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

December 12, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L146 - Tue 12 Dec 1978 / Mar 12 déc 1978

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

COMMISSION AGENTS

STERILIZATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

STERILIZATION

COST OF ROYAL COMMISSIONS

LEARNING-DISABLED CHILDREN

REFORESTATION

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY

HOUSING LEAKS

WOOD-BURNING STOVES

DRUG TREATMENT FOR STUDENTS

FOOD LAND GUIDELINES

CONTINUOUS COLOUR COAT LIMITED

DURHAM REGIONAL CHAIRMAN

PURETEX KNITTING COMPANY

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT LCBO STORES

COMMENT OF PCA PRESIDENT

MOTIONS

SITTINGS OF HOUSE AND COMMITTEES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

REDIRECTION OF ESTIMATES

COMMITTEE MEETING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

ONTARIO HYDRO ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT A

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READINGS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

MINING TAX AMENDMENT ACT

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

COMMISSION AGENTS

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) raised the question of the treatment accorded commission agents in this province. As I promised, I will now reply fully to his question.

The subject first came to the attention of our ministry when the member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman) held this portfolio. Representatives of the Ontario Federation of Commission Agents met with the minister on the recommendation of the then Minister of Labour (Miss Stephenson). The federation subsequently prepared a formal brief which was submitted to the Premier (Mr. Davis). He referred it to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for review. In the interim, a ministry official had written to the federation’s counsel stating that as the payment of commission salesmen is not a consumer matter it would not fall within our purview.

As the federation was not happy with this response, it sought to have the matter reopened. My predecessor, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), newly appointed to the portfolio at the time, undertook to see it through. He met with the representatives of the federation on December 12, 1977, and promised that he would review the brief and get back to the Federation in 1978. He also indicated he would in all likelihood take the matter to his cabinet colleagues so that he could have the benefit of their point of view in the subsequent cabinet decision.

My predecessor accordingly brought the matter up before the Justice policy field committee. It was the committee’s recommendation that my ministry should not undertake legislative action as this is not essentially a consumer matter.

As the concerns of the federation merited further study, however, the committee recommended in July that the Resources policy field committee look at the brief to determine if measures other than regulatory legislation are available.

As commission agents are really private entrepreneurs, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly which government program is closest to their area of interest. I understand their concerns. I know theirs is a tough business to be in. I plan, therefore, to meet with representatives of the federation early in the new year to explore every possible avenue of assistance.

STERILIZATION

Mr. McClellan: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, in the social development committee considering the estimates of the Ministry of Health, the Minister of Health said on more than one occasion that he had no knowledge of the matter of sterilization performed on the authority of a substitute consent.

I have a letter, dated December 7, 1978, and signed by Mr. J. K. Maynard, executive director of the institutional division of the Ministry of Health. It reads, in the second paragraph: “In essence, legal opinion within the ministry agrees with the opinion of Mr. Lloyd Perry, the official guardian, in that they believe the policy of the Greater Niagara General Hospital is illegal. This was stated in a letter dated May 29, 1978, to the chief executive officer.”

That letter indicates to me that the Ministry of Health was aware of Mr. Perry’s legal opinion that sterilizations with substitute consent are illegal and, in fact, was communicating that position to hospitals in this province in 1978. It seems to me that this is inconsistent with statements that the minister made to the social development committee yesterday, and I ask for your ruling on that.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: Before the minister replies, I would bring to your attention a quotation from Hansard for November 7 in which the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) was responding to a statement by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), who brought these matters to the attention of the committee. I quote the honourable minister at page S-952. “I was not aware of those figures and I shall certainly be bringing it to the attention of the ministers in my field ... ” Presumably that would include the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, to respond, the members will know that in the operation of a ministry, particularly one as large as mine and involving as many hospitals and programs as mine, there is correspondence on a daily basis between members of the staff at various levels with the general public and with people involved in the health-care system.

I expect in my ministry that staff, where they think it is an issue that should be drawn to my attention, will do so. In this particular case that didn’t work. The fact that it didn’t work doesn’t excuse it. But it didn’t work.

The facts, as I outlined them yesterday are very simply that it was last week, in a memorandum from a member in the legal branch of my ministry, that the issue was first drawn to my personal attention.

Mr. McClellan: You have some real problems in that ministry.

Mr. Nixon: The provincial secretary didn’t speak to you about it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Immediately on reading that particular memorandum, I sent it on for more information, because clearly it outlined the issue as it has been discussed yesterday here and in the committee and caused me a great deal of concern.

Mr. McClellan: You’ve got some real crackerjacks in that ministry.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is clear that members of my staff and the staff of other ministries have been aware of the problem for some time. But the facts speak for themselves. It was drawn to my personal attention last week.

Mr. McClellan: What about the provincial secretary?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Bellwoods brings to the attention of the House some inconsistency that appears to have arisen as a result of something that was said in the social development committee. The only way in which the House can deal with anything that happens in a committee is for that committee, through its chairman, to have that particular matter referred to the House. However, in the light of the explanation given by the Minister of Health, who says it was not brought to his attention until last week, I think all honourable members, being honourable members, will accept that explanation as being a true reflection of what actually happened.

ORAL QUESTIONS

STERILIZATION

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development Since you have indicated that all honourable members must accept the statement of the Minister of Health that he was not informed of this matter, I would ask the secretary to explain the apparent breakdown in communication in this very sensitive area of public policy and what she, as the policy minister, is going to do about the establishment of a policy in this area?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, through you to the honourable member, it was, as the member pointed out, brought to my attention during the estimates of the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development. It was discussed at the staff level. Unfortunately, it was not brought to the minister’s attention.

Mr. Nixon: As a supplementary I would ask the minister in her position, having jurisdiction in the policy area, what steps does she intend to take to set a policy on this very important yet sensitive matter on some basis whereby it is meaningful not only to the people directly concerned, but also to their parents and others.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I’d like to refer that question to the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Since the matter arose yesterday, I have held several meetings with members of my staff last evening and this morning. I’ve had a chance to speak with Dr. Zarfas. I have a request in to Mr. Perry for a meeting to get his perspective on it. I have prepared and had approved by the registrar of regulations a regulation which would prohibit for nine months, within which the issue can be resolved, the performance of sterilization on anyone under the age of 16 except under certain medical conditions.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can either minister inform the House how often the policy secretariat has met since November 7 and why this sensitive issue hasn’t been discussed by the minister responsible? Why has it been constantly referred to staff?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The policy field meets every Thursday. We have a very full agenda which --

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister mean she has had at least five meetings since that time and she never raised that matter?

Mr. Warner: You haven’t dealt with it?

Mr. McClellan: Wonderful, wonderful.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the question has already been asked.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary to the minister: Given that this issue involves the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, as well as the right of parents to make that kind of decision, is there any secretariat policy position with respect to such parental rights?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I think the honourable member will be aware that it also involves the Attorney General’s office, which is the Justice policy field. We will be bringing together all the ministries involved in this very sensitive area to discuss the policy in this particular field.

