can also be important within our society.

I would prefer that some discretion would remain. I would prefer that those persons who are appointed to the bench, because of their learning and because of their abilities, should have left with them the opportunity to deal with these matters on occasion in a way they feel best fits the portion of the province in which they live and the persons who are brought before the bar of justice. I would encourage the Attorney General to consider this because I think we would have better legislation as a result.

Mr. Lawlor: The second major point I want to make in connection with the legislation is I wonder -- at least it should be perused in principle in this House; the point should be raised -- whether it is good in principle that a judge can come to the conclusion to give either a conditional or an absolute discharge. Let’s deal with the latter first.

An absolute discharge is under 661, subsection 1 of point 1 of the Criminal Code. A judge doesn’t easily come to the position of granting an absolute discharge. The point about an absolute discharge is to remove from that individual, with respect to employment opportunities and with respect to any stigma touching their character, the stigma vis-à-vis a criminal offence. Although the individual may be convicted of the offence, he receives a discharge from it and he then is clear with respect to his public presentation of himself.

It’s only under extraordinary circumstances that that is done. It’s done in cases in which a woman has done some shoplifting, for instance, and this is her first offence -- she’s never been caught, at least, doing this previously. She is a working woman and you make a plea to the judge and he says: “All right. You pleaded guilty or you’ve been convicted on the evidence, but the fact is, I will alleviate you from further harm flowing from this particular act by way of an absolute discharge.”

Having arrived at that, you are saying in your legislation that he gets an absolute discharge for some fairly onerous, even heinous offences under the Criminal Code: Causing death by criminal negligence, 203; causing bodily harm by criminal negligence, 204, with a 10-year maximum; manslaughter, 219; criminal negligence In the operation of a motor vehicle, 233.1, with a five-year minimum penalty; and so on. All these sections are referred to in the first subsections of the section.

You’re saying, despite that, if a member of the judiciary sees fit to grant either a conditional discharge or an absolute discharge, nevertheless a certain kind of penalty may be imposed. I don’t know how it applies in the case of the conditional discharge but surely, as a condition to the discharge, the type of penalty you are talking about would be that the judge would say, “Your licence is going to be suspended for a period of time, and While I give you a conditional discharge, this is the condition upon which I do it.” Therefore, there is no necessity for your

section under that context. The only thing that would really arise would be in the case of an absolute discharge.

I can’t see how we can talk out of both sides of our mouths, saying on one side you get an absolute discharge and, on the other one, a penalty is to be served. Do you find no conflict in that mode of reasoning? Or is this simply a gesticulation towards getting tough and trying to prove to the world at large our machismo with respect to matters of highway penalties of all kind? If it’s a posturing, then why not have it out in the open and let’s say so? If it has real merit and will be efficacious in its operation and to one end, then okay. Standing here, I am not convinced of that, and I think you are going to have to make a bit more of a case than you have up to now.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. Attorney General have any comment? If not, the hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I think it might be quicker if the Attorney General would respond after we are all finished, because I think we are all pretty well concerned about the same area.

I am enjoying this debate in the sense that it is being discussed logically and coldly, and we are not getting caught up in emotionalism. I can recall that, a couple of years ago, every time we mentioned the objectivity or the worth of having sections that permitted judges to exercise discretion in terms of intermittent sentences, we were good for a couple of editorials in the Globe and Mail and in newspapers all over across the province, saying that we were soft on drinking drivers. I think the Attorney General will agree that the original intent of the intermittent term was to bring some kind of fairness into the sentencing process.

My colleague, the member for Sarnia, and the member for Lakeshore, as well as others, have mentioned that punishment must be made to fit the crime and that some discretion must be left in the court. I don’t want to dwell on that, although there are some instances where an individual obviously is not punished as much by losing his licence as somebody else who loses his job. I don’t intend to repeat that.

