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

December 1, 1977

31st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L066 - Thu 1 Dec 1977 / Jeu 1er déc 1977

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CREDIT UNION DEPOSIT PROTECTION

CONFIDENTIALITY OF HEALTH RECORDS

CYCLONE RELIEF FUND

CONFIDENTIALITY OF HEALTH RECORDS

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFIDENTIALITY OF HEALTH RECORDS

BROWNDALE

CONFIDENTIALITY OF HEALTH RECORDS

RADIATION LEVELS

MISCONDUCT BY POLICE

RADIATION LEVELS

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

ABORTIONS

SETTLEMENT CORPORATION

NITRATES HAZARD

MINAKI LODGE

TRAINING SCHOOL DEATH

FIRE AT JUDGE’S HOME

BARRIE-TORONTO RAIL SERVICE

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

DISABILITY PENSIONS

TABLING OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS

BRIBERY CASE

BOILER INSPECTION

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL BRIBERY INQUIRY

PETITION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

BRIBERY CASE

REPORTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

ROYAL ASSENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

PETTY TRESPASS AMENDMENT ACT

BRIBERY CASE

ONTARIO COMMISSION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS ACT

PETTY TRESPASS AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO COMMISSION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Before we begin the business of the House this afternoon, may I remind all hon. members and other interested persons of the unveiling of the portrait of Mr. Speaker Rowe which will take place outside the chamber when the House rises at 6 o’clock this evening.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CREDIT UNION DEPOSIT PROTECTION

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to announce to the House that a new form of consumer protection takes effect today for the 1.7 million members of credit unions and caisses populaires in Ontario. OSDIC, the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corporation, created by this Legislature under the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1976, officially takes effect, and the nine-member board of directors officially takes office.

The corporation provides insurance of up to $20,000 to each member of a credit union or caisse populaire to protect shares and deposits. This is the same protection extended by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation on deposits in banks, loan and trust companies.

It is gratifying to me that this high level of consumer protection has been achieved without any need to dip into the public purse. Each credit union and caisse populaire in Ontario will be assessed one per cent of its shares and deposits to provide the funds necessary to insure the assets of its members. Prior to the creation of OSDIC, shares and deposits in most Ontario credit unions and caisses populaires were protected for their members by stabilization funds established by the Ontario Credit Union League and la Federation des Caisses Populaires de l’Ontario.

In addition, OSDIC may take over the assets and management of a credit union or caisse populaire that is not in satisfactory condition; may provide financial assistance to any credit union or caisse populaire, or supervise the orderly liquidation of its operations --

Mr. Samis: Whose orderly liquidation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and must file an annual report with my ministry in the same manner as all Ontario credit unions and caisses populaires.

The corporation is directed by a nine-member board appointed by order in council on the recommendation of my predecessor. Three directors represent the Ontario Credit Union League, three represent la Federation des Caisses Populaires de l’Ontario, while the remaining three represent the public and unaffiliated credit unions. Some of the members of the board of directors are with us today in the gallery to my right and they will be available for information and assistance to the press after question period.

I would be remiss if I did not point to the co-operation and assistance my ministry received from members of the credit union movement in drafting the legislation which made OSDIC possible. One individual among the many who were most helpful is G. Allen Charbonneau, general manager of the Ontario Credit Union League and chairman of the board of directors of OSDIC, who also is with the group in the gallery today.

The credit union movement in this province has traditionally been responsive and responsible. I am pleased to see them join the growing roster of industries self-reliant enough to manage their own affairs. This government sees a healthy credit union movement, free of unnecessary interference, as one of the best ways to increase competition and availability of services within the financial system. It is the consumers of Ontario who are the ultimate beneficiaries. We wish them well.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF HEALTH RECORDS

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order before we start the question period, if I may, is there any minister in charge -- it might be the Premier, who is now on his way in -- to indicate whether there will be statements, as was widely reported, on the OHIP matter either from the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) or the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry)?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t talked to the Minister of Health but I think he will be asking the House for an opportunity to make a statement later.

CYCLONE RELIEF FUND

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the House doesn’t object too strenuously, I have a statement on another matter. It is really very brief.

In response to a request from the Canadian Red Cross Society, the government of Ontario will contribute $75,000 towards the India Cyclone Disaster Relief Fund. The cyclone that struck India on November 12 claimed the lives of at least 12,000 people and caused extensive damage to crops, homes and properties. The funds, at the request of the Canadian Red Cross, will be channelled through the Ontario division of that society.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF HEALTH RECORDS

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for being a little late. Additional copies of my statement are being printed. I’ve sent copies to the leaders of the opposition parties and to the health critics, although I don’t see them, and also to the press gallery, I should say.

A number of serious concerns about confidentiality of medical records have arisen recently in connection with OHIP, psychiatric hospitals and other areas. I assure everyone I view this subject with grave concern. I intend to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the principle of confidentiality of individual medical records is respected. This is my prime concern.

Each of the situations which have come to light is a case of grave concern. They demand a re-examination of policies and procedures presently in place. To undertake such an examination is neither simple nor easy. Nevertheless, we are refining our policies and procedures to reaffirm the integrity and confidentiality of individual medical records.

As examples of some of the things we have put into place, we are tightening security of OHIP records and will no longer supply any information to police forces without a court order. We are working in concert with the Ontario Hospital Association to examine the possible need to tighten procedures regarding patient records in hospitals. In our psychiatric hospitals we will be keeping a log of all requests for information and we will shortly be proposing amendments to the Mental Health Act which have been designed to better protect the rights of all psychiatric patients.

In addition, this government has decided to appoint Mr. Justice Horace Krever to review and to make recommendations on policies and procedures which will ensure confidentiality of individual medical records.

Mr. Justice Krever’s distinguished background and experience qualify him eminently for this review. While a professor in the faculty of law in the University of Toronto, he also lectured in medical jurisprudence. Between 1966 and 1970 he was a member of the Committee on the Healing Arts. He has also been a member of the Council of Health and of its executive committee, and president of the Medico-Legal Society of Toronto.

Specific terms of reference for Mr. Justice Krever’s review will be made public within the next week.

Mr. Lewis: It’s a start and a change.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don’t leave yourself vulnerable.

Mr. Lewis: That isn’t the first time.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFIDENTIALITY OF HEALTH RECORDS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Welcoming as I do, and as I am sure all members on this side do, the appointment of the distinguished Mr. Justice Krever, I wish to ask the minister whether the terms of reference which he is engaged in preparing for the judge will include cases such as that reported, in which a doctor allegedly obtained on a regular basis for an insurance adjuster of some description, hundreds of medical files with which he had no professional business. Will those matters be included in the terms of reference for the judge to look at?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, the Public Hospitals Act would form part of the terms of reference.

Mr. S. Smith: Has the Minister of Health discussed with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) the possibility of any charges being laid with respect to that particular case, and whether any further action should be taken regarding the insurance adjuster or the doctor or anyone else for that matter? Has he discussed with his other colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, whether or not these practices are very widespread in the insurance industry, whereby insurance companies can find themselves in possession of medical files without the permission of the patient and without the court having issued an order for such files?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I haven’t discussed with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations the latter suggestion. I would think that that would very definitely be a part of the review that would be carried out by His Honour. With respect to the former, that is something we are pursuing with the hospital association, and we are investigating further the question of the doctor concerned.

Mr. S. Smith: I thank the minister and look forward to further responses.

BROWNDALE

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Given the recent charges that have been laid with regard to the operation of Browndale and given the fact that such an occurrence could well be giving rise to feelings of uncertainty on the part of staff, on the part of parents and perhaps even on the part of children -- those old enough to understand what’s happening -- can the minister tell us what plans he has developed and has implemented to ensure the welfare of the children and the public interest in general, and what he has done, having had about a year and a half to prepare for this eventuality?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Immediately upon learning of the laying of the charges to which the hon. member refers, the senior officials within my ministry met with representatives of the board of directors of Browndale, at which time the question of continuation of the service and the welfare of the children was discussed. Firm assurances have been given that there will be no interruption in service to the children.

In addition to that, steps have been taken both by the senior officials of my ministry and officials of Browndale to contact their workers in the field across the province to reassure them that the service will be maintained throughout this period. We have no reason whatsoever at this point to fear there will be any interruption of service.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, given the rather exceptional circumstances in this matter, would the minister not agree that he and his officials might be well advised to convene a meeting of Browndale staff and a meeting of parents involved so as to let them know what contingency plans may exist, lest they feel threatened by circumstances or by other threats expressed or implied by whatever person? Wouldn’t such a meeting at which the ministry could lay out its contingency plans and its guarantees about the continuation of service be a good idea, given the uncertainty that must exist in their minds at this time?

[12:15]

Hon. Mr. Norton: As I have said, contact has been made with staff members of Browndale across the province to do precisely what the hon. member requests we do. I am not sure how extensive his suggestion would be in terms of convening a meeting of Browndale staff, whether he means literally bringing in all the staff from across the province of Ontario. I can assure the member that contact has been made, both by Browndale and by officials in my ministry, precisely for the purpose of giving that kind of reassurance.

At this point I have no indication that further measures, such as convening a meeting in Toronto or else at another location in the province, are necessary or would serve any further useful purpose.

Mrs. Campbell: Would the minister not agree that given the new circumstances there are bound to be dislocations, and that extraordinary steps are required with Browndale’s co-operation, hopefully, in order to stabilize that situation?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Again it is not clear in my mind what specific kind of situation the hon. member is referring to.

Certainly, should the present situation not continue, and I can assure the hon. member that the Browndale corporation has indicated a willingness to co-operate with us in order to ensure the continuation of service -- we do have staff members in our ministry who will be monitoring that service throughout this period of time -- but should there be any indication to us that there is dislocation or that there is reason for further intervention, certainly I would be prepared to do that, and certainly I would exercise the authority that I have under the ministry Act to do so.

But I do not want to act precipitately when there are indications of co-operation in order to continue service.

Mrs. Campbell: May I ask one supplementary following the minister’s reply? He has referred to monitoring. Could the minister give us some idea what he means by monitoring the situation by members of his staff?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Ministry staff in the field, throughout the districts across the province, have been instructed to establish a close relationship with the staff of Browndale and to maintain ongoing communication with them in order to ensure that there is no threat of disruption of service.

Mr. S. Smith: A final brief supplementary: Now that the charges which were at one time pending have in fact been laid, are we going to receive answers to our questions regarding the financial situation, especially about how the 1977 per diem was set? Furthermore, is the minister going to tell us now what changes in the method of funding he has in mind?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If I might just intercede at this time, we have reviewed the sub judice rule on numerous occasions in this House, and it is not the prerogative of the Speaker to call into question the nature of a question and whether or not it may be. All I want to do is caution the person asking the question and the minister to use some discretion with regard to the sub judice rule. I am not outlawing the question. I just want to remind members of that.