An hon. member: Why didn’t you do it before?

Mr. McClellan: I’ll ask the Minister of Health, is it his intention to bring forward either legislation or regulations which will require a court hearing and the issuance of a court order before a sterilization under the authority of a substitute consent will be permitted?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The honourable member is stating what he would like to see as a conclusion of this review. Perhaps he’d suggest we find the facts to support it.

Mr. Deans: We’d like to see the review.

Mr. McClellan: We know what the facts are and we know what your performance is.

Mr. Martel: You have got it buried.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There’s hardly anything more sensitive, I’m sure, than the question of consent for surgical procedures as it relates to the retarded. It’s clear in the review I’ve been able to make of the matter in the last 24 hours and looking again at the memo which I got last week, that this is a perplexing issue a solution to which has evaded a number of people for a number of years.

[2:15]

Mr. McClellan: Be careful what you’re saying.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am being very careful.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Saskatchewan was the leader in this field, you might remember. Saskatchewan started the whole thing.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The matter having been raised with me by a member of my staff last week and the matter having been raised here yesterday, I intend to take the kind of action I’ve discussed, assuming that the gentleman responsible for raising the issue in the first place can assure me that what I propose to do does address the problem as they’ve outlined it.

COST OF ROYAL COMMISSIONS

Mr. Nixon: I’d like to direct a question to the Premier about the cost of royal commission, a subject of great interest to him and to others. Since the provincial auditor brings to the attention of the members of the House and the public once again excessive expenditures, immoderate expenditures and those not properly vouchered, is the Premier satisfied with the guidelines which were rather informally announced some months ago, or would he agree with me that those guidelines simply are not working and that it will be necessary for the government through one of its emanations to do something about controlling the kind of costs that were reported by the auditor yesterday?

Among the figures available, the Premier is aware that we’ve spent about $10 million on royal commissions in the last five years. I certainly would like to know what his policy is in this connection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could be prompted into giving a lengthy dissertation on how some royal commissions came about and the prompting we’ve had from members opposite for the creation of certain royal commissions.

Mr. Laughren: Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In fact, I could go into certain activities of standing and select committees and how they incur certain expenditures on the part of the taxpayers. I find that some of them have led to totally conclusive results that are contrary to the wishes of some members opposite but which were initiated because of their insistence.

I won’t do that, although the temptation is very great.

Mr. MacDonald: Now for the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m being provocative. I tell the members opposite on this issue they should become provoked on occasion and exercise a greater degree of responsibility, if I can pass that advice on to them. I do that in a very friendly fashion.

As it relates to the expenditure guidelines for royal commissions, it’s very difficult --

Mr. J. Reed: How’s Judy these days?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Judy’s fine.

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: She was a great member of the federal Liberal Party. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, you wouldn’t believe Sault Ste. Marie and the Liberal Party of Ontario up there.

Mr. Cunningham: What’s that got to do with the question?

An hon. member: The Liberals treat you royally.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the acting Leader of the Opposition would understand that royal commissions probably break themselves down into two categories. There are those that are established for the study of certain things, where I think it is easier to establish limitations or controls on economic matters. This is something the government is prepared to take a look at again and see if the ground rules are sufficiently firm to ensure that there aren’t any abuses. I don’t pretend for a moment to have the complete answer.

Then there is the other kind of royal commission, with which the acting Leader of the Opposition is more familiar, which could be described as being investigative -- I guess that is the best way to describe it -- where I think it is very difficult to impose, shall we say, financial limitations on a commissioner or the staff who are responsible for the investigation that is being carried on by that commission.

It’s very difficult for government to impose limitations in those cases. In fact, I can see the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) nodding her head in great knowledge on the subject. I think she must share with me the same concern if we, as a government, said to a royal commissioner involved in an investigative type of commission, “You only have X number of dollars to spend.”

There are two different kinds of commissions. I’ll certainly discuss the one type of commission with the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) to see if we can firm up to a greater extent some of the expenditures guidelines.

But I do say -- and I’ll not be facetious about this -- there are those other kinds of commissions that are established from time to time, quite often at the insistence of members opposite, where I think we can’t as a government say to a judge, “You only have X dollars to spend,” when there may be some investigation that is necessary, over which government has not and should not have any control.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the Premier has indicated in his answer his sensitivity to the requirements of opposition members in royal commissions, I am tempted to ask him about those circumstances where they were requested and, in fact, demanded where he did not see fit to appoint them. But I won’t ask that question. I will, however, Mr. Speaker, ask the Premier a question on a subject which will be dear to his heart and in which the member for St. George will be interested as well.

Would it be possible that the strengthened guidelines direct the commissioners to select their legal counsel from perhaps those people already available within the Ministry of the Attorney General or within the government service since we are told by the auditor one of these select committees had a bill for $146,833 for legal counsel alone? Surely, that is an area where we should be contemplating cutting back. We’re concerned about the people eating 10 meals a day, but I’ll tell you, I am more concerned about the cost of legal advice.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can express the same concern about the cost of legal fees. While I have a certain sympathy for that profession, but not having practised since about 1959 or 1960, I’m not as familiar as the member for Kitchener would be, or some others.

Mr. Worton: Lawyers do come high.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I may some day have that opportunity, but when that opportunity does arise for me I don’t expect the member to necessarily remind me of that opportunity in that he himself may not be here at that precise moment in history.

Mr. Breithaupt: I doubt if you will often appear in provincial courts.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not that clairvoyant that I can see that far ahead.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh now, the member opposite knows he has his tongue in both cheeks at once and I don’t know how he accomplishes that. In fact, I’m always delighted when he smiles as he makes those remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Can we get back to legal fees, please?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, are you looking for legal advice and wondering what fees are? I don’t know myself.

Mr. Speaker: I’m wondering if the Premier would answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can’t comment as to whether that was a reasonable fee to be charged to that committee.

Mr. Nixon: I can.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk can because he is not a lawyer.

Mr. Nixon: Precisely.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Precisely, and the member for St. George is applauding vigorously. I’m told that when she practised law she always charged the tariff. I was told she did.

Mr. Nixon: The Premier brings his conflicts in here. He can’t abandon any of his conflicts.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the acting Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, once again I think the question arises as to whether or not a counsel to a select committee, certainly a royal commission, should be a member of the government service, and I’m prepared to take a look at this.

I just had handed to me a pretty detailed request by Management Board for the administration on royal commissions. It’s pretty detailed. It’s pretty comprehensive.

Mr. Martel: It’s just a little higher.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’d be delighted to get a copy run off -- we can only afford one -- and send it over to the acting Leader of the Opposition and see whether he really doesn’t think it covers most of it. I’ll send it over to him, but not today.