What does concern me is that not only is the discretion taken away on this point, as it was taken away -- in fact, this matter was followed right up to the Supreme Court of Canada -- between the provinces’ mandatory right or the right given under the

section to take the licence away where at the same time, under the Criminal Code, judges have the right to exercise the discretion and give an intermittent term.

It was very confusing to the public. I think that the authorities and the judicial process generally across this province really confused the whole situation to the point where people were saying, “Yes, the judge could give me a particular sentence,” but it didn’t work out that way because the registrar of motor vehicles would be pulling his licence anyway.

The province has taken a hard line, I suspect, because any time we talk about intermittent terms, we get slammed around and told we are being soft on drinking drivers. I don’t think that’s the case at all. But the province is going much further here, as the member for Lakeshore has mentioned, in the sense that the effect of discharge provisions has been wiped out by

section 3, subsection 4. Where it used to read that if a person was convicted, you now say that it’s not a question only of being convicted, but if he pleaded guilty or was found guilty then he is considered to have been convicted. So the whole effect of the discharge provisions, the conditional and the other discharge, is taken away. We have to be concerned about that, and I think it is worthwhile discussing this situation.

As the law progresses along the way, we have tried, and I think all levels of legislation have tried, to get away from mandatory terms. We’ve got away from these mandatory terms in a period when we’ve had better and better appointments to the bench. The people accepting appointments to the bench have been more capable and we’ve put more faith in our judiciary than before. But here we seem to be taking retrogressive steps in that we’re getting away from the discretion and getting involved in mandatory terms.

As our judiciary keeps getting better, we at the provincial level seem to be giving them less discretion. I think we have got to be concerned about that. The Attorney General, as one who has practised in the courts, has seen sometimes where mandatory sentences can do undue hardship. I can recall, for instance, under the Criminal Code, any offences against the post office involved a mandatory jail term of six months or something.

That was unduly harsh because it involved a person who may well have taken one letter home one night when he was on a tear or might have been drinking or something or it could have involved another individual who had systematically been taking mail from the post office. In both instances, there was a minimum term of six months. In this case, a person may well be discharged. A judge exercising his discretion could give a discharge.

The basis of a discharge has been that the individual before the court is, first of all, not considered to have a criminal record; and secondly, is being treated by the court in such a way that we feel imposing a discharge, in the long term, is going to be to his benefit. Whatever the judge does at that level will have no application here because his licence is going to be taken away. I’m concerned about this and I’m glad we’re discussing it in these terms with the Attorney General.

I don’t think any of us here want to take a hard line and say civil rights are being flouted here by the government. But I think the Attorney General can see that we express a genuine concern about what happens once you take this discretion away in all these instances by imposing mandatory terms. Really, we’re doing this now because of public pressures. Everybody keeps thinking that the minute we talk about this discretion being exercised we’re being soft on it and that actually we must be getting harsher.

I think there is an area of being harsher in imposing sentences for drinking drivers without necessarily always affecting a person’s licence, especially when he needs his licence to earn his livelihood. There are other ways of doing it and I don’t think we are exploring these enough; and I don’t think we’ve put enough faith in the bench. As my colleague the member for Kitchener said, by trying to plug the gap between exercising this discretion too freely and moderation we take it away completely. This is not the trend that law has taken over the past few years. We’re getting away from these mandatory terms.

I want to put on record my concern about proceeding in that area at this time. Under the Criminal Code, at least at the federal level, there seems to be some enthusiasm to give judges more discretion,

whereas we at the provincial level are saying no. Especially when we consider that it’s our provincial appointees who are most often imposing sentences, it is sort of ironic. The government appoints these people and they are supposed to be competent and so on. Yet at the time the federal people are giving them discretion, provincially, we are the people who are taking that discretion away.

There seems to be some inconsistency there. We should look at this and we should not get caught up in the tide of reading editorials and of people making comments when they don’t really realize that we’re not trying to be soft on people who are drinking and driving. We want to be as harsh as anyone else but there has got to be some justice.