Mr. S. Smith: May I just speak to that point briefly, Mr. Speaker, in thanking you for that reminder. As you are aware, sir, the government of Ontario pays to Browndale now about $700,000 a month. We are merely asking whether that can be accounted for, as we requested in estimates. As you know, sir, in estimates we were told that because charges were pending, they didn’t have the information available for us. We wonder if it will be available now, including any plans they have to change the method of funding.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think the only change in circumstances since the time that questions were asked during the estimates is that perhaps it is even clearer now that certain issues are sub judice. Since I am not familiar with either the details of the previous investigation or the evidence that might be relevant to the charges currently before the court, I would be very reluctant to discuss it especially in view of the legal advice that I had obtained earlier while the matter was under investigation.

Mr. Lewis: If I may ask a supplementary, surely the minister is not hesitant about now discussing the applicable per diem for a treatment centre and how he arrived at it, since it is functioning today.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As I said, if I were aware -- and I’m not -- of specifically what issues gave rise to the charges currently before the court, then I would know what I could safely comment upon. But I am not privy to that information and I would not wish to comment on a matter in any way so as to prejudice the case that’s before the court or any of the persons who are involved.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary on a point of clarification: Do I understand it that the minister is still relying on an opinion which was given some time ago? Has he not sought a further opinion as to whether the facts cannot be told now that charges have been laid? If he hasn’t, will he do it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Of course, I will. I have not, and I’m sure right now I could assure the hon. member that the opinion is not likely to have changed since the charges have been laid.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF HEALTH RECORDS

Mr. Lewis: I too would like to welcome the statement made by the Minister of Health and come at his statement in a slightly different way. Does it not concern the Minister of Health considerably that both the complaints committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Health Disciplines Board in Ontario would virtually exonerate from culpability a physician who admits to giving literally hundreds of files, without consent required from the patients, to a third-party insurance adjuster over a period of time, and that all the Health Disciplines Board says is, “It’s not a very nice thing to do, but it wasn’t meant with malice and, therefore, we’ll just let you off!”?

Doesn’t it worry the minister about the standards and scruples which both the complaints committee and the Health Disciplines Board are applying to this highly sensitive area?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, it does. I haven’t got the decision with me but, as I recall it, the quote, either in the report or some backup papers, was that this particular physician had prepared hundreds of similar reports. The case in question had to do with one particular instance where he had obtained a record without consent -- that one. It’s not clear about the others. I guess perhaps one can try to make that kind of a bridge. Even though it’s just one, that certainly is sufficient grounds for concern.

As I indicated, we are working with the Ontario Hospital Association which in recent months already had circulated its members with reminders of the provisions of the Act. I will be meeting with the hospital association again for our regular monthly liaison in a couple of weeks. In the meantime what we propose to do through them is to follow that up with a review, asking each of the hospitals to indicate yet again what are its current procedures. Where we find any wanting -- “we” being the ministry -- then we will pursue it with individual hospitals pending the completion of Mr. Justice Krever’s review.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Let me remind the minister that the physician said he prepared hundreds of similar reports, over the years, “many of them for that particular adjuster.” It probably is more than one. On that basis, beyond the Ontario Hospital Association, doesn’t the minister think it might also merit a conversation with the Health Disciplines Board, without meaning to erode its authority, and with the complaints committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons to suggest that this protective environment applied to the medical profession might be ameliorated a little in the way they view and judge such cases? This is really quite gross.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Certainly I intend to pursue it with the college at our next meeting. As the member knows, I also meet with them once a month so that current things that come to the surface can be dealt with fairly quickly. We’ll take it up with the board.

It comes down to the college’s view. As I read it, the board obviously felt there was no point in referring it back, given the circumstances. There appeared to have been, in their view, reasonable grounds that the doctor thought there was consent. That’s not good enough, obviously. It’s got to be tightened up. I always remember something I was told years ago in high school when I told the teacher I assumed something. He said, “You just take apart the word ‘assume’ and you end up with three words. That’s exactly what it does to you every time you assume anything.”

Mr. Conway: Since the particular judgement in question is dated at Toronto, July 6, 1977, and since the Ministry of Health has been under regular and sometimes rather intensive questioning about this entire matter in the last three weeks, am I to assume that no one in the Health Disciplines Board thought to draw this to the attention of the minister or the senior members of his staff? No one knew that this judgement, which was four or five months old, in fact existed and clearly contradicted many of the impressions which had been left as a result of estimates discussion and some questions raised in this House?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I really do take exception to some of the bridges the member tries to make of these things. I don’t recall that we discussed hospital records in estimates under the Public Hospitals Act. Let’s make that clear from the start.

Secondly, the other night when I left cabinet for a while a reporter asked me about this, and I was mistaken when I said that I didn’t recall having seen that particular one. When I checked the next morning, once the office was open again and the files were open, I found that in fact that one had been referred to the ministry by the board at about that time, I can’t recall a date, and that action had been begun then with the hospital association. In fact it has been followed up, as I have been describing, with circularization by the hospital association of their members and our plans to pursue it with the hospital association at individual hospitals.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may, one last supplementary -- I am sorry, the member for Renfrew North triggers a recollection with his supplementary.

I would like to ask the minister: The last paragraph of this judgement, dated July 6, so many months ago, says: “Dr. X informed the board that the hospital made its x-rays available to him without any inquiry as to whether he had the patient’s consent or a court order. The board believes this may constitute a violation of the Public Hospitals Act and recommends that the matter be investigated by the appropriate authorities.”

Has it been investigated? Who were the appropriate authorities? What happened?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is under investigation.

Mr. Swart: As of yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is just about complete. A number of individual things have come up over the last few days that I have asked for numbers on and so forth. I think we will probably be in a position by early next week to give the member a definitive answer on all aspects of that, and on what has been done with that particular hospital.

Mr. S. Smith: How can the minister, Mr. Speaker, have any confidence at all in the Health Disciplines Board, when its judgement points out such things as “records with respect to a certain patient, who was not, incidentally, the doctor’s own patient?”

Surely the minister would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that if doctors were required to give a signed subpoena or something every time they wanted a patient’s record in the hospital, the hospital would grind to a halt. Doctors must know the difference between asking for their own patient’s case and asking for a case with which they have absolutely no professional business.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. S. Smith: If the Health Disciplines Board sees that as an incidental matter, how can you have any confidence in that board at all in these matters?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think we all accept the gravity of it, and with respect I don’t believe that the words “incidental matter” are used.

Mr. S. Smith: Incidentally, incidentally.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I read it, the judgement of the board was that, sufficient doubt was raised by the doctor’s statement that he assumed he had that authority.

What I am saying to the member, and what I said earlier, is that I am concerned about that assumption. There should be no grounds for that assumption, it should be very clear cut in the operation of the medical records facilities in hospitals that you either have a consent or you don’t.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary. The hon. member for Parkdale.

Mr. Dukszta: Can the minister tell me the present stage of proposals to computerize the psychiatric records for psychiatric patients in provincial psychiatric hospitals? This in the past led to serious objections from the staff on the same grounds of confidentiality.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Offhand, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the status of that, whether it has gone any further than being a proposal for discussion. I will get the information for the member.

[2:30]

RADIATION LEVELS

Mr. Lewis: Yes; that took quite some time, Mr. Speaker; I’ll try to be brief.

I would like to put a question, if I could, to the Minister of the Environment, albeit his involvement is perhaps peripheral.

Did the minister notice the story in today’s newspapers about the group of scientists in the United States who found that the exposure to even very low level radiation in nuclear facilities in nuclear refineries had apparently caused a startling increase in the incidence of cancer among the work force and that the levels which have been commonplace in the United States and Canada may, in fact, constitute a terrible hazard? Is it possible that information can be acted upon quickly by the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson)?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I haven’t had a chance to read that particular

article in today’s paper. However, it deals mainly with occupational health. Certainly I will get the

article and refer it to people within my ministry and also discuss it with the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a quick supplementary, may I ask the minister, just so that it is acted on quickly, to look at it in the context that the levels that resulted in this disability are one-tenth the levels of exposure in Ontario at the moment. Also, he should note that we have just now, for the first time, two cases of cancer of this kind coming out of the Port Hope refinery which are before the Workman’s Compensation Board. Since the minister is so deeply involved in the whole nuclear development program, would it be possible for him to pursue it in that context?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I think the hon. member is aware there have been a number of papers of this kind dealing with low level radiation and cancer. I would think there would be some expertise, not only within my ministry but within Labour and Health dealing with this subject. We can put everything together, compile it, and have some sort of a provincial stance on it.

MISCONDUCT BY POLICE

Mr. Stong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Solicitor General. Is the minister aware of a letter being circulated among the lawyers of the regional municipality of York on the stationery of the North York Law Association and over the signature of the secretary, Mr. Clark Smith? The first sentence reads, “Certain members of the North York Law Association have advised the executive that cases of misconduct by the York Regional Police Department have become so frequent and involve so many police officers that they are gravely concerned about the standard of police protection in the region.”

If the Solicitor General is not aware of this letter, I am prepared to give him a copy. At any rate, is the Solicitor General prepared to have a representative of his ministry attend the meeting suggested in this letter so that if any investigation is warranted it can be conducted by the ministry?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I thank the member for bringing that to my attention. I have not seen the letter and I will be glad to have a copy of it. I don’t know whether the correct procedure would be for someone from the OPC to attend, but we certainly will follow it up, either through the OPC or by direct police representation.

RADIATION LEVELS

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Minister of the Environment: In view of the discovery of background radiation in a subdivision in Ottawa, in March township, and the possibility of that existing in other subdivisions across the province, what steps are being taken by the ministry to determine the existence of this background radiation in existing and in future subdivisions? And further, what steps is the minister planning to take in order to protect the health of the individuals who are directly affected?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the home owners in question have been notified. Any home owners living where levels of radiation above our criteria have been found have been notified. This is natural radiation, as the hon. member probably knows. It may extend beyond the 343 homes that have been surveyed to date. I understand the federal agency, the radiation agency that is undertaking these studies, will continue its survey.

Because it is natural radiation, I think there will have to be some decision involving not only the federal government and the local government but the home owners as well. I think any decision will have very far-reaching consequences and will set a precedent as far as cost is concerned. I think, however, it is our responsibility to indicate to the home owners how the problem can be solved and what can be done to the structure itself to lower the radiation and make sure their levels are safe.