Mr. T. P. Reid: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can I ask the Premier if he recalls, in view of his earlier comments, the LaMarsh commission on violence which has no jurisdiction in the province? It was set up without any request from this side of the House and, in fact, my former leader said he would do away with it if we formed the government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right, I said there are two kinds of guidelines.

Mr. Martel: Is that for political reasons?

Mr. T. P. Reid: I think the government has to accept the responsibility for some of these things.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is not with the guidelines. The fact is, they’re not in force. Will the Premier make a commitment to this House to make it known to royal commissioners, whether they be judges or otherwise, that they’re dealing with taxpayers’ money and they must follow Management Board guidelines, which I think are generous enough as they are? In fact, will he make it known they have to follow those guidelines and anything over and above those will come out of their own pockets? I think then they would be a lot more careful.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think we’re all a lot more careful when things come out of our pockets, whether we’re commissioners or members of the Legislature. I think we all have that human reaction to the economic realities of life. I don’t think the member who asked that question is any exception to that. In fact, I’m sure he isn’t.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Probably more sensitive.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I pointed out to him earlier, I understand the distinction between the LaMarsh commission and one or two others that I won’t name, and I do know we did initiate the one. I know the members opposite are not as concerned about violence in the media as some of the rest of us. I think we’ve seen some demonstrations of this in the past year or so, but I’ll leave that for a debate on some other occasion.

I will also undertake to do this. I will provide the distinguished member with a copy of the Management Board guidelines, and I think they are relatively good.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a copy. They are not enforced.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The question of enforcement, Mr. Speaker, I’ll certainly take up with the Chairman of Management Board because I think we’ve demonstrated conclusively as a government and even as a party our commitment to restraint. Our commitment to the proper utilization of taxpayers’ money is in no way exceeded by that of the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur with a new question.

LEARNING-DISABLED CHILDREN

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. Does the Minister of Education recall this promise made in the throne speech of February 1978:

“In addition, a demonstration school will be established for limited numbers of children with severe learning disabilities who require services which can only be provided in a residential facility”? Does she further recall the commitment by her predecessor, the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells), to establish the Trillium School at Milton by January 1, 1979? Does she propose to carry out that promise? How does she propose to carry it out in view of the fact her ministry has not yet hired a program director for the school, or any staff for the school?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first three questions is yes; and the answer to the fourth one is we are in the process of doing so.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How do you like that for a succinct answer?

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How does the minister expect to have in place a legitimate and viable program for kids with severe learning handicaps by January 1, 1979, when to this date she has not hired a program director, she has not hired any staff, and my information is she has not even advertised for those positions?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, with our specific concern to find the appropriate places for employment for masters of teaching who were employed within the Ontario Teachers Education Colleges, we have specifically not advertised for any jobs which might become available through the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, with the agreement of the MAIA and the union. That is indeed, the source we are looking at for those who will he functioning in those roles.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: It was also announced that a similar school would be set up in Ottawa for French-speaking students. What progress has been made on that?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is on the drawing board and I anticipate we will be making an announcement about it within the next two or three months.

Mr. Laughren: The minister is going to do to special education what she did to occupational health.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Is it not true the minister has had the draft proposal on her desk, or the deputy minister’s desk for the last two months? What is taking the proposal for the way in which she is going to staff, and the way she is going to set up the program so long? She has not taken any action on that. How does she expect to have staff in place, even from the two bodies she cites, when she has not made definite commitments or contacts with them?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the definite commitments have been made; and no, it has not been on my desk for two months; and yes, it is finalized.

Mr. McClellan: We’ll see. We’ll see.

Mr. Foulds: All I can ask, rhetorically, Mr. Speaker, is I fail to see how the minister is going to be able to implement that program.

Mr. McClellan: How can the minister justify that?

Mr. Speaker: I think that was reflected in one of your supplementaries.

REFORESTATION

Mr. Foulds: I have a question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the joint announcements between the federal and provincial governments on Friday last on roads and reforestation. Can I ask the Treasurer, in the light of his previous experience and his position presently as the chief distributor of funds for the province, if he can tell us what commitment he has obtained, or the two levels of government have obtained, from the private sector with regard to the reforestation money announced on Friday last? Can he indicate to us what commitments they have made with regard to the maintenance of roads and nursery stock?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, when I was Minister of Natural Resources, I was obviously involved in the discussions leading up to this kind of an agreement.

Mr. Martel: You mean two for one.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The honourable member also has followed with some interest the progress we have been making in an attempt to both regenerate our forests better and to harvest them better. One of the key issues was the creation of roads, particularly for the mature stands some long distance back from either the mills or current cutting operations. Often, let’s say, there was a lack of economic justification to the company to push these through to areas our ministries would have believed were best cut first.

First, the kind of co-operation we have under the DREE agreement for this sector, I think should be welcomed. Second, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Northern Affairs combined will carefully monitor to make sure there is adequate control and companies are not simply using our money to do things they otherwise would have had to do.

I think the details are best given in terms of the way they will be monitored by the operating ministers.

[2:30]

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, and perhaps the minister could take this as notice: Could he get from the appropriate ministers the details about the maintenance of the roads? Will they be maintained by the Ministry of Northern Affairs or the Ministry of Natural Resources? Will they remain open to the public and not be closed arbitrarily, as has happened with some company roads?

In other words, can the minister give us the assurance that, if public moneys are going into these roads to develop a good network for reforestation, the public also will have access in terms of recreation, trapping and other activities?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would have to check, probably with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) in that case, to see the latest status of those agreements. I certainly know those issues were discussed when I was there, but I would have to check with him to see whether they have been finalized.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister indicate whether there are any requirements being made by the government in regard to companies investing in new equipment and upgrading their operations and perhaps, in doing so, buying Canadian-made equipment as part of the deal of participating and receiving these funds that are going to be available under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion program?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I can’t swear that is part of it. I would be glad to check for the member and let him know.

Again, in my estimates we had a long discussion on the Canadian content of some of the more specialized machinery required for the regeneration and harvesting of forests and for mines. I know this was brought up a lot by my critic in the New Democratic Party. One can only buy that which is produced here; that’s step number one. Secondly, up to date we have not generally required companies to pay premiums for equipment made in Canada. We were arguing just the opposite. When we want to sell Canadian-made turbine generators out west, we would dearly love to be able to say to British Columbia, “You must buy Canadian first.” So far that kind of willingness has not been visible.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That doesn’t square with the Treasurer’s colleague in Industry and Tourism.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister undertake to table the federal-provincial agreement in the House so that all members can see the text of the entire agreement?

Mr. T. P. Reid: It hasn’t been signed yet.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think that’s a public document, and I would be glad to make it available on that basis.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, recently the member for Nickel Belt asked me a question regarding the practice of the Workmen’s Compensation Board of culling the temporary disability benefits paid to workers who apply for Canada Pension Plan benefits.