We’re talking about justice now, and it’s not justice in many instances to have the same term for people in very different situations.

[4:00]

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, it is rather interesting that I am the first member of the House to rise on this matter who isn’t a lawyer, but perhaps I may tread where others won’t. Hopefully I will be much briefer, but no less effective, than those people who have gone before in expressing my concerns pretty well along the same lines as they have been outlining.

As a provincial member one of the things I have a great number of constituents coming to me about is their licences being suspended for impaired driving. I must say that in many cases I have been less than sympathetic with them, but on the other hand I must balance that with the fact that, particularly in my area -- and I speak particularly of it but I think it would apply across the province -- many people have to drive long distances to work. They are not necessarily truck drivers or cab drivers; they are construction workers or miners or people who work in the forest industry. Their livelihood is taken away from them for a three-month or a six-month period.

It seems to me we can temper justice and balance it with a little bit of mercy and charity by leaving discretion in the hands of the judges. I, too, feel that the Attorney General is surely able to give directives and we are able to lay down guidelines exactly as to how the intermittent licences should be given out. It not only affects the man in his work, it affects his family. The breakdown in the family and in society generally as a result of that discretion being taken away, to my mind, is not really what justice is all about in this report.

Again, I feel somewhat strongly that the carnage on our highways due to drinking drivers is something we have to come to grips with. I am not sure that doing it in this Draconian way -- to use a phrase someone else has used -- is necessarily going to stop the problem. Surely we can find a better way of doing it? I would like to say to the Attorney General that I would hope he would reinstate discretion in the hands of the judges.

I believe it would only be fair, equitable and just to balance the offence with some kind of discretion My friend from Sarnia has pointed out that the law in this regard is somewhat unequal in that if a person who can afford to hire either a taxi or a chauffeur gets caught, it isn’t much of a loss to him. Rut for those people who completely rely on their personal transportation for their jobs, it is a great imposition. It is a loss of their earning power. They are thrown onto public welfare, or some other backup of society for these people, bat it leaves them idle. Often, the result of this is worse than the offence they committed in the first place.

I have been through the Criminal Code and as a non-lawyer, I am a little concerned about

section 19, the conditional discharge. I can’t satisfy myself in my own mind as to what

section 19 does when you are taking away the discretion in

section 3 of the bill. On the one hand, it seems to me, as a non-lawyer, the judges have discretion to do one thing in offences causing death by criminal negligence -- we could go all through the Act; I don’t think that is necessary -- yet in another case, which is a matter of impaired driving, that discretion and the same circumstances do not apply. I would like to support my colleagues by asking that the Attorney General reconsider and give the judges discretion in regard to intermittent licences.

Mr. B. Newman: I wanted to melee a few comments on the bill because I can recall years ago speaking exactly to the point we are discussing today. I made mention at that time that I thought it was completely unfair to take the livelihood away from an individual simply because he was convicted of impaired driving. Not during the performance of his normal duties; it would be an evening operation; he happened to go to some type of function with his wife or alone and on his way home was stopped by a police officer and eventually ended up with an impaired driving charge against him.

I thought it was unfair because at that time you were taking his livelihood away. If you, a lawyer, were caught impaired, we wouldn’t take away your right to practise as a lawyer. We wouldn’t do that to a doctor. If a doctor were caught driving while impaired, we wouldn’t take his right to practise medicine away from him. Yet you treat the professional driver completely unfairly, because you are taking away his right to a livelihood.

I would hope, Mr. Minister, that you leave some discretion to the judiciary in this instance, so that they can weigh the merits of the case. I hold no brief for the individual who is caught driving while impaired while in the performance of his duties, such as a driver caught while he is driving professionally. I would even go so far as to take away his right to drive at that time, but if he were caught not in the performance of his professional activities, I think it is completely unfair to take the right of a livelihood away from that individual and have him thrown on to the good graces of the community and welfare and/or other benefits that he may be entitled to.