I think that would be the first thing we should do and we’re attempting to do that by way of a public meeting, which I believe was held last night. There will be further information given to the home owners who have been advised about high levels, and then the decision as to whatever cost is involved will have to be made by the two levels of government and the home owners.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will future subdivision sites across the province be checked for natural background radiation? Is this not part of the ministry’s plans, in order that this problem does not reoccur?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Wherever high levels of radiation are suspected, certainly it will be incumbent upon some level of government to notify not only home owners but also potential developers and subdividers in the area. I understand that this result in March township, for example, will pretty well affect the development that’s going on at the present time. However, I don’t think the situation exists in all parts of the province, but there’s definitely a vein of radiation through that part of Ontario. So it’s quite possible that before subdivisions or housing developments are approved in the future they’ll have to have some sort of a certificate indicating there’s no radiation problem.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Simcoe East with a new question.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We’ve had enough supplementaries.

Mr. Foulds: We’ve had only one.

Mr. Speaker: That’s right.

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is it true that two administrative salaries are being charged against the operational budget of the Huronia Regional Centre? I’m referring, of course, to the existing administrator and the salary of the former administrator.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding at the present time, I suppose one might say as a bookkeeping entry, that the former administrator at Huronia still appears to be being paid his salary from that facility; but I can assure the hon. member that there is a chargeback arrangement with the division of the ministry for which the administrator is now working, and that chargeback will be retroactive and it will not have any direct impact on the budget of the facility at Huronia.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Supplementary: In view of the fact that at least two important maintenance positions that are vacant now due to attrition have not been filled due to restraints in the salaries budget, could the minister assure me that since this $38,000 is being transferred to another area of his ministry the local administrator and those responsible could at least take a look at replacing the important support staff that is needed?

Hon. Mr. Norton: We are presently working with the administrators of all of our facilities in reviewing, first of all, the level of staffing and also the potential impact of any needed further constraints on staff. I can assure the hon. member at this point that we are doing everything we can to preserve the level of staffing. I cannot, at this point, make a specific undertaking with respect to the two positions that he refers to, but I can assure him that an appropriate level of staffing will be maintained.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: Is the minister now able to advise us as to the current duties of the former administrator?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, of course I can, but as the hon. member may realize, I’m reluctant to discuss that, not for any reason relating to the specific duties but because of the fact that there is a case, I believe, before the Supreme Court of the province of Ontario initiated by the employee in question.

Mr. Eakins: There’s always a case before the courts.

Hon. Mr. Norton: In that case, I understand, some of the relevant issues do relate to the specific duties assigned to the individual.

Mr. McClellan: The government is going to get buried in litigation over there.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Perhaps I can assure the hon. member I am satisfied that the individual in question is performing a very useful and productive service to this ministry and to administrative facilities across this province. Any reference to pencil-sharpening aside, I can assure the hon. member his duties are much more responsible than that kind of statement would involve. I suspect his contribution will be very important to the ability of our ministry to provide good advice for some of our homes for the aged across the province with respect to planning for future budgets at a time of constraint.

ABORTIONS

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question of the Minister of Health: Given that half of all the abortions performed in Canada occur here in the province of Ontario, does his ministry have any monitoring mechanism to ensure that hospital therapeutic abortion committees are carrying out their decisions in line with the intent of the Criminal Code of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the hon. member knows, no abortion can legally be carried out unless it has gone through the therapeutic advisory abortion committee, I guess it’s called the TAAC. We have statistics on the number of abortions which are carried out in the province and where it is a provision of the law that they must go through the TAAC of the individual hospital involved.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Does it not concern the minister that a sizeable number of doctors in this province have declared that the majority of abortions being carried out are not for purely medical reasons but for convenience or social reasons? That’s why I asked if there was any monitoring system.

Mr. Lewis: Which doctors? What group of doctors? Tell us who is the influential group of doctors?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m well aware how emotional an issue this is, and the division is along more than simple political lines; within political parties one will find shades of opinion on this issue.

The means by which the committee would review applications are set out by the federal government in the Criminal Code in the

section which pertains to abortions. Our responsibility at the provincial level is to ensure that the law is carried out in the sense that where abortions are performed the review committees are established. We do not dictate the attitudes of the members of those committees and we don’t dictate the membership. We don’t dictate the attitudes and so forth of the directors of hospitals, where from time to time one does get a chief of medical staff who is either very opposed or in favour, generally speaking. In short, we do not try to tell the members of the committee what they should think.

SETTLEMENT CORPORATION

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Would I be correct in assuming the minister has noted that Settlement Corporation is one of the builders HUDAC no longer covers under the home warranty program? Would I also be correct in assuming the minister can recall the numerous occasions that the shoddy workmanship of Settlement Corporation was brought to the attention of his ministry, either to himself or to his predecessor?

Doesn’t the minister feel, at this point in time, that maybe the Ministry of Housing has some responsibility to those people who purchased homes that were built by Settlement Corporation under the HOME program, homes that have proven to have in them all the shoddy workmanship and materials that have now brought about the company being refused a licence by HUDAC?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am not aware of whether or not the particular corporation is no longer covered by HUDAC. That warranty program is not in my area of responsibility. However, I appreciate being advised of that.

Certainly I am aware of the comments that have been made by the hon. member and others concerning this particular problem. Frankly I was under the impression that we had adequately handled the situation as it relates to the particular development to which the hon. member is referring.

There are a number of developments and I was putting them all in one category, but I certainly will look into that matter for the hon. member. I believe these people are entitled to have their homes properly built and properly brought up to the standards that they had expected when they were purchased.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary question if I may: Given that the HUDAC warranty program covers primarily structural rather than what they would term cosmetic problems with regard to the home itself, would the minister instruct his ministry to go and review the houses built in what was previously called the satellite city development in Saltfleet? Would he determine for himself whether or not the workmanship there is up to the standards which he would expect?

If not, would the minister take appropriate steps, notwithstanding HUDAC, which doesn’t seem to deal with matters other than whether the beams are in the right place or not to make sure the work that has been started is completed to the satisfaction and to a level --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Deans: -- that he would consider satisfactory?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, first of all, as I recall the HUDAC home warranty plan, I was under the impression the matters that the hon. member refers to as cosmetic were covered by the warranty for the first year and that the structural problems he refers to were for five years.

As far as the satellite city development is concerned, I am not sure whether the hon. member is referring to buildings that were built in the first project or have been recently built. Certainly I don’t feel that I should be going back three, four or five years and looking at what he described as cosmetic problems.

NITRATES HAZARD

Mr. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Agriculture: Mr. Minister, are you aware of the

article appearing in the Toronto Star, Wednesday, November 30, reporting on the Ontario Federation of Agriculture meeting and remarks attributed to the president, Peter Hannam, and University of Guelph researcher, Don Irvine, who has a National Research Council grant to study the effect of processing a nitrate preserved cheese? Irvine states that nitrates can produce a potent cancer-causing compound and this nitrate preservative is used in imported Dutch cheeses. The Federation of Agriculture delegates called for a ban on nitrate preservative imported cheese. Peter Hannam said that the preservative is not needed or used --

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr. Johnson: -- in the making of Canadian cheese.

Mr. Speaker: We want a question, not a statement.

Mr. Johnson: I have two questions. One, will the ministry undertake to investigate these and similar claims, and if there’s a danger to the Ontario consumer in using imported cheese, inform them? And point two, would the ministry also inform the Ontario consumer that this preservative is not used in the making of Ontario cheese?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I just got a notice somewhere here -- I haven’t read it in its entirety. But I would point out to the hon. member that if nitrates are a problem in the preservative of cheese, I would be only happy to talk to the federal people who approved of it because we can produce those same cheeses right here in the province of Ontario and it would give our dairy farmers more milk production. I certainly will look into that very thoroughly and will discuss it with the federal authorities who approved it.

On the second point, I am not sure exactly what is used in production of Canadian cheese but if there are no nitrates -- although they were approved by Ottawa I understand -- certainly we will be glad to look into that and assure the consumers of the province of Ontario that everything is under control.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister said he would look into it and you will have an opportunity to ask an original question later on.

MINAKI LODGE

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier: Speaking at the NOTO convention in Thunder Bay, he made an announcement about Minaki Lodge. Could he give us further information on the cost estimate of retaining architects to study the recreation and convention facilities at Minaki? And can he make a commitment at this time as to when construction of such facilities will take place?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the hon. member keeps track of what I say when I am in Thunder Bay. It was a very pleasant evening up there last night and I ran into some mutual friends.

I did make it quite clear that we were moving ahead with the architectural concept for the recreational part and so on of Minaki. I will get that figure. I was asked by the press as to what time frame might be involved in terms of construction and completion, and I will give you the same answer I gave them; in that they understood it, it is quite obvious that you will understand it.

I said it related to the ability of this province -- the economic situation, the amount of capital funding -- and as a result I was not able to put any time

schedule to it. But I will certainly get the estimated figure for the design work.

Mr. S. Smith: I heard the Premier on the CBC this morning.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Did the Leader of the Opposition have a supplementary? Yes; I covered it very fully.

Mr. S. Smith: I heard him. He said he would complete Minaki despite what southern Ontario thinks about it.

Hon. Mr Davis: No; I said that I expected there would be some criticism from some people in southern Ontario --

Mr. S. Smith: Darn right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is just like the Leader of the Opposition; he doesn’t understand the north at all, and that’s one of the reasons he has so much difficulty up there.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Eakins: Are we to assume from the remarks of the Minister of industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) just a month ago that private interests are still being sought to buy the lodge; or is this architectural study being done to aid the government in its future ownership of the lodge?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I hope the hon. member, who is surely familiar with the tourist industry, personally recognizes the desirability of having the private sector, particularly a firm or organization with experience in administering a facility of this kind, involved.

I think that as he obviously is an entrepreneur himself he recognizes that it would be advisable to have the concept, at least, completed; some estimate as to time and some estimate as to ultimate cost. This would be more attractive to an entrepreneur, company, whatever term you may wish to use, in making their assessment. So if you are asking if it is still the desire of the government to have somebody move in on a partnership basis, or even a purchase, or to assume management; yes, the answer is very simple.

Mr. Conway: Have you asked Eaton’s?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think they are in that business.

TRAINING SCHOOL DEATH

Mr. McClellan: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. May I ask the minister, for the third time, whether he will, and when will he, produce to this House a statement with respect to the circumstances preceding the death of Robert Shepherd in the Hillcrest Training School, similar to the report produced by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) with respect to the suicide of Norma Dean?

Hon. Mr. Norton: As the hon. member I am sure is now aware, there has been a date set for an inquest into the matter. Especially in view of the concern I know he would share with me for the confidentiality of specific information, particularly relating to a juvenile, even though he be deceased, I know he would also share with me the concern about how the whole matter might be handled at this point.