Canada Pension Plan benefits are payable to workers who suffer from a severe or prolonged mental or physical disability that is likely to leave them incapable of any sustained work for long periods of time. By applying for CPP assistance, a worker is admitting that he is in fact not available for modified work and the vocational rehabilitation programs that the board operates. Thus, he is no longer complying with the sections of the act that deal with temporary disability.

However, the mere act of applying for CPP assistance should, in my view, not result in the immediate cutting of benefits. Any changes in the payment of benefits should only take place after the worker has received his CPP benefits, and I will forward this view to the chairman.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that, while what he is telling us fits in under

section 42 of the act, in fact

section 53 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act allows the board -- indeed, I have cases in my own constituency where workers receiving full benefits equivalent to total temporary disability benefits are receiving the Canada Pension Plan benefits as well as the total temporary disability benefits.

How does the minister explain the inconsistency of one injured worker receiving CPP plus total temporary disability benefits on rehabilitation, and another injured worker who is also willing to be rehabilitated, and indeed wants to be rehabilitated, having his benefits reduced or even terminated simply because he has applied for CPP. When is the minister going to bring some consistency to the Workmen’s Compensation Board instead of whispering sweet nothings in our ears from day to day?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: On a point of privilege: I refuse to whisper sweet nothings in his ear.

Mr. Laughren: You weren’t asked.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I would like to make it clear that I share the member’s view with regard to the immediate cutting of benefits upon application for CPP and I will advise the chairman of the board that is my view and await his response.

With regard to the other question the member raised, I will have to look into that because I wasn’t aware of that situation. But I hope he doesn’t try to get close to me either.

PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY

Mr. Blundy: I have a question for the Premier, dealing with three specific instances of what I can only refer to as blackmail tactics of the Tory government in Alberta against the Ontario petrochemical industry.

Given the fact that the giant Petrosar plant in Sarnia was denied purchase permits for oil by the government of Alberta, leaving Petrosar, as a result, with purchase agreements with Shell Oil and Gulf Oil for their required 170,000 barrels of crude oil per day; and given the fact that Dow Chemical was forced to build its polyurethane plant in Edmonton and then turned around and built a pipeline to its ethylene plant at Sarnia; and given the fact that the CIL polyethylene plant, which according to its president should logically be located in Lambton because of feedstock, proximity to its market and the fact that the company owns 1,200 acres there --

Mr. Speaker: That are a lot of “givens.”

Can we have a question now?

Mr. Blundy: -- is now rumoured to be going to Alberta, I want the Premier of the province to tell the House what he is doing in his relationships with the government of Alberta --

Mr. Martel: They are in bed together.

Mr. Blundy: -- to protect the people of Ontario, to protect the petrochemical industry and to protect the workers of Ontario?

Mr. Sweeney: Just imagine what is going to happen when Clark gets in.

Mr. MacDonald: Deal with the question, not the

preamble, or we will be here for a week.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What am I doing? I am doing an awful lot more than the stated policy of the Liberal Party of Ontario would do to help resolve this issue.

I have spent some time discussing this with people of Petrosar and others involved. I discussed this at great length with the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson), who is totally knowledgeable and familiar with the situation, and I have to tell the member for Sarnia we were working on this long before he even became a member of this Legislature.

I can only say to the member for Sarnia that there are two aspects. One is not a question of blackmail by the province of Alberta. I am not suggesting for a moment that their policy is consistent with our industrial objectives here. I have to say to him that Dow made a free choice with respect to the location of its facility.

I am also told by the people of Petrosar that there is sufficient market in the petrochemical field that there will be ample room for expansion of Petrosar to deal with the midwest and eastern markets and certainly any petrochemical industry in Alberta will be viable for the western United States, particularly the state of California. We have spent quite a bit of time in discussion with them.

The crucial issue is the cost of the feedstock. I wonder whether the member would convey his concern to his own leader, if he could communicate with him even this afternoon in Sault Ste. Marie, and say to the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario, “Please Mr. Leader, will you understand that going to world price or even the Chicago American price when the price for the basic petrochemical industry in the gulf states is lower than it is in Chicago, is one of the crucial elements in the economic viability of the petrochemical industry in Lambton and in Sarnia?”

If the member will help me with his leader to get some rationale with respect to the price of energy, we will continue to do our part to see that expansion continues to take place and that we are economically competitive, as we have been doing for the past three or four years.

Mr. Blundy: Supplementary: I am not asking the Premier anything about the price of oil.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: But that’s crucial.

An hon. member: That never stopped him

Mr. Blundy: I want to know what the Premier is doing to try to put forth the need for oil supplies to the petrochemical industry, and to try to stop this pirating of our industries to Alberta by the government of Alberta.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Pirating, my foot.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it’s kind of obvious. I have been to the plant. I think the honourable member, perhaps on one of his weekends, has also visited it. I am sure he has some discussion on it. I have to tell him there’s a major capital investment there which received the encouragement of this government. They were here to discuss it.

I happen to know the availability of feedstock is essential. I happen to know they are getting it but I tell the member it is also very crucial what price they pay. If they haven’t conveyed this to him I would be very surprised. It may be that he doesn’t understand it.

An hon. member: That’s pretty arrogant.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They would also ask me to ask him, because they have raised this with me, “Would you please help me and this government in communicating to the leader of your party just how sensible it would be to have a price that is less than world price, or even the Chicago price, as it relates to the petrochemical industry and the consumers of this province?”

Mr. Peterson: You are misrepresenting the position; you just don’t understand it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: His party hasn’t yet realized just how foolish it is to support Mr. Gillespie in his great design to get to world price --

Mr. Bradley: Call Joe Clark.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- although I must confess, in fairness to him, it is quite obvious in the past two weeks he now recognizes that Ontario’s concern for the economy and the need to keep the price of natural gas and oil down to be competitive is now the realistic policy for energy pricing. I must congratulate Mr. Gillespie on his sudden understanding of the issue --

Mr. Laughren: Yours too.

Mr. McClellan: To say nothing of yours.

Mr. Foulds: To say nothing of your flip-flop.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- even though I am not encouraged it will extend much past July or next January.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, or privilege --

Mr. Nixon: You can’t have it both ways.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I have to tell the acting leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario that there are some days we really wish he was back. There might be some enlightenment across the road.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Energy did not encourage the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to go ahead with the dollar increase on January 1. Our statement and our policy have been totally consistent. This is the one government, and perhaps the only government in Canada, that has urged the government to see that our price did not get to world price. That’s their policy, it is not ours.

Mr. Nixon: You approved those increases in 1973.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He did not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We stated it very clearly, and we are probably the only one who urged Mr. Gillespie at the first ministers’ conference by saying to him: “yes, don’t raise the price on January 1, 1979.” We went one step further in case the member didn’t read the press or didn’t watch television. We also said: “Don’t commit yourself to January 1, 1980, because we think that would be the wrong policy decision to make as well.”