I hope, Mr. Minister, you will consider discretion in the case of this section.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to

section 3?

Mr. Bullbrook: I might want to speak to it several times, but since we are in committee, I would like to hear the Attorney General right now.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. Attorney General with to respond?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that my sympathy in relation to the vast majority of people who are convicted of impaired driving falls somewhat short of that of some of the members opposite.

Mr. Lawlor: Not when you were defending them.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: While I recognize that there is a lot of good sense in relation to judicial discretion and giving judges as much discretion as possible, I should remind the members that the purpose of these amendments is, in fact, to give judges discretion that they do not have now, rather than taking anything away.

For some years there have been mandatory three- and six-month automatic suspensions as a result of certain convictions under the Criminal Code. As you know, these suspensions automatically follow conviction under the Criminal Code, and they had nothing to do with the exercise or non-exercise of judicial discretion. The matter of intermittent sentences was introduced into the Criminal Code a relatively short time ago, a matter of several years or a little better perhaps, and that was the first time that the issue of giving judges discretion with respect to these minimum mandatory suspensions arose.

The proposed amendment that is before the Legislature is, in fact, in relation to giving a judge a discretion to impose a greater sentence than the minimum insofar as the driving suspension is concerned, greater than that which is provided by the Highway Traffic Act under the automatic provisions, and of course in relation --

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s like saying, “We have to kill you, but we are going to give you the option as to whether you want the electric chair or want to be hanged.” That’s the discretion you are giving now.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Not at all. In relation to the proposed amendments, in relation to giving a judge the discretion as to whether the judge wishes to impose a greater sentence, it’s a matter of complete discretion for the judge. The

section says that the judge may make an order extending the suspension of the licence.

Experience, and information that has been given to me, would indicate that the success of the intermittent driving privileges that were granted widely throughout the province for several years, prior to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the history of that is not very satisfactory from the standpoint of discouraging people from simply drinking and driving. What I would suggest -- and I thought that this was what was originally suggested by the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr.

Bullbrook ) -- is that the whole matter of judicial discretion as to whether there is going to be, in effect, any suspension at all -- whether or not we retain these minimum periods is what we’re really talking about -- be referred to a select committee of the Legislature in order that we might have available to that committee all the available, necessary and relevant statistics which might assist the Legislature in coming to a proper determination insofar as these mandatory driving suspensions are concerned. I thought that was the suggestion of the member for Sarnia and I would certainly endorse it.

On the matter of conditional and absolute discharges I think there’s some considerable merit in the suggestions or statements or submissions by the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) in relation to whether or not a judge would wish to give an absolute discharge for a driving offence. The judge would obviously be expected to take into consideration the effect of such an absolute discharge in relation to any driving suspension. This is, perhaps, a matter which would be clearly considered by any particular judge trying the case.

It may be that the proposed amendments in relation to the absolute or conditional discharges are not absolutely necessary. Quite frankly I’m reluctant, on the basis of the information we have, simply to remove the minimum periods of suspension which for so long have been part of the Highway Traffic Act. I hesitate to suggest that is the proper course at this point in time, notwithstanding the very interesting contributions to the debate by members on all sides of the House.

Mr. Bullbrook: I wonder if the Attorney General would consider entertaining a response to the main burden of our comment with respect to what would appear to be an apparent inequity in all people being treated the same?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Inherent in any offence which carries with it a form of monetary punishment, of course, is an inequity because of the obviously varying abilities of people to pay -- if we’re talking about fines. You might argue the whole system of fines, in that respect, is inequitable because obviously some people are more harshly dealt with than others simply by their means or lack of ability to pay.

On the matter the member for Sarnia attempted to raise, which I did not raise initially, in relation to the greater onus and responsibility on a driver who requires a licence to earn his or her living, in my view they would normally be required to exercise greater care in protecting that privilege to drive. Whether or not my friends opposite would agree with me, I happen to be firmly of the view that when one considers the carnage on the highways every year the matter of driving should be considered strictly as a privilege and not as a right.