I can assure the hon. member that the full information will be made available to the inquest. In view of the relatively short period of time before the inquest takes place I would ask that he consider bearing with me until the inquest has been held. I would be quite prepared to share the information with him at that time.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary: May I ask the minister why this case is different from the case of Norma Dean, in which case we had a statement which preceded the inquest? What’s the problem here?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Lacking any other explanation, I suppose the different element is perhaps the minister who is involved and the concern that I happen to have for the question of protecting the confidentiality of the records of juveniles, except when they are properly presented at an inquest or before a court as required.

Mr. Lewis: The Provincial Secretary for Social Development didn’t have --

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not commenting upon that, I am saying that is my opinion.

Mr. Lewis: You are certainly gratuitously commenting on it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I do have a concern about that. In fact, I must say that I was even very disturbed with certain members of the staff of my ministry, who I felt exceeded the bounds of respect for the confidentiality of the records of a juvenile -- although in a minor way -- about a week ago when comments were made.

Mr. Speaker: A minister named John has the answer to a question asked previously. I don’t know whether it’s the Solicitor General or the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Peterson: It is big John.

Mr. Gaunt: It is big John.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my informality. I must have had other things on my mind. There are a good number of Johns about this location.

Mr. Conway: What happened to John Smith?

FIRE AT JUDGE’S HOME

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) asked me a question concerning a fire at the residence of Judge Stortini. A fire did occur on January 28, 1977, when the house was vacant and up for sale. It has been determined that the fire was incendiary in origin. The Fire Marshal’s office, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Toronto Police, investigated the case; however, the police have not been successful in apprehending a suspect. The file has not been closed, but there will be no new developments until the police find a new lead.

The other reply I had was for the member for Port Arthur and I will hold that until he’s in the House.

BARRIE-TORONTO RAIL SERVICE

Mr. Hodgson: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Breaugh: Here we go.

Mr. Sargent: Sock it to him, Bill.

Mr. Hodgson: The minister reported in the House last week that the Richmond Hill commuter service is going along well and is expected to open in 1978 --

Mr. Nixon: Good. How is the new road up there, Bill?

Mr. Hodgson: -- which I’m sure all the commuters up there will be very happy about.

Mr. Makarchuk: Make this a press release.

Mr. Hodgson: The question I am asking concerns the Barrie-Toronto commuter service which has been in operation for the last four or five years.

Mr. Nixon: Is that saltpetre?

Hon. W. Newman: Do you know how to use it?

Mr. Hodgson: Does the minister know if any agreement was reached between the province and the federal authorities regarding the commuter service initiated in Richmond Hill -- was it agreed that it will be discontinued? Has he had any discussion with the federal Minister of Transport on this particular question?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any discussion with the federal officials or with the CNR regarding any discontinuance of the Barrie to Toronto CNR commuter train. I’m not aware of any plans to discontinue that. As any agreement relating to that service would have been before my time in the ministry, I’d have to check to see for sure that there is no such agreement; but certainly I’m not aware of any application by CNR to discontinue. I will look into it.

Mr. Hodgson: Supplementary: Would the minister have a meeting with his federal counterpart on behalf of those 300 commuters who use that train daily from Barrie to Toronto? They are most anxious. I am getting questions from them regarding the future of that service. Would the minister have it at an early date so that we can put their minds at ease?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’ll certainly inquire into it to see if a meeting is required with Mr. Lang. If a meeting is necessary I’ll certainly try to arrange one as early as possible.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr. Worton: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. He will recall earlier this year that I had written to him expressing concern by a number of school bus operators in regard to the difficulties they were having with vehicles that were passing their busses while their lights were flashing. They were concerned about the way in which the driver had to be identified. The minister replied and indicated that he didn’t feel changes could be made.

In view of the fact that there have been a number of school boards -- and they have written, no doubt, to the minister as well as to members -- asking for a change in the method of laying a charge on the basis of the licence number of the vehicle rather than by identification of the driver, would the minister consult with the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) to see if a solution can be found for this problem?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker. I’m sure there will be some difficulty in the legalities of that process of laying a charge without stopping the vehicle to identify the driver. I will not attempt to give my colleagues any legal advice, but I will consult with him.

Mr. Haggerty: I don’t think we would take it anyway.

[3:00]

DISABILITY PENSIONS

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services: Can the minister explain to this House the government’s policy in relation to guaranteeing benefits under the Family Benefits Act to individuals affected by chronic paranoid schizophrenia, and recognized by psychiatrists as being totally unemployable? Are they qualified to be covered by the Family Benefits Act?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the specific condition the hon. member asks about I am not in a position to respond fully at this point; I will take that question as notice and be prepared to respond fully at a later time.

TABLING OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, regarding documents that he has at one time or another undertaken to provide in the House. Could he provide us with the following: First of all, the legal opinion that he has been seeking regarding what constitutes legal access by police to OHIP files? Secondly, the OMB material, the internal file on the Davies matter and all of the Treasurer’s (Mr. McKeough) correspondence regarding the same matter.

Mr. Lewis: And while the Attorney General is at it what about that investigation into the NDP in the early 1970s?

Mr. S. Smith: Did they find them?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Good idea.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I recall the question related to the documents in the possession of the OMB in relation to that particular file, and had also asked questions with respect to correspondence that had been turned over to the OPP; I have not yet had a report back on that.

On the question of legal access by the police to OHIP files, I am not too sure that I quite understand that question.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of clarification, it is my recollection that the Attorney General undertook to seek a legal opinion regarding under what conditions police could legally gain access to OHIP files, and what would constitute illegal access to such files; some clarification of the matter as it is at present. It seems to me he undertook to seek such an opinion. Does he have it; if so will he share it with the House?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t think the questions were asked in those terms. I think the questions were asked as to whether there had been any breach of the health insurance legislation by employees of OHIP or anyone else; and I think the questions were asked in relation to whether there would be any prosecutions or were any prosecutions warranted.

I have received a very lengthy opinion in respect to that matter. Although I think it is generally not a good practice for the Attorney General to table legal opinions from the senior law officers of the Crown because problems can arise, I think there are occasions on which there is a great deal of public interest, understandably so, in these opinions. I have a very lengthy opinion, Mr. Speaker, which I am prepared to table. I can take the time of the House in reading it, but it would be about 20 minutes to half an hour.

Mr. S. Smith: If the Attorney General would be kind enough to table it, I’d appreciate it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’d be prepared to do that right now, Mr. Speaker.

BRIBERY CASE

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. This is a question regarding the case of bribery involving Melvin Kurtz and Marion Constriction.

Since from last week’s questioning it emerged there was enough evidence that both parties in this case had committed an illegality, and since this pattern was followed in five other cases, is the Attorney General now prepared to review this case?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked several questions by the member opposite in relation to criminal charges that were laid in relation to the Waisberg inquiry where charges were laid three years ago. I have given, I think, quite a complete answer to the House, and I don’t intend to deal with that matter any more. I think the questions have been satisfactorily answered as to what the decision of the Crown law office was three years ago in relation to laying those charges.

Mr. di Santo: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This has been discussed on two or three occasions in the past. We had a late show on it last week. The Attorney General at that time said he had nothing further to add. I didn’t see any difference in his answer here today.

Mr. di Santo: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Your point of privilege?

Mr. di Santo: Since I have a new element to my previous question, I think it is my right to ask the Attorney General to answer me.

Mr. Speaker: It’s your right to ask any question you want. It’s the Attorney General’s right to answer it in any way he deems proper.

Mr. Lewis: It’s the Speaker’s right to cut him off.

BOILER INSPECTION

Mr. Riddell: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Is it the intention of the Ontario government, through the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, to retain and strengthen its vital service for the inspection of boilers, pressure vessels and associated piping systems during fabrication; and for the approval and registration of manufacturers’ new designs for boilers and pressure vessels; and for inspection of welding procedures and qualifications of welding operators?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no question but that I am looking once again at the whole issue referred to by the member. We are far from reaching any conclusions, but yes, we are looking into the whole subject.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that the industry generally seems to be prepared to pay much higher fees than the current $20-per-hour in order to maintain this service, which they feel is quite vital to their industry?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, we are aware of the progress we have made in terms of seeing that potentially the government will be able to report on a better cost recovery for the program in the event we choose to continue it, but the simple fact that we may be able to make it indeed a profitable exercise, and one that is better for the taxpayers of the province, hasn’t convinced us --

Mr. Kerrio: That will be a first.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- that we shouldn’t abandon looking into the question of whether or not that industry as well as others should be more self-regulating at this point in time.

I should reaffirm, having said that, that we are just looking into it. I have by no means recommended to my colleagues that we get out of the field; but it is fair to confirm what the rumours are about, and that is that we are looking into it once again. We will be pleased to receive the submissions of the industry affected so that they will have full and complete input before it gets too far down the pipe. That sort of dialogue will be continuing over the next period of time. It is not urgent, but it is something we will be going into in the next few months.

Mr. Gaunt: Don’t scrap it, it is a good service.

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL BRIBERY INQUIRY

Mr. Martel: A question of the Attorney General: In view of the fact that J. P. Lebel was given and is serving a six-months sentence for accepting a bribe during the construction of Laurentian Hospital, can the Attorney General indicate whether or not the two officials who paid the bribe have, in fact, been tried yet; and if, in fact, they too have been sent to serve a little time in the “crowbar hotel”?

Mr. Germa: Or are they Tories?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know at this point who was charged in relation to this matter other than Mr. Lebel; or what occurred as a result if other changes have been laid.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary: Doesn’t the minister believe that if an individual is charged with accepting a bribe and is sentenced that the person who pays the bribe, in fact, is as much committing

an act against the law as the person who accepted the bribe? If so, then doesn’t he insist that this individual should be brought to trial as well?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That can be the case; it depends on all of the circumstances. As I indicated in answer to a question that was asked by one of the member’s colleagues, it depends on all of the circumstances. In respect to the Waisberg inquiry, I indicated what the criteria were that were applied by the Crown law office in that particular case, but it depends on all the circumstances as to whether charges will or will not be laid.

PETITION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union bearing 569 signatures. This petition presents objections to the economic principle of cutting back on public sector jobs. Local 111 of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union has discussed this concern with the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) the member for London South (Mr. Walker) and myself, and it was mutually agreed that I bring this petition to the attention of the Lieutenant Governor and the members of the Assembly on behalf of Local 111.

BRIBERY CASE

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give notice that I am not satisfied with the answer given to me by the Attorney General and I’d like to debate it at the late show.

REPORTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Davison from the select committee on the Ombudsman presented the committee’s third report and requested that it be placed on the order paper for consideration, pursuant to provisional standing order 6.

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing general government committee reported the following resolutions:

Resolved: That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Ombudsman be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978.

Office of the Ombudsman program.....$3,560,000

Resolved: That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Ombudsman be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Office of the Ombudsman program........$633,500

Resolved: That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Assembly be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Office of the Assembly program..........$3,347,600

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs leave to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr9,

An Act respecting the City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Bill Pr29,

An Act respecting the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee has carefully examined the following applications for private Acts and finds the notices, as published in each case, sufficient:

Loubill Hobbies and Sports Limited;

Borough of Scarborough;

City of Thunder Bay.

ROYAL ASSENT

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

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

Bill 91,

An Act to amend The Assessment Act.

Bill 97,

An Act respecting the Sandwich, Windsor and Amherstburg Railway.

Bill Pr5,

An Act respecting the Village of Port McNicoll.

Bill Pr14,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

PETTY TRESPASS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Eaton moved second reading of Bill 101,

An Act to amend The Petty Trespass Act.

Mr. Eaton: In recent years farmers have been exhibiting a growing concern regarding property rights for owners of private land. It is for this reason that I introduced into this House two weeks ago a private bill to deal with petty trespassing.

I submit that the legal framework and otherwise must meet the needs of our time. I’m sure, Mr. Speaker, that members of this House can look back to a time when intruders on private property, especially poachers, were dealt with very harshly. I’m not saying we should return to that kind of harsh treatment but we should have penalties that deal with poaching. We must establish a deterrent for those who abuse and violate the rights of other people’s property.

At least 99 per cent of the land in southern Ontario is currently privately owned. It is the landowners who we are trying to protect in this bill. The purpose of this bill is to remove from requirements for petty trespass that land be enclosed or that land must be posted before one can be considered a trespasser. The proposed legislation places the onus on persons to ask permission to enter on another person’s land and to increase the maximum fine to $1,000 from the present $100.

To many, my proposal to increase the maximum fine to $1,000 may seem excessive but it is designed to act as a deterrent and to give the current legislation some teeth. Let me remind the hon. members of this House that the amount of this fine is still left to the discretion of a judge hearing the individual case.

The bill also removes from the property owner any liability to trespassers unless he deliberately, with intent, tries to do harm to a trespasser who might be involved. As the situation is now, this province’s rural community is virtually powerless to stop trespassers. When police are called, farmers and landowners are told that charges must be laid under the Petty Trespass Act which means that the wronged landowner must lay charges himself and pay legal costs.

I think the farm leaders now feel, as they have in the past presented a number of proposals to the government, that action should be taken. I think they now feel, they have, in the past, had few court cases where a conviction could take place for trespassing on posted land.

May I quote from the November issue of Farm and Country.

“Over the past five years or so, the number of unpleasant hunting incidents has escalated to a point where many farmers, often themselves hunters, dread the advent of the deer, moose, goose and other hunting seasons. Arrivals from cities and towns, swarm across their land; crops are trampled; livestock shot and pet wildlife gunned down. Almost without exception, the marauders invade crop land and bush land without bothering to contact the owners for permission to go on that land.

“Ironically, a simple call to many of those farm owners would get them permission to go on the land. It’s been estimated that in 95 per cent of all cases, bona fide sportsmen are given approval to go on private property and cross land without reservation. After all, most of these polite visitors are members of the Ontario Federation and Anglers and Hunters and they produce identity cards and insurance slips freeing the farmer from all responsibility in the event of an accident.”

However, the publication well points out that there are many rogue hunters, the ones who are trigger-happy and who refuse to abide by the strict code observed by many honourable sportsmen and who have no intention of keeping within the rule limits that may be applied to them. They respect no one’s private property and feel that they can do as they please on lands in this province.

By asking permission, they would put themselves in a position of being able to be identified, which they don’t want to be.

I’m critical not only of these rogue hunters who do this type of thing but of the pilferer, the one who stops alongside an orchard or a field of sweet corn and decides that they can get their provisions there. Recent examples of this kind of an incident can be found in many rural areas in the province, and especially in the fruit belt of Niagara region where posted signs have been ignored, torn down, with complete disregard for the private orchards in that area.

Granted, some of the thefts may be minor in nature. They may be a young person going in and stealing some apples, that sort of thing; but then there are incidents that are significant, and the fact that there are continuing incidents on the same property can amount to great loss to the producers.

In my riding, for example, I want to refer to an incident a constituent of mine had in his dealings with the law when he apprehended someone who was stealing apples -- in fact he had a full bushel of them. He couldn’t charge him as a trespasser, because although he had the land posted, the signs had been torn down. He had no fences around the property, because it’s an orchard and why go to the cost of enclosing it.

This is the example: He charged him, took him to court for theft; I guess it would then be a criminal offence. I want to read from the letter.

“I am sending you a copy of this to show you the attitude towards such a charge. Our annual losses are in the neighbourhood of 1,000 to 1,500 bushels of apples per year.”

A lot of incidents happen maybe where kids come in and you chase them out so it’s not that great a problem, but listen to this: “Usually the police will come and pick them up and we hear no more of the matter. When they are taken to court we have to prove their guilt and state the value of the apples at the time they were stolen. I have also had six charges dismissed. I think it’s a bad reflection on our courts. Six charges dismissed because the judge said: ‘I used to steal apples when I was a kid.’”

Imagine a judge saying that on the bench. I would hope the Attorney General takes note of that one.

“I am writing this letter in the hope that somehow you can put an end to these tremendous losses and aggravations. If possible, an automatic fine for trespassing,” and so on.

In this particular case the judge said: “I don’t want this chap to have a criminal offence so what I am going to do is have him pay you back and write a letter of apology.” I want to read that letter of apology.

“Dear Sir: One of the conditions for my discharge of your stupid charge was that I pay you $4.28 for the approximate value of the bushel of apples. I have also generously enclosed a bonus of one cent to help make up your other losses due to other criminals like myself that help themselves to your apples. I hope your next season isn’t as badly stricken with inconsiderate thieves as seems to have been the pattern.” And then he says: “P.S. Praying for a frosty spring.”

You know, I think the judge should have had enough sense to at least make that letter of apology come through him so he would know what kind of a response he was getting. And I would like to read into the record the name of the gentleman who signed that letter; G. Nevison of 85 Cove Road in London.

You know he got off very easy through the judge and then wrote a letter like that. That’s the kind of regard that some people have for private property and other people’s produce that they are stealing; this is just an indication. There’s one example, and the man has 1,000 to 1,500 like that in a year, of people coming on to his property and taking his produce.

I think this is the kind of example we need to provide some teeth, so that a person can protect his private property, he can charge that person for trespassing. The alleged trespasser wouldn’t have any criminal record over it, but he could be subject to a reasonable and decent fine; and he would have some recourse, by having the property owner have to go into court and prove that person didn’t have any permission to be on his property.

Mr. Speaker, the province’s Motorized Snow Vehicles Act was designed to overcome many of the problems, but of course that legislation was limited to snowmobiles only. My legislation, if approved by this House, follows the thinking of the snowmobile legislation, which has worked very well with our people involved in the snowmobile sport. They have been able to get permission as clubs; they have been able to go across trails. And, I tell you, the complaints since that legislation have dropped off completely. It has made a much better relationship between those clubs and the community.

I think the fines that have been in there are wholly unrealistic and for that reason I have recommended that the maximum be increased to $1,000. Hopefully, the judges would make use of those penalties.

I want to refer to some other correspondence that I have had, much in support of this bill going ahead, including a letter from the Fund for Animals Incorporated. I think many of the members have received that letter, indicating a strong support for the legislation being passed, and citing further examples of some of the disregard for private property.

Another letter, from Richards Landing, Ontario, asks that all MPPs support this legislation and points out the kind of problems that they have had. I think this is interesting, because I know we are going to hear about the night hunters. One gentleman lost calves because the cows aborted when chased by the hounds running across his land; they were chasing coons in the night. I think this complaint is something to be considered.

A further letter, from the Ontario Secondary School Headmasters Council, points out how this legislation could be used for their purposes in protecting school property and to put some teeth into the Trespass Act for them, on which they have, on occasion, had to rely when charging people.

I have a number of further letters but I won’t go into them all because there is quite a considerable pile of them.

I do want to refer, however, to the letter that came in from the only group that is really opposed to it: the Grey-Bruce Night Hunters Association of Owen Sound. They point out that they support many aspects of the bill, except for the written permission. But the key to the whole bill is having written permission to go on someone else’s private property. This association points out how responsible it is, and that they are good sportsmen. They want to co-operate with the people in their area. Well, if they really want to cooperate, all they have to do is go through the area when they are not in the hunting season, make arrangements with the property owners, and get permission.

I assure you that there is no intent in this bill whatsoever to stop the legitimate sportsman, the legitimate hunter, from going out in the country and having a good time. It is only to make him responsible to those people who own the property. They point out that they feel there are no problems in their area, and I think my colleague from Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. Johnson), who lives close to that area, will have something to say in that regard.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is strong support for this bill. I think it will be of service to the people who need protection for their private rights and for the land they own in this province. All the outdoor recreation that has gone on can still go on. It can go on with co-operation. And those who are breaking the law, those who are causing the problems, can be dealt with by force. I urge the members of this House to support this legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would ask the member for Middlesex, does he care to reserve the balance of his time?

Mr. Eaton: Yes. How much is there?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Six minutes.

Mr. Riddell: I rise to support Bill 101,

An Act to amend the Petty Trespass Act. I would just like to say that it is gratifying to know that some of our curiously archaic laws are in the process of being amended. One not only has to look at the liquor laws in this province to understand the antiquated performance of this government; but other laws, particularly the Petty Trespass Act, are as outdated as the horse and buggy. Under the existing Act, all land in Ontario is virtually open to the use of public unless it is enclosed or is a garden or farm or bears no trespassing posters or signboards so placed as to be visible from every point of access to the land.

[3:30]

This law as it now stands protects city and town dwellers very nicely, but it makes available to the public the farmer’s fields and woods unless he goes to the trouble and expense of posting signs to the contrary. Signs are costly and unsightly. They have to be posted so that they are clearly visible from all angles, but also high enough so that they cannot be torn down.

Despite the locations of the signs, they are subject to damage or removal by whatever means and the property then becomes open to the public, including those who stole the signs. All farmers have horror stories of trespassers making free with their property: Domestic ducks and geese are shot; cattle and other livestock are wounded or killed; fences are cut; gates are left open and garbage is strewn around the fields, including bottles, which play havoc with the tires of the farm vehicles which pass over the land.