Mr. Peterson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: There was never a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You people want world price.

Mr. Peterson: You’ve been misrepresenting our position for years.

Mr. Ashe: Throw him out.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You don’t know what you are talking about.

Mr. Bradley: It’s time for another Kingston conference.

Mr. Peterson: There’s not an honourable man among you.

HOUSING LEAKS

Mr. Young: I would like to redirect a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, a question which I asked of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) yesterday and he suggested a redirection. Perhaps the minister heard at that point. It’s concerning a statement by David Medhurst, president of Medhurst Hogg and Associates, which specializes in marketing and managing condominiums, as reported in the current issue of Alcan News.

He says almost every brick veneer apartment building and townhouse in Toronto has a water penetration problem. George Fleming, building commissioner of Scarborough, says that 50 per cent of the apartment buildings in the city leak. Jack Steeles of the property standards department of the borough thinks the percentage of leaking apartment buildings is even higher.

The reason for this is quoted as being “partly due to the construction technique of bonding every seventh course of bricks into the masonry wall. This clamps the two rigidly together and makes cracking inevitable as bricks and masonry shrink and shift under southern Ontario’s temperature extremes.” This is a problem which is very prevalent throughout Metro and other parts of the province.

[2:45]

Mr. Speaker: Will you get to the question, please?

Mr. Young: The question is: Is the minister aware of this, as I suppose he is, and does he consider that an alteration of the building code is necessary in the light of these facts?

Mr. Kerrio: Tell him we’re not going to build any more houses out of brick.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would like to look at is exactly when the apartments this gentleman is talking about were built, because the new building code corrected a great many difficulties. I find it somewhat significant that the member has quoted two or three local building commissioners, who prior to the introduction of the province-wide building code used to have their own building codes and were responsible for this.

In general, Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice. I will reply to the member in some detail prior to the end of the session.

Mr. Young: Supplementary: Perhaps, while the minister is looking into this, he could look into the report which was tabled at the Scarborough municipal council on May 5, 1978, and which stated: “Water penetration in buildings: We recommend improved inspection and workmanship controls.” Also, they recommended six specific changes in the building code. I repeat that this was in May of this year.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I will look into it. But I remind the honourable member that during the work in the standing committee and the committee of the whole House on Bill 103, the new Condominium Act, there was a commitment by the government to introduce amendments to the building code in the spring session.

WOOD-BURNING STOVES

Hon. Mr. Urea: Mr. Speaker, the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) asked a question some days ago concerning wood stoves. His particular concerns were that it would appear no one is looking after the standards for their installation and that the minister should consider publishing a booklet warning consumers of some of the dangers of heating a house with wood.

To the first concern, I am informed that the first draft of a standard on the manufacture of solid-fuel-burning appliances -- that is, both wood and coal -- is now being examined by members of the Canadian Standards Association committee involved in its development. We could see a final version published next year.

A similar standard on installation has been commenced, but it is not as far advanced and it relates to existing houses. The building code provides installation requirements only for new houses.

To the request for consumer information on solid-fuel-burning appliances, I would refer the honourable members to a recently published booklet entitled Heating with Wood Safely. It deals with the selection, installation and maintenance of space heaters or furnaces, and appears to be a booklet of the type the member for Kent-Elgin may have had in mind. It is available from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and it is bilingual. I have checked with CMHC; they have plenty of them available and they would be delighted if people would contact them at their publications section, Montreal Road, Ottawa.

In addition, the ministry is in the process of preparing a draft release concerning the cautions of adding wood-burning units to a furnace -- not new wood stoves, but adding wood-burning units to an existing furnace. These add-ons have generated some concerns on the part of both the fire marshal and the energy safety branch of my ministry.

In the meantime, before anyone installs, or in the event anyone has already installed, one of these add-ons -- I’m not talking about a new furnace; I’m talking about a unit added on to an existing oil or gas furnace or space heater -- he should contact his local fire department. If the local fire department cannot be of assistance in the matter, then he should get in touch with the energy safety branch of my ministry at 400 University Avenue.

I will have that draft release available for members in the next few days, as it is likely almost every member will be sending out his constituency report. This release might prove a valuable addition in the areas where people are either using wood stoves for primary heat, or adding them on to existing furnaces.

Mr. Laughren: Your information is always suspect.

Mr. Conway: Can I sell you a cord or two, Frank?

DRUG TREATMENT FOR STUDENTS

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education: There was an

article in the Toronto morning paper indicating that certain students in the board of education for the borough of Scarborough system were being subjected to drug treatment as a condition of remaining in the school, said treatment being directed at the students apparently on the basis of their being hyperactive. This drug treatment was apparently being used against the wishes of the parents of the students and without the consent of the parents. Could the minister advise the House if there is any authority by which the school boards can impose this type of treatment to children, and if so, how widespread a practice is this in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no authority for school boards to administer any kind of medication to any child. The authority for prescribing and administering such medication, as is suggested in this article, resides totally with physicians within this province. Physicians prescribe on the basis of physical examinations, and hopefully with the consent or the support of the parents, in order to solve a problem.

I find the report most perplexing, because it is entirely an unusual situation, and I have asked for a complete investigation of this matter in order to determine how this child received the medication which is listed within the

article without the approval of the parents and apparently without any prescription by a physician, which is entirely wrong, against the law, unethical and immoral.

Mr. Foulds: It’s also bad.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Sounds like a description of the government.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister -- and I certainly share her perplexity -- when she has finished investigating would report back to the assembly as to what her findings are. If, in fact, the report bears out to be entirely accurate, could she indicate what action she will take to ensure that the rights of the children are protected in the school system?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I’d be delighted to report back to the assembly. It would be hypothetical at this point to even suggest that the report is entirely accurate, but I shall certainly make that report to the assembly.

FOOD LAND GUIDELINES

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food in connection with the government’s statement on planning for agriculture: Can the minister tell us how he plans to make sure that the food land guidelines are adopted by the municipalities since he stated at the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee that municipalities will merely be encouraged to protect farm land? Specifically, what did the minister mean when he stated at the PMLC meeting: “I can assure you that we have said there will be no legislation, but the guidelines will be backed by the province”?

Furthermore, how can the minister possibly perceive this to be any kind of a policy when the guidelines state: “Where a change to an official plan establishes a new area for development it is expected that the procedures in the guidelines will be followed. Municipalities with official plans not in conformity with the guidelines are encouraged to review and update their plans. With plans now under review and the regular amendment of plans, it is expected that official plans will be brought into conformity with the guidelines”?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously the honourable member doesn’t really realize how government works and I’m surprised to hear that.

Mr. Riddell: That’s right!