Mr. Roy: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t think we should lose sight of that fact.

Mr. Roy: We don’t.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am sorry. Is the Attorney General finished?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes. I don’t think there is anything I can usefully add.

Mr. Bullbrook: This is a most interesting exercise and not just one of philosophy because I don’t regard it as a philosophical argument. I want to say that I’m not going to respond to the Attorney General’s comment that there resides a discretion in the legislation, because no longer is the judge forced only to a minimum of three or six months. If I did that, I’d be abrasive. If I were abrasive then he wouldn’t look, perhaps with some favour, on what I am going to suggest to him.

That is, that he entertain, in the context of a minority government -- because nobody wants to divide the House on a matter of this nature -- the suspension of these sections until we are able to look, by way of select committee, into the implications of them.

[4:15]

I want to say this to him if I may: The position we take surely is going to entertain the wrath of the editorial writers of the Globe and Mail. I am sure it is. The most attractive aspect of this argument is to say that we want to do away with all drinking by drivers, and that is something I am not going to take issue with because that is one of those widows and orphans arguments with which you can never succeed.

I want to tell you something else too. I don’t regard this legislation truly as the legislation of the hon. the Attorney General. I believe this is the legislation of the senior people in Transportation and Communications and some of the senior people in the Attorney General’s ministry. I can understand their reason for wanting this type of legislation.

Driver control is a very, very difficult thing. It’s something, almost, to be jealously guarded. In the past, I recall distinctly talking with the predecessors of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). When that discretion was being exercised perhaps with too great a degree of charity by the bench, people were sent out from the ministry in Toronto to the various judges and they were being told and educated in what the Ministry of Transportation and Communications wanted. They didn’t want the exercise of that discretion.

I just cannot subscribe to the response of the Attorney General to, I think, the most pointed comments that have been made thus far. Those comments are those made by the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt). What he says in effect is this: “Mr. Attorney, what you tell us is, if the discretion has been exercised too broadly, too liberally, therefore throw out the discretion.” All we ask is don’t throw out the discretion, because you can’t overcome the argument that justice must meet the individual circumstances of a case.

When you stricture a judge, either in assessing culpability or assessing what is a proper and appropriate sentence in the light of the individual circumstances, then you do justice no good.

That is the overriding principle as I see it. It comes down, as I said before, to a balanced scale. On one hand, you have the need for protection of society, and I subscribe and wholeheartedly support your views with respect to that need; but goodness gracious, we don’t live in a system, I hope, where because of that need for society’s protection we do away with what I consider some entertainment of the rights of the individual. Where is the right of the individual, the right to be judged on the basis of evidence and the right to be sentenced on the basis of the circumstances as they are dictated?

One of the intervening things over the years has been what now constitutes impaired driving. At least at one time you had some type of discretion to be exercised by the court, I put to the Attorney General, with respect to the question of culpability. That is almost gone because of what we have done for the protection of society already. We have said that we don’t care what your motivation was and we don’t care what your human frailties are. When you get to a certain reading on that machine, you are guilty.

I want to say that, while I don’t practise in the criminal courts as much as I used to, to extricate any clients of mine out of that objective evaluation, I found to be an almost impossible task. I think it is important that the Attorney General listen to this, and I know perhaps that I go on too long and I apologize to you.

The fact is that the federal government has for the protection of society in effect created what one can call a technical statutory offence; and because the courts don’t have any discretion there, I suggest to now take a discretion away from them with respect to the implication of that technical statutory offence removes something that is almost ameliorative to me and very essential to me.

I hope that what would happen would be this -- and I want to go this far to show, I hope, the integrity or sincerity I have in this respect that it would be far better that you permit a judge to say to a transport driver:

“I am sorry, my friend, but you are going to spend every Saturday and Sunday for the next four Saturdays and Sundays in the jail away from your family, incarcerated, but you are going to keep your licence so you can feed that family.”