Under the Act, hunters are free to use the farmer’s land unless they hunt in packs of more than 12, and only then do they have to obtain permission. When the Act was drafted, no doubt most of Ontario was unoccupied land and an important source of food supply. Now virtually all the province is under ownership of one kind or another.

Mr. Foulds: Not so.

Mr. Nixon: We’re talking about arable land. Those beautiful rocks and trees of the north are different.

Mr. Foulds: That’s true.

Mr. Riddell: The forest is no longer a source of food, yet this outdated law still dominates the rural areas of Ontario. In the fall, the farmer has to become almost a vigilante to protect his property and the life upon it. The police advise that if farmers hear shooting to call either them or the Ministry of Natural Resources and to record the licence numbers of any vehicles parked nearby. Even then the trespasser cannot be convicted. Where the person trespassing acted under a fair and reasonable supposition he had a right to trespass, which opens up an even wider gap in the field, the penalty is a fine of not under $10 and not over $100.

With the advent of the snowmobile the province has taken a different view. Under the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1974, snowmobilers must obtain written permission before opening trails over a farmer’s field. In their own best interest, snowmobile clubs try to police their own trails, repairing any damage the members might do. But once the trail is open, all kinds of people use it, lawfully or otherwise, and do so at all hours of the day and night.

The time has long since passed when rural Ontario should provide a playground for the province. There is enough publicly owned land so that snowmobile trails can be opened and hunting areas designated. The farmers have had many occasions to become militant but, being people of great wisdom and good judgement, they bring their concerns to the attention of the farm organizations which represent them. As a result of discussion at federation meetings, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture submitted a brief to the Attorney General on the subject of trespass and farmers’ liability.

This prompted the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) to introduce a bill which places the onus on persons to ask permission to enter another person’s land and increases the maximum fine to $1,000 from the present $100. It removes the requirement from the Act that land be enclosed or that land be posted before one can be considered a trespasser. It removes liability from a property owner for trespassers unless deliberate intent to do harm to the trespasser is involved.

I’m a little surprised that a private member’s bill had to be introduced to amend the Act. As far back as December, 1976, I wrote a letter and directed it to the Attorney General’s office asking that the Act be brought under review and amended. I received a reply from Mr. Scott McAuley of the Ministry of the Attorney General, dated February 14, 1977. He indicates that: “After reviewing the material, it is apparent that Mr. Booth’s concern” -- and the letter originally went to Mr. Booth -- “is with apparent deficiencies in the Ontario Petty Trespass Act.

In view of those apparent deficiencies in the Act he would, I take it, like to see some kind of legislative reform. Accordingly I have taken the liberty of forwarding those materials to Archie Campbell, senior crown counsel.”

The letter got into the hands of a Stephen Fram, counsel, policy development division of the Ministry of the Attorney General. He says:

“Dear Mr. Riddell: Your inquiry with respect to the Petty Trespass Act has been forwarded to the policy development division of this ministry and I have been asked to reply.

“An intensive examination of the law and issues related to both the liability of occupiers of land to entrance on to their premises and the rights of occupiers against trespassers is underway within the ministry. The problems of such occupiers are being addressed, and hopefully some relevant legal reform will result.”

That was back in March 1977. The Attorney General still did not introduce any amendments to the Act. I don’t know why he is sitting back to have a private member introduce this bill, but here we have it.

The amendments to the Petty Trespass Act are supportable, admitting that there are those individuals who do have some reservations about the clause, which would require that every person who unlawfully enters or in any other way trespasses upon another person’s land must obtain written permission.

Some of the anglers and hunters feel that this is unduly harsh particularly in the northern part of the province where boundaries are obscure and where the owner of such property cannot be located. I received today a letter from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and I would just like to quote from the third paragraph of that letter:

“To insist on written permission from the landowner before entry can be made on land whether posted or otherwise, we find this change to be completely unacceptable. No doubt in Mr. Eaton’s riding, land may be clearly defined and landowners easy to locate. However, in the majority of Ontario this is not the case. Witness eastern Ontario, northern Ontario, the areas around Georgian Bay, the areas north of Highway 7 in central Ontario, and many others. In these areas one often cannot tell where property lines are. Often the landowners are non-resident.

Even more often the landowner doesn’t care if his land is used and doesn’t want people bothering him for written permission. Bill 101 just will not work for these areas unless the land is posted.

“When we questioned Mr. Eaton about this particular aspect of the bill, Mr. Eaton suggested that landowners in these areas likely wouldn’t lay charges so we shouldn’t worry about it. In other words the public could break the law, but not worry about it unless they were caught or charges laid,” --

Mr. Kerrio: That is hard to believe.

Mr. Riddell: -- “hardly a suitable ethic for an honest public to follow.” I really think that statement, coming from a legislator, is highly irresponsible.

Mr. Eaton: That wasn’t quite the way it was stated.

Mr. Swart: I believe the anglers and the hunters.

Mr. Riddell: Let me tell you this, I really don’t think that it would be too difficult for anglers or hunters or any other trespassers to get written permission, even though they got it months before they ever intended to travel on that land to hunt. The chances are they are in northern Ontario on many occasions and they have to simply look up the owner and get his permission in order to trespass on that land, indicating to him that they will be probably on his land at a certain time.

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

Mr. Riddell: I’ll just finish off. Once he receives that permission, then he is acting within the law. So I would have to support the bill as it is written, all aspects of it.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, although I must say I regret what I consider to be the necessity of this amendment to the Petty Trespass Act. I have some grave reservations, however, about certain sections of the bill which were referred to by the previous speaker. He discounted some very important points raised by the Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

I support the bill because of the fact that land-owners, especially farmers in the rural areas of the province, including my own riding, have found a great deal of problems with people who perhaps haven’t grown up in the country or aren’t from the country. These people don’t really understand some of the problems faced by rural dwellers or by farmers.

Also, I suppose with the legislation as it stands today, unamended, some people discount the possibility of a small fine, especially when it is difficult to be convicted. So I support the principle of the bill. However, as I said, I have some grave reservations about certain sections of the bill as it is presented.

Mr. Samis: Only two Tories in the House.

Mr. Kerrio: Only two?

Mr. Wildman: I have had contact from a number of people in my riding in regard to this legislation. I have received the material that has been referred to by the two previous speakers as well. Beef producers in my riding are quite concerned about the fact that --

Mr. Kerrio: Free vote on this one?

Mr. Samis: We’ll see.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s a switch.

Mr. Wildman: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all private members’ bills involve free votes.

Mr. Samis: On one side only.

Mr. Wildman: However, the beef producers in my area have had some difficulty with loss of livestock during hunting season. Other farmers have had their crops trampled, as was referred to by one of the previous speakers. In that sense, I feel some change in the legislation is required.

However, I want to point out, that the people we are talking about, the ones that are involved in wilful trespass and wilful damage, are certainly not the responsible hunters. The people who go out into the bush and the countryside during hunting season each year are well trained with firearms and know exactly what they are doing. In most cases they respect the property that they are crossing and they ensure that they don’t damage property. We are dealing with what I hope, and I am sure, is a minority of people but who have caused some serious problems for the farm community.

One of the basic questions I have about the Act as it stands is the

section which is deleting the requirement for fencing or enclosure and posting. Now I know that the Federation of Agriculture that supports the intent of the legislation, as I do, has indicated that it is very expensive to fence land and in many cases farm techniques today don’t require it. That is certainly true. Rut I want to emphasize what the letter from the Federation of Anglers and Hunters has pointed out, that in northern Ontario, at least where I come from, there are very large tracts of Crown land.

Mr. Eaton: That is not covered, the Crown lands.

Mr. Wildman: I know but the problem is the hunter may be on Crown land. He may be going through the bush, come to a clearing -- and if it isn’t posted in some way, he doesn’t know if this clearing is Crown land or private property -- and he may cross that property thinking it is still Crown land and be in violation of this Act as it stands. That is a serious problem. I know it is not a problem in relation to beef producers, obviously most of the land they are using, certainly the land they are using for grazing, will be fenced; and it is probably not a problem in southern Ontario where there probably is very little Crown land and most land is probably fenced and there is demarcation.

However, I think if we are going to assist the farmer and the rural dweller by amending this Act, it should be incumbent upon them to at least post land and indicate that it is private property. The bill as it stands, if it does pass, requires them to get permission in order to cross that piece of property. I don’t think that’s incompatible with the principle of the bill. If this bill passes second reading, I would be introducing an amendment at committee stage to indicate that I feel, as has been suggested in this letter by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, that land should be posted.

For that matter, one of the main problems I’ve had mentioned to me by beef producers in my area about people who cross their land without permission is that they damage fences. It’s not that they don’t want the area unenclosed or that they want to be able to keep people from crossing unenclosed land, but the fact is some very irresponsible people actually cut fences.

I know that is covered by the new Motorized Snow Vehicles Act covering snowmobiles, but some people are irresponsible enough and probably misunderstand the rural life so much that they cut fences and feel these things are encumbrances to them. They don’t care about the person who put up the fence. Besides the very expensive proposition of repairing fences, there is another very serious problem. If cattle get out and onto a public roadway and someone comes along, hits a cow and damages his car, then the farmer is responsible. For that reason, I think I must support this bill, but I don’t think it’s incompatible with it to say we should have posting. I believe we should.

I want to point out there are individuals, other than farmers in my riding or the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, who support this bill or at least have indicated they are in favour of changes, probably because they feel very few hunters would be convicted anyway because they would hope most would respect the law.

At any rate, I refer to an

article in Farm and Country in November that quoted J. A. Shannon, director of the wildlife services

section in the Ministry of Natural Resources, who indicated the ministry is most concerned about the destruction on farms. He says people who do this are not real hunters but criminals and should be treated as criminals. When I see the destruction of livestock and fences, I have to agree with that sentiment. It’s certainly true that at least the Ministry of Natural Resources supports the change in the law.

I also want to point out that quoted in that same

article is Rick Morgan, executive director of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. He says his organization would favour “anything to make the lunatics clean up their act.” He says the federation has been fighting for good hunting conduct for years. He is very concerned about the damages done on farms and in the rural community over the years by irresponsible hunters.

I understand the federation probably does not represent significant numbers of hunters. I think it’s important to realize that is an organization of very responsible people who want to protect their sport but at the same time don’t want to hurt others. It’s significant they would support the legislation. He indicates hunters would welcome a government move -- we don’t have a government move but we’ve got a private member’s move here which I suppose he would support as well -- putting trespass on the same basis as the snowmobile trespass legislation calling for written permission to cross land.