Mr. Foulds: We know that yours works badly.

Hon. W. Newman: You might all get a lesson in it if you don’t understand.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: Maybe you’re not aware that under the Planning Act of the province of Ontario all official plans, zoning changes --

Mr. Conway: Just another sodbuster.

Hon. W. Newman: Do you want to hear the answer?

Mr. Riddell: Yes.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, he doesn’t want to know.

Hon. W. Newman: If you don’t want to know, say so.

Mr. Conway: Tell us how government works.

Hon. W. Newman: All right, under the present system in this government, all official plans, zoning by-laws and subdivisions which require changes in official plans, zoning bylaws must be submitted to the provincial Minister of Housing for his approval. Upon his receiving these he circulates them to every ministry. That official plan and these zoning bylaws are circulated to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. We apply the food land guidelines to those official plans and zoning bylaws --

Mr. MacDonald: And they ignore them.

Mr. Riddell: What happens if they ignore them?

Hon. W. Newman: -- and we make our recommendations back to the Minister of Housing --

Mr. MacDonald: And they ignore them.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and many times, in most cases -- and I’ve said there are times that land will move out of agriculture because we can’t stop the world, and I use Niagara as an example -- but in many other cases where official plans have been sent back, official plans are still waiting in the ministry’s office now because of the comments of the Minister of Agriculture and Food relating to the food land guidelines. That’s how it works, and that’s how it works very effectively.

Mr. Riddell: Just as the member for York South says, they all ignore them; and the minister knows it.

Hon. W. Newman: That’s not true.

Mr. Riddell: As a supplementary, how can the minister state that he is sincere about preserving agricultural land when his government has repeatedly contradicted and undermined these guidelines? I give as examples Barrie’s annexation; the town of Hanover’s proposed annexation; proposed agrominium development on prime farm land; and the land severance case in Scugog. In all these the cabinet overturned the decision of the local authorities, whose decisions were based on the guidelines.

Mr. Nixon: And one in Oxford.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And you left out Grey.

Hon. W. Newman: Sometimes we forget about --

Mr. Riddell: Tell us about Scugog.

Hon. W. Newman: I’d like to. Let’s talk about the Niagara escarpment.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: What about over there on the Niagara escarpment? What about the big decisions we made down in the Niagara peninsula?

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: What about the member’s leader’s great exhortations about restoring farm land that he put in writing? Look at those, too.

What I’m saying is that this government is geared to preserving the best agricultural land in the province. We have said it should only be taken out of agricultural use with good and justifiable reason. We still stand behind that.

Mr. Swart: I’d like to ask the minister if he’s aware the majority of municipalities in this province do not have official plans? Therefore, what steps is he taking to assure there will be any official plans to amend with respect to the guidelines? Secondly, as has already been pointed out, the municipalities are not following their stated policies. What steps is his ministry going to take to ensure the guidelines which are included in the official plans will be followed by the municipalities? They have not been up to this time.

Hon. W. Newman: I’d like to answer the question and tell the member one thing: he would legislate us out of existence in this province if he had his way about it. That’s what he would do. He got a lot of mileage --

Hon. Mr. Davis: What about Stoney Creek?

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: I’d like to answer his question, but that’s the story of the life of that gentleman over there, if you can call him one -- and you can. I said if you can, I’m sorry.

May I say to the honourable member that the official plans of the municipalities, counties and regions of this province are working very closely with my food lands branch --

Mr. Swart: When you have no answer you have to do something.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and are doing a very conscientious and sincere job of putting together official plans to make agricultural zoning meaningful. The Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee, representing the elected people in the municipalities in this province, want it this way, but the member wants to go contrary to them. He is saying the municipalities are not responsible enough to do a proper job. I’m saying they are responsible people; they are elected and will do a proper job.

Mr. Nixon: The minister has indicated his confidence in the municipalities, and although many of them do not have official plans, most of the agricultural ones have zoning bylaws. If that is the case, how can the minister, as a member of the cabinet, take action to reverse the decisions made by local planning authorities -- in the instance he well knows in Oxford, and in Scugog and others -- where the decision made by local planning authorities to preserve farm land, upheld by the Ontario Municipal Board, was reversed by this cabinet without any reason given?

Mr. Speaker: The question has already been asked by your colleague.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we would like an answer to it. He has refused to answer it.

Mr. Eakins: Stick to the point.

Mr. Speaker: It’s already been asked.

[3:00]

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, when you ask about cabinet decisions, on appeals that come to cabinet, that does not come under my jurisdiction.

Mr. Nixon: How else does government work?

Hon. W. Newman: That comes under Chairman of Cabinet (Mr. Henderson).

Mr. Breaugh: Oh, oh.

Hon. W. Newman: You know the procedure. The Chairman of Cabinet deals with them and makes recommendations.

Mr. Nixon: The minister phones the Chairman of Cabinet and he fixes it.

Hon. W. Newman: All right. The appeal on the Scugog case, about which the member for Oshawa has questions on the Order Paper, is one we’re all familiar with.

Mr. Swart: And we have no answers.

Hon. W. Newman: We all know about it. I know about it, but that question should be directed to the appropriate ministry in that particular case.

Mr. Breaugh: You betcha.

Mr. Deans: Who is it?

Hon. W. Newman: The decision is made by cabinet and decisions come from the Chairman of Cabinet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, could I redirect that?

[Later]

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Since the Ontario Institute of Agrologists and the rural Ontario municipalities have requested and urged this government to pass legislation designating class one, two and three land and special crop land to be preserved for future food production, why is the government so adamant in refusing to pass that legislation so that it can halt the destruction of prime agricultural land while these official plans are being developed?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I happen to be a member of that particular organization myself, and I’m well aware of the recommendations that were put forward.

Mr. Breaugh: Which organization?

Hon. W. Newman: I already explained to the member today, if he was listening, some of the other answers.

Mr. MacDonald: I was listening.

Hon. W. Newman: I’m glad to hear the member was listening, because I already explained the process you go through to preserve agricultural land.

Mr. Foulds: There is a public-address system. You don’t have to shout

Hon. W. Newman: If he will read Hansard, he will find exactly how I answered his question.

CONTINUOUS COLOUR COAT LIMITED

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment, concerning the emissions of certain odours and gases from Continuous Colour Coat Limited in Rexdale. Is the minister aware that at the request of his ministry for comment on this problem, Dr. Fitch of the Ministry of Labour has now stated he cannot categorically say emissions are entirely harmless without knowing the concentration of these emissions? Will the minister assure the residents in this area that studies of the concentrations will be done in the very near future so they will know what is coming out of that plant and bothering them in their neighbourhood?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t think there is any doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the concentration of any emission is of considerable importance in the assessment of the dangers involved. With regards to the second portion of the member’s question, yes, we will be glad to supply that information.