As somebody else said here, the problem with this type of legislation is that it feeds upon a social tragedy. What happens is the fellow loses his job. He goes on welfare; he’s not able to support his family; there’s a disintegration of the family unit itself.

If we really are looking at justice to be done, then let’s say that to him. Let’s put some sections in this Act that make these offences more than quasi-criminal acts. If we really are sincere, let’s say to the transport driver: “There is no discretion; you’ll be given an intermittent sentence depending on the circumstances. And if you’re given that intermittent sentence, the judge has the right also to incarcerate you forthwith or on terms that he sees fit.”

That type of thing to me is what we want to put forward; and I’m not going to speak again on this section. I’ve appreciated the indulgence of the Attorney General. I’d much more appreciate -- and I know he feels this personally -- I’d really appreciate some reciprocity on his part.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I would just again point out that these proposed amendments don’t remove any discretion. What you’re suggesting is that amendments be introduced that provide for a discretion in relation to the minimum periods that are already provided by the legislation and which are not affected one way or the other, really, by the proposed amendments, except for the absolute discharges.

I think what the hon. members opposite are doing -- and I appreciate their reasoning -- is introducing an additional dimension into the amending legislation; and that is again to reintroduce the whole concept of intermittent licence suspension. The difficulties that I face, quite frankly, at this particular point in time, is I’m just simply not prepared at this moment to say either aye or nay; I, for one, would not state that the concept of intermittent driving privileges should be totally abandoned.

All the federal government did was just get out of the field. It wasn’t a question of the federal government giving or taking away; they just simply said they were going to abandon the field to the provinces.

Now my difficulty, Mr. Chairman, as I’ve already indicated just a moment ago, if asked to introduce or reintroduce the concept of intermittent driving privileges as part of this amending legislation, is I just don’t think I’m in a position to do that at this particular point in time.

It may be that everything has been said that can be usefully said this afternoon in relation to the wisdom or the value of intermittent driving privileges. I’m not stating that everything has not been said. But I think it’s something that should be considered and that I’d like to consider further; which leaves us with the sections which are presently in the amending legislation.

I don’t know whether there’d be any purpose in standing these sections down for the time being or not.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I question the Attorney General for a moment?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Further interrogation is required?

Mr. Bullbrook: No, no. Surely, I don’t have that talent as far as you’re concerned; I know that. I’m interested in this: Since basically these sections are under your care and affect justice, would you consider the possibility of putting them down to the standing committee on justice for discussion with the senior administration of both Transportation and Communications and your own ministry? Because really, this becomes a questions of how we see justice to be done.

Mr. Roy: Just to be of assistance, Mr. Chairman, as the Attorney General has said, it will not change very much, will it? I think the Minister of Transportation and Communications can confirm that. The mandatory sentences of three or six months are still on the books now. The only thing that we’re really basically changing is in relation to, as you’ve said,

section 238; and then the question of the discharges so that the law would continue.

You see, our concern is to deal wholly and completely and logically with the whole problem. All of us, on all sides here, have to be very careful, because politically we’re concerned about not only the problem as it exists but the reaction politically if we don’t deal adequately with this problem. The fact remains that the Attorney General does give discretion, as you said, in fines. You give it in fines. The judge has a wide scope in fines, and you give him a discretion for anything over three months; but you just don’t want to go all the way on the mandatory part of it.

That’s where we see some measure of logic missing, and so I think we would want to deal with it completely and be very careful, because I think it may well be necessary, in fact, that if there is some discretion considered for that mandatory term we’ll have to look at special rules under which it can be exercised. If there is an abuse of that discretion, is that the reason we put in a mandatory term?

So I’m saying I think the suggestion by my colleague from Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) is a good one. We’re not advocating any leniency toward people or towards drinking and driving. You know, you were mentioning that the short experiment of the intermittent t