I support this because it does follow through with the snowmobile legislation and it does increase the fine substantially. I think we must do this. I want to point out just in closing that in areas like the north where we have large expanses of Crown land we do have a tradition where hunters are not allowed to trespass on Indian reserves.

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

Mr. Wildman: Indian reserves have never had any difficulty in posting and saying that it’s Indian land and there should be no trespassing. I think this is good legislation as it is but we should deal with the question of posting. I would support the principle but try to amend it at committee stage.

Mr. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support Bill 101,

An Act to amend the Petty Trespass Act, it is my hope and the hope of my colleague from Middlesex to rectify a situation which has caused considerable concern among rural property holders. I’m certain that every member in this Legislature is aware of the problems facing owners and occupiers of rural lands with respect to property rights.

During the past few decades, increased demand for more recreational land from a larger and more mobile public has increased the incidence of trespass on rural properties. This has resulted in damage to property, equipment and livestock. In some instances, it has also resulted in accidents to those trespassers unfamiliar with the land and farm equipment and sometimes, illness to those unaware of the chemicals used to protect crops in the normal day to day operation of the farm.

The purpose of this bill is to rectify this situation by removing from the Petty Trespass Act, the stipulation which requires that land be enclosed or posted before an intruder can be charged with trespassing.

Enclosing and posting, as I’m certain all members are aware, are costly processes. Often posted signs are destroyed and need to be replaced. With the current trend towards expanding single-farm operations by adding two or three farms to the operation, often located at a distance from the central farm, enclosing is not always feasible.

This legislation, when passed, will alleviate this problem by placing the onus upon the person wishing to use the land to obtain permission from the owner or occupier of that land.

I might also add that members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters who produce identity cards and insurance slips freeing the owner from liability generally report that permission is granted. In its present form the Petty Trespass Act leaves the property owner or occupier almost powerless to prevent intruders from trespassing upon his land. When authorities are called, the landowner is informed that he himself must lay charges and also absorb the legal costs in doing so.

The current feeling among farmers is that the courts are reluctant to convict under this Act whether the land is enclosed or posted. It is for this reason that we’re recommending that the fine for conviction under this Act be raised to a maximum of $1,000. This would provide a greater impetus on the part of the law enforcement agencies to convict under the Act.

The proposed amendment to the Petty Trespass Act contained in Bill 101 would also relieve the farmer of liability, should an accident occur to a trespasser on his property, unless there was a deliberate attempt made to cause injury to the transgressor. I believe this liability

section is one of the most important in the bill.

The proposed amendments contained in this bill would be welcomed by the farming community. I’d like to read from an

article in the Mount Forest Confederate dated November 23:

“Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Peter Hannam thinks the bill to amend the Petty Trespass Act is just great. ‘I’m delighted to see the bill in there,’ said Mr. Hannam. ‘It’s long overdue and badly needed.’

“Mr. Hannon explained that in his opinion the new bill should contain two main elements in order to make it effective. First, the whole concept of ‘trespass’, as it stands now, be turned around so that the onus is on the trespasser to prove that he has permission.

“The second point that must be in the new bill is ‘a change in liability.’ As it stands now, the landowner can be liable for injuries sustained by a trespasser while trespassing.”

This bill satisfies both concerns.

I have also received a letter from the Grey Federation of Agriculture endorsing the bill and I can understand and appreciate their concerns.

At this time I would like to draw the members’ attention to a letter I assume we all received. It’s the letter referred to earlier by my colleague from Middlesex from the Grey-Bruce Night Hunters. I won’t go into all of it, but I would like to cite a few paragraphs.

One, they don’t think this is a matter for provincial legislation, but should be a matter for each township concerned. “Certainly some townships have had problems. Those problem townships have generally been those close to large urban development. The counties of Grey and Bruce have not had these problems to any extent as of yet.”

This is not true. I cannot speak for Bruce but Grey does have a problem and a very serious problem, examples of which I will refer to in a minute.

However, I am pleased to see that this association does support two other main points of this bill. One the increase of the penalty to a maximum of $1,000, they endorse. The other, they support making the landowner not liable for accidents on his property but to place the onus on the trespasser. We agree wholeheartedly with this proposal. So they agree with two out of three.

They are reluctant to support the point on written permission. The majority of hunters show regard for the property of others and display a common courtesy of asking permission to use a farmer’s land. In fact, I believe it states right in the hunting licence that you do have to have permission. It doesn’t say written permission, but you should have permission to hunt.

The problem is that we have heard too often of rogue hunters who do not ask for permission and destroy property and practically do what they want on private land. This is one of the concerns. These people have done a great deal of damage to the reputation of hunters in general and bring an atmosphere of concern over the farming community as the hunting season approaches. Recent articles in Farm and Country brought this point home all too well, as they described the cases of some farmers who suffer damage to crops and livestock because of the weakness of this Petty Trespass Act.

One such case pointed to an instance where a flock of wild Canadian geese were butchered from a flock of 200 down to some 28, despite the fact they were on posted property. This act occurred in Holstein in Grey county, just a few miles from my home in Mount Forest on a farm owned by personal friends, Jim and John Calder. The trespassers not only slaughtered Calder’s tame geese but they also butchered their tame deer Buckey, and the following story appeared in Farm and Country, Tuesday, November 15:

“A completely tame deer, Buckey, was shot by a trespasser. To get at him, a poacher cut away an eight foot high fence, drove the frightened animal into the open and then blasted it with a 16 gauge shotgun. This is not the first deer killed in the Calder enclosure but the 13th. Others had been shot from the road and then left to die.”

It is a situation such as this that amendments to the Petty Trespass Act are intended to remedy. The changes in this Act, however, will not prevent cases such as this from occurring in the future. Unfortunately there will always be those who do not have regard for private property among us. In these cases the property user will have redress under the law to an extent which reflects the times. As the times change, and they are changing, we in the House have a responsibility to assure our laws keep pace with them. The member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) mentioned this earlier and I agree with him.

I have one final point to make. I believe the amendments to the Petty Trespass Act are also in the interests of the public. While it is only common courtesy to obtain permission to use someone else’s land, many do not. In protecting property rights, we are protecting a right which is fundamental to our basic way of life. It is a value which I also think we sometimes take for granted. Let us protect that right. I urge all member of this Legislature to let this bill go to third reading and be passed into law today, not tomorrow or some distant time.

[4:00]

Mr. Samis: Four Tories in the House.

Mr. Swart: No, there’s quite a lot of them down there.

Mr. McKessock: It is a pleasure for me to rise and speak in favour of the principle of Bill 101,

An Act to amend the Petty Trespass Act.

Legislation to change the Petty Trespass Act is long overdue, and I congratulate the member for bringing it forth. The amount of the fine for illegal trespassing is to change from $100 to up to $1,000. This is needed to give the judges something to work on for repeat offences. Too many of our fines are too low and serve only as a fee to break the law, rather than a fine or a deterrent to ward off future convictions.

The liability is to be taken off the landowner for any accidents that might occur to the person walking on his land, except in the case of a deliberate intent to harm the trespasser. This change is very important, because there is no way a landowner should be responsible for accidents incurred by a trespasser, whether he has permission to enter the property or not.

Section 2 of the bill, amending

section 6 of the Act, is not too clear, for it states: “An occupier of land owes no duty of care toward a person who is a trespasser ... ” The dictionary says trespass means “to enter unlawfully upon the land of another.” I suggest this part of

section 6 should be changed to read, “The occupier of land owes no duty of care toward a person who is on his land, either with or without permission.”

If the landowner is going to be liable for the people he gives permission to, you can be sure that nobody is going to get permission. Therefore, in

section 2 of the bill “with or without permission” must be placed after the word “trespasser,” which appears three times in

section 6.

Now we come to the final and most contentious part of the bill. That is where it states in

section 1, subsection 1(1) that you must have written permission to trespass upon another person’s land. As a landowner and a farmer myself, I have thought that this would be reasonable, although I, and my father and my grandfather before me have never had any trouble with trespassers, hunters, or fishermen; nor have we ever posted or tried to keep people off our land. We also have always owned good fishing and hunting grounds, with a branch of the Big Head River flowing through our farm.

Some people used to say to my grandfather, “Why don’t you put up ‘No Fishing’ signs?” He would say, “Let them find out for themselves.” Of course, Natural Resources wasn’t too good at stocking fish in those days, either.

I believe things are much worse today than they were a few years ago, but it is the same old story, a few spoil it for the rest. There are a few people who cause trouble. This is why a bill like this comes about. If people would respect private property, keep gates closed and latched, leave fences intact, take their garbage home with them, and realize it is a privilege to be on someone else’s land and not a right, legislation like this would not be necessary.

I feel there must be some provision in this bill to enforce written permission for trespassers. But, as I look at the situation, and taking Ontario as a whole, I feel it would be unworkable and unnecessary to have blanket written permission right across the province.

I have discussed this issue with a large number of people. I have had numerous calls, telegrams and letters pertaining to the bill. I know the farmers, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and I have been pushing for legislation to amend the Petty Trespass Act for years, and I am glad it has finally arrived.

I find there are certain pockets of the counties where trouble from trespassers arises. I feel that these areas or any area that wants to should be allowed to enforce written permission. Being a firm believer in local autonomy, I feel each municipality or township should be allowed to pass a bylaw to make it compulsory to have written permission within its boundaries, enforceable by the same enforcement people who would enforce it if it was across the province. This would allow the trouble areas to have the effect of this bill as it stands, and would allow the other areas to remain as they are, except for the fine being raised and the liability being removed from the landowner.

I would like to point out a few reasons why we should not have written permissions right across the province that have been brought to my attention.

It would be impossible to enforce right across the province and would make lawbreakers out of a lot of our citizens. In the good farming areas of the south where it is fairly easy to tell when you leave one property and enter another it would not be difficult to obtain written permission. In Grey and Bruce it is a little more difficult because there are areas of bush and rough land. In northern Ontario it becomes an impossibility to determine where the boundary lines are and who owns the land. A person could be nabbed for a $1,000 fine and not have a clue whose land he was on.

Mr. Wildman: Unless it’s an Indian reserve; they are posted.

Mr. McKessock: Written permission would cut the number of hunters down drastically because farmers and landowners would not give permission, especially if this bill was to pass in its present form where it states their liability is only removed from trespassers. Once you give written permission, he or she isn’t a trespasser any more and according to this bill as it now stands, then you would again be liable.

I know I might give verbal permission today but tomorrow my cows could be calving in the fields and I don’t want to give any permission. If I give written permission, I’d have no control over tomorrow.

Mr. Eaton: Give them written permission for one day.