Mr. Philip: I wonder if the minister would comment on, when an answer will likely be forthcoming on that, since part of Dr. Fitch’s statement is that it’s with the help of the Ministry of the Environment that eventually we will be able to get a specific answer? Could he also tell us what studies will be done and when will they be completed on this particular matter, since it’s a matter the ministry has been working on for some time now?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Since the House is about to close, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be wise to tell the member we would get that to him personally rather than do it here in the House. We’ll communicate those dates to him in the next day or two. In the next day or two we’ll tell the member by what date we’ll have that information completed.

DURHAM REGIONAL CHAIRMAN

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

An hon. member: There he is.

Mr. Epp: Oh, I’ll address it to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hall: Saved by the bell.

Mr. Deans: I don’t know why they keep asking the Premier questions.

Mr. Epp: Given the regional municipality of Durham held an election for a chairman on December 6 of this year; and given the appointed chairman, Mr. Beath, whom the minister’s government initially appointed, broke the 15-15 tie in favour of himself, in opposition to a duly elected member of the regional council; and given this action was contrary to the procedures adopted by council in 1974 and not revised by council since that date, and given the 30 regional councillors voting were sworn in but Mr. Beath was not sworn in as a member of regional council -- in fact Mr.

Speaker he was not even in the chair, does the minister not believe Mr. Beath erred in voting on this matter and that the procedure adopted by regional council in 1974 should have been employed by the Durham regional council?

Mr. Ashe: No.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this has been brought to our attention. I’ve asked our lawyers to look into it. The opinion that’s been given to me is that the matter --

Mr. Peterson: Sub judice, eh?

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- was handled properly and Mr. Beath is the duly elected chairman of Durham region. If anyone feels that is not so, the proper course of action is for them to take the matter in some way or manner to the courts.

Mr. Epp: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister could tell us if Mr. Beath had not been a candidate for this office whether he still would have had the opportunity of breaking a tie if a tie would have developed for some other person, even if he were retiring from that particular position?

Mr. Nixon: Just trying to keep Pilkey out of the chairmanship.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question. I am not a lawyer and I wouldn’t presume to answer that.

Mr. Epp: It is a legal question.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All I am going to answer for the member today is that --

Mr. Deans: If he was entitled to a vote, he was entitled to a vote.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- instead of dealing in hypothetical questions I am dealing in the actual reality of what happened. Based on what happened there, I am told nothing illegal occurred in the selection of the chairman of the regional municipality of Durham.

Mr. Warner: Pretty shabby.

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to ask the minister if he then intends to ignore the request from the mayor of the city of Oshawa to at least review the procedure, if not order a new vote?

Hon. W. Newman: He just said that. You weren’t listening.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, actually the letter is to the Premier, and perhaps my friend would like to ask the Premier. But certainly if the mayor of Oshawa asks me I will tell him exactly what I just told this House --

Mr. Breaugh: Love to.

Mr. Nixon: He will check with Lorne.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and suggest that if he doesn’t like the decision he should see if there is some legal remedy through the courts that he could use.

Mr. Peterson: We will go right to the top.

PURETEX KNITTING COMPANY

Mr. Bounsall: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Now that your mediation officers, Jean Read and Ray Illing, have failed in their mediation attempts today to move Puretex one iota in their bargaining position with respect to the workers, including the disagreement over electronic surveillance, will the minister now intervene directly in that dispute to try and achieve a solution, and if necessary tomorrow introduce in this House amendments either to the Employments Standards Act or the Ontario Human Rights Commission that will outlaw electronic surveillance in the work place?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member is more informed about today’s events than I am, but I will certainly discuss what did occur today in the negotiations with my mediation staff and proceed from there as I see fit. I can only reiterate what I have said on other days about the problem of electronic surveillance. It is not an easy one, we are reviewing it, and we do hope to be able to deal with it shortly.

Mrs. Campbell: Does the minister not understand that when it comes to this mediation the decision of the human rights commission is very much a part of it and that it does need the minister’s support in the mediation process so far as the surveillance itself is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the member for St. George that I met with the solicitor for the employees at Puretex yesterday afternoon and we had some discussions, which should at this time remain confidential. I want to assure her that I have no hesitation about intervening personally if I think it will accomplish anything, and I did indeed meet personally with each of the parties and I will do so again if I feel it will be of assistance.

Mr. Mackenzie: What are you going to do about the cameras? That’s the question.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, during the Labour estimates the minister indicated that he was reviewing the matter with the intention of coming to a decision around whether there would be a board of inquiry under the human rights legislation. When is he going to make that decision? The deadline is past.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am still reviewing that matter, and I still have the same intention that I spoke about in the committee that day.

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT LCBO STORES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Is the minister aware that the Port Hope LCBO store is contaminated with unacceptable levels of radon 222, and even though ministry officials have known this for over two years the radon hazard has not been removed? Is the minister aware of this hazard to the store employees and to the customers?

Mr. Conway: Tell us it isn’t so.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, the minister is not, and I’ll check into it.

Mr. Breithaupt: While the minister is checking into that, would the minister as well advise us as to why over this Christmas season your ministry has allowed some 167 LCBO stores to amass 1,558 infractions of the Industrial Safety Act, arising mostly from overstocking stores and blocking fire doors and sprinklers for the sake of stacking in more cases of liquor?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, I’ll look into that too, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. W. Newman: Why don’t you buy domestic wine instead of imported stuff?

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

COMMENT OF PCA PRESIDENT

Mr. Breithaupt: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if you have noted the report of a comment made by one Gerald Nori, president of the Progressive Conservative Association, who is quoted as having said: “The Liberals should have won Chatham-Kent. They had a bright, articulate young doctor and we had a sodbuster no one in Chatham ever heard of.” I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would review those comments to see if the privileges of the member for Chatham-Kent have been abused. If so, would you consider sending the member for Fort William as our champion to challenge Mr. Nori in this matter?

Mr. MacDonald: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: It’s not a point of order or a point of privilege --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I hope you will be here Friday.

Mr. Speaker: It’s an abuse of the privileges of this House.

Mr. Makarchuk: On the point of the abuse of the privileges of this House --

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the term “sodbuster” is an honourable term and anybody from the rural areas wouldn’t dismiss it.

Mr. Havrot: Well spoken.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, as a sodbuster, I would say it is the word “nonentity” that we’re concerned about, and that applies to people from the city.

MOTIONS

SITTINGS OF HOUSE AND COMMITTEES

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that notwithstanding any previous order of the House, the House will sit on Wednesday and Thursday from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m. and from 2 p.m. until 6 p.m., as well as from 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Thursday, with routine proceedings at 2 p.m., and that committees scheduled to meet during this period may meet concurrently with the House.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that government business be considered Thursday afternoon.

Motion agreed to.

REDIRECTION OF ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, now before the standing administration of justice committee, be ordered referred to the committee of supply for consideration on Wednesday from 9 p.m. until 12:55 p.m., and that at 12:55 the chairman shall put every question necessary to complete the consideration of those estimates.

COMMITTEE MEETING

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing administration of justice committee be authorized to meet on the afternoon of December 13, if required.

Motion agreed to.

[3:15]

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 203,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends

section 368(

b) of the Municipal Act removing the prohibition for a municipality, at its discretion, to pass bylaws governing adult entertainment and dress of waitresses in premises licensed under the Liquor Licence Act.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swan moved first reading of Bill 204,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: The purpose of this bill is to declare that the designation member of the Legislative Assembly and MLA are the official designations of persons elected to the Legislative Assembly. The bill provides that only members of the Legislative Assembly are entitled to use either of the official designations in association with themselves while sitting as elected members of the assembly and during the succeeding election period.

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 205,

An Act respecting Local Government in the District of Parry Sound.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This legislation provides for the consolidation of the geographic townships of Proudfoot and Bethune and portions of Bucke and McCraney townships, with the town of Kearney to form a new larger municipality.

This consolidation is supported by unanimous resolutions from the town and the two local roads boards in the area.

The bill also annexes a portion of McDougall township to the town of Parry Sound. This boundary change has been agreed to by both the municipalities involved.

The other part of the bill provides for a new township of North Georgian Bay to be created from geographic township areas along the shores of Georgian Bay which currently lack municipal organization.

The municipality embraces all Cowper geographic township, and major portions of Conger, Harrison and Shawanaga geographic townships.

There has been considerable support for the establishment of this new municipality from local roads boards and cottagers associations including the Georgian Bay Association.

The bill also provides for the town of Parry Sound annexation to be effective January 1, 1980 as requested by the municipality.

The startup date for the other two municipalities, North Georgian Bay and Kearney, is set out in the bill as December 1, 1979. An election to select councillors for these municipalities would be held, of course, before that date.

I am introducing the bill at this late date in the session for first reading only, with the intention of reintroducing it at the beginning of the spring session. This will, however, give us a chance to have the bill printed, giving full opportunity for everyone concerned to study it very carefully and come forward with any suggestions or alternatives that may arise in the interval before our next sitting.

ONTARIO HYDRO ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

Mr. J. Reed moved first reading of Bill 206,

An Act respecting the public accountability of Ontario Hydro.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. Reed: The purpose of this bill is to provide a means of clarifying the functions and duties of Ontario Hydro related to the production, generation, transmission, distribution, supply, sale, use and development of energy resources in Ontario.

The bill requires the Minister of Energy, on behalf of the government of Ontario, to issue a policy directive setting out the policy framework within which Ontario Hydro is to make operational and management decisions. The Power Corporation Act is amended to clarify that it is a responsibility of the board of Ontario Hydro to ensure that the business of Ontario Hydro is conducted within the limits established by the policy directives issued by the Ministry of Energy.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 148, 163 and 170 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act.

Bill 114,

An Act to revise the Child Welfare Act.

Bill 122,

An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act, 1973.

Bill 147,

An Act to amend the University of Toronto Act, 1971.

Bill 184,

An Act to amend the Ontario Land Corporation Act.

Bill 187,

An Act to amend the Corporations Information Act, 1976.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 150,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, although many of the amendments to this bill are designed to clarify existing sections of the Highway Traffic Act, there are a few additions as well. I would like to highlight some of the proposals, beginning with those that effect driver regulations.

A new provision will make it a specific offence to drive a motor vehicle on the highway in contravention of conditions on a driver’s licence, for example a requirement that he wear his glasses while driving.

In response to the government’s major campaign against drinking and driving, we propose a mandatory three-year driving licence suspension for anyone convicted of a third or more drinking and driving charge under the Criminal Code of Canada.

A clarification of overtaking and passing at pedestrian crosswalks will make it illegal for any vehicle approaching from the rear to move beyond the front of the vehicle being overtaken.

Another amendment will authorize more flexibility in the combination of signal lights used at intersections, specifically clarifying the use of green arrow signal lights.

Another amendment will permit a left turn from a one-way street to another one-way street on a red light.

Mr. Laughren: Hear, hear. It was long overdue, we’ve been waiting for that one for years.

Hon. Mr. Snow: There are also several amendments dealing with commercial motor vehicles which I should clarify, all of which result from the fact that in recent years municipal boundaries have moved outward to encompass rural areas which include many unlit, high-speed sections of highways. These amendments will cover the use of identification lights during the hours of darkness on all highways, and the use of warning lights for reflectors when any vehicle is disabled on highways with maximum speeds of more than 60 kilometres an hour.

To prevent tailgating by commercial vehicles, an amendment will require 60 metres of space between all commercial vehicles and any other vehicle on highways. I shall introduce an amendment to the bill in committee so that the maintenance of the 60-metre interval will apply if the truck is travelling at over 60 kilometres an hour.

I believe there are a total of four amendments to the bill that I will be moving in committee. These were supplied to the opposition critics a few days ago.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable minister for his comments in connection with Bill 150. Having gone through the bill I see that a number of the sections are sell-explanatory and I don’t think they require comment from me. In the hope of keeping comments brief on this legislation so that we might be out on

schedule I would restrict my comments.

I am concerned about several sections of the bill, specifically

section 2, the increase in the penalty to three years upon conviction of impaired driving or a breathalyser offence on the third occasion. I appreciate the government’s concern about alcohol and driving and alcohol-related traffic offences, but I must say, while I am going to support this, I have some second thoughts about the effectiveness of such a penalty.

I had occasion last night to visit the Burtch Correctional Institution. Ironically, one of the individuals who was speaking, one of the inmates, was there for his sixteenth conviction on a breathalyser offence and impaired driving. It seems he couldn’t manage to keep his foot off the brake as he approached liquor and beer stores, as he admitted himself.

I think this individual is typical of many people we have been inclined in the past to incarcerate for liquor-oriented traffic offences. The difficulty the individual faces is the lack of effective rehabilitation programs within the institutions themselves. They have an Alcoholics Anonymous program there -- and if I could digress I must say that particular institution is an excellent institution.

Mr. Nixon: It’s in the riding of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Cunningham: They do have an Alcoholics Anonymous program there, and that particular individual was participating in it and found it to be of some benefit to him, but he readily confessed he had participated in the same program on a number of occasions during his total time of four years in various institutions. I could only say to that end that the individual did not derive a great deal of success from the program.

What I am saying is I don’t think the lengthening of the period of suspension will be a panacea for better driving conduct by people who are inclined to be alcoholics. For the people who are convicted on a rare occasion when they transgress it won’t be a factor, but clearly for somebody who has been convicted of a breathalyser offence on three separate occasions, that individual has a problem. Suspension of the licence for an extra year, or excessive incarceration, in my opinion is not the answer.

[3:30]