Mr. McKessock: With written permission necessary, associations such as the Grey-Bruce Night Hunters Association would be finished. They have coon dog trials every fall in Owen Sound. This brings tourists and competitors from all over Ontario and the United States. They go out in groups of four and cover a large area of Grey and Bruce. It would be impossible for them to complete the task of trying to determine every property they would be on and contact the owners. This is a good club -- mostly landowners themselves -- and they do no harm.

This is their sport, exercise, and entertainment which helps them enjoy life and cope with today’s problems. This group also assists many area corn growers, who call on them at night to run the coons from the corn fields until they get the corn harvested.

With the number of hunters cut down, the groundhogs, coons, and wolves would get out of hand. I believe we now have more groundhogs in Ontario than people. Much damage is caused to machinery that falls into groundhog holes in the fields at harvest time. The coons are a continual plague to the corn fields. The wolves in our area and the bear up north are a menace to the sheep and cow-calf farmer.

I realize the requirement for written permission across the province would put an almost instant end to the Bruce Trail. Some landowners would no doubt think this is right. Most farmers and landowners, however, don’t mind people hiking across their land or having a picnic as long as they respect the property.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is badly needed. I urge all members to support this Bill 101 in principle at second reading. The member for Algoma has indicated he will be amending the bill in committee; I will also present three amendments in committee.

section 1 of the bill, in reference to

section 1(1) of the Act, the words “or in any other way trespasses” and the words “without written permission” would be deleted.

The second amendment: Add to

section 1 of the bill, amending

section 1 of the Act, a new subsection, 3: “Any township or municipality will have the right to pass a bylaw to make it compulsory to have written permission from the landowners while trespassing on such property when within the boundaries of said township or municipality.

The third amendment is to

section 2(6): Add after the word “trespasser” the words “with or without permission.” This will take the liability off the landowners, even though he has given the person permission to enter his property.

Mr. Foulds: I am beginning to think I hear a recurring refrain in the debate this afternoon that we should have a little chorus from “Oklahoma!”: “Why can’t the farmer and the cowman be friends?” adapted to “Why can’t the farmer and the hunter be friends?” I was going to ask my colleague from Brantford to give a rendition of that.

Mr. Makarchuk: ACTRA would prohibit it.

Mr. Foulds: The argument today, unfortunately, has centred around the two interest groups the bill affects, rather than speaking to the principle of the bill. I would like to say that I agree with the objective the member wishes to achieve and the problem that he diagnoses. But I will be voting against the bill because the bill, in my view, does not achieve the precise purpose he wants and it has too many other ramifications in terms of civil liberties that bother me.

Mr. Makarchuk: They are using a shot-gun when a .22 will do.

Mr. Foulds: Precisely.

Mr. Riddell: Isn’t Rainy River in northern Ontario?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, indeed it is.

Mr. Riddell: And they support it holus-bolus.

Mr. Foulds: And Rainy River is the smallest district in northern Ontario. And it is not Rainy River as such that supports it holus-bolus, it is the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. As I said, I can understand the concern of the farming community and that is what the member is speaking to.

If the member would permit me, I would like to give him examples of a couple of bad results of this particular drafting. In fact, they have been touched upon by the previous speaker, but the amendment that the previous speaker in fact proposes destroyed the principle of this bill as it is designed, and I think he should have the fortitude to vote against it. Voting for it and then proposing those amendments, destroys this particular bill.

Mr. McKessock: What are you talking about?

Mr. Foulds: There are a couple of problems. Unfortunately what this bill would do, in my view, is that any person who by sheer accident could stray onto land that wasn’t posted or identified in any way as being private land, could, especially in northern Ontario, be charged under the Act and could be hit with a $1,000 fine.

Mr. Eaton: Who should have the burden?

Mr. Foulds: Indeed, it could happen. And I think that is a bad principle to put into law. What I would suggest is that the member should have brought in a bill that was a bill to protect legitimate and established and occupied private land. That is the tack that I think he should have taken instead of trying to amend the outdated Petty Trespass Act.

It also means that a person who by sheer necessity, either through injury or being stuck in a storm, passes across private land to get help could be charged because he doesn’t have that written permission. And if you happen to have stumbled across a particularly obstreperous person in seeking that help, it could happen under this Act; and if charged, the judge is not given discretion to dismiss that charge, because there are no mitigating reasons put in the bill. Under the terms of the bill as the member has drafted it, and because he has excluded the protective sections in the original Act, that person has no protection. For that reason I oppose the bill.

I would like to clear up a misconception, Mr. Speaker. Most of the speakers today have been from southern Ontario and have indicated that most of the land in the province is privately owned. I would like to remind them that most of the land is in northern Ontario; 58.9 per cent of it is in northwestern Ontario alone and most of that is Crown land and not affected by the bill.

Mr. Sterling: What about eastern?

Mr. Foulds: But there are large tracts of privately-owned land that are unidentified and unused. Under the terms of this bill a hunter who, for example, shoots a deer or moose on Crown land, wounds it and chases it into private land could be charged under the Act; and that seems to me to be a very bad principle because that is the humanitarian thing to do; it would be inhuman for a hunter not to chase a wounded animal and finally kill it and retrieve it. If he did so, and that animal happened to wander on to private land, in this Act he could be charged and fined $1,000.

[4:15]

Mr. Riddell: You are indicating that Ontario people aren’t humane. Who is going to charge them $1,000 for going on that land?

Mr. Foulds: I am not referring to the humanity or the intention, I am pointing out what the bill does in law -- and as legislators that is what we should be speaking to. I am afraid that far too often we forget that.

One of the unfortunate side effects of this bill as drawn is that it could effectively close the Bruce Trail to any individual who does not belong to the Bruce Trail Association. Such an individual would have to write to every single private landowner who owns land along the Bruce Trail or any other footpath in southern Ontario to get permission to traverse it. That seems to me to need serious consideration and revision, because I am sure that it is not the intention of the member or the intention of this Legislature to close the Bruce Trail, but if we vote for this bill that is, in effect, what we are doing.

The other example I would like to mention is one that was drawn to my attention by my colleague from Brantford. He pointed out that there is a spit of land called Long Point on Lake Erie near Port Dover that is privately owned by a corporation but seldom used. That spit of land is used for recreational purposes and for transportation purposes to get to recreational land by many residents and people in the area, including constituents of the hon. member whose bill we are debating. They could be charged under this Act for using that land.

It is my understanding there is a sort of common consent in the area that that piece of property, which is seldom used by the private corporation for its own benefit --

Mr. Makarchuk: They take Leo out for duck hunting occasionally.

Mr. Foulds: -- is considered generally as part of the package of recreational facilities available to the public generally in that area.

Mr. Riddell: If he is no more effective there than he is in the Legislature then the ducks are safe.

Mr. Foulds: If I might just digress -- out there he uses a shotgun; here he has to use a .22, and he can’t do that.

I would simply like to point out that these reservations in my view are so severe that I feel compelled to vote against the bill on second reading. However I would appreciate the member giving the problem some thought and perhaps attacking it from a different angle. Maybe he could bring in legislation or suggest to his own Attorney General that he bring in legislation to protect the privately owned property that is in use and to which the damages and the severe hardship that he has outlined occur.

I think the problem should possibly be attacked from a different angle. We should, as intermediate steps, enforce the hunting laws and regulations that we already have, and I think that we should amend hunting regulations so that if a hunter knowingly is going to use a piece of private property the idea of getting written permission should be compulsory. No question about that in my view.

Mr. Eaton: I appreciate the remarks that have been made by a number of the members in regard to this bill. The written permission particularly, I think, is essential to the bill, because the posting of land does not do the job. I could have it posted here, I could have it posted there and the person goes in between and they say in court when you charge them with trespassing they didn’t see the signs. You’ve got no grounds whatsoever. The judges throw them out of court.

So the amendment being proposed by the member for Algoma, as far as the posting of property is concerned, would not serve the purpose. It is there now and it’s just not working. It’s just not giving any effectiveness to the legislation whatsoever.

Mr. Kerrio: Typical Tory overkill. He’s learning.

Mr. Eaton: That’s like asking every day about that pipeline over there.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s all right. I’m going to hang in there until it happens.

Mr. Eaton: The written permission, I think, is very essential but I do see the problem raised by the member for Port Arthur. I think something could be done on that. “Written permission if required by the landowner,” perhaps, although it would leave a person in much doubt as to whether this piece of land requires written permission or the next.

Mr. McClellan: You are in trouble on this bill. Withdraw the bill.

Mr. Eaton: That’s the same problem that would be created by the proposal of the member for Grey when he says that we leave it to every township whether they pass that bylaw or not. You go from one township to the next and you don’t know if you need written permission in this township or the next township or the one after. So it leaves it very much in doubt when you do that. I think that having it on a province-wide basis, it at least makes it standard. Then persons know that if they’re going to go on someone else’s property, they’ve got to have permission in writing from the person who owns that property.

Mr. Kerrio: What about your neighbour having a beer with you, Bob?

Mr. Eaton: I know it’s going to create some problems, yet I don’t agree with the sort of proposal that was put forth by the member for Port Arthur, that you could end up getting a $1,000 fine. Judges are reasonable. In fact, they’re too reasonable to the guy who’s the offender. Just look at what I read into the record the last time I was up.

Mr. Cunningham: They should be elected.

Mr. Eaton: Look at the incidents. The person can go in, they can take your property; the judge says, “I stole apples so I’m not going to charge him.” How ridiculous.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s your judges.

Mr. Eaton: At the same time, I think they would be reasonable enough that they’re not going to fine them $1,000 if they accidentally go across land. I believe in northern Ontario they have some rights, if they’re lost up there, to go into private property for their own protection from weather conditions or whatever it might be and they wouldn’t be charged with trespassing. So I think that protection is there.

I think we’re going to get support from many of the members for this legislation to proceed to the committee.

Mr. McClellan: Control it through the hunting regulations. That’s what you should do.

Mr. Eaton: I would hope that some of the proposals that are put forth in there would certainly not be supported.

I do agree with the proposal from the member for Grey. It was an oversight. We left a couple of words out of there in giving liability protection to the farmer who has someone on by permission or without permission, and that should be in there. I would certainly agree to that amendment. In fact I was going to propose it myself.

Mr. McClellan: Withdraw the bill.

Mr. Eaton: I hope that when we come to the vote we’ll have good support for this and that we can deal with some of the changes to make the legislation work in committee.

BRIBERY CASE

Mr. Speaker: Before we get into the second balloted item, I want to notify the House that pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Downsview (Mr. di Santo) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to a question by the Attorney General. This will be debated at 10:30 tonight.

Mr. Kerrio: Who’s he going to debate with?

Mr. Cunningham: We’ll all be here.

ONTARIO COMMISSION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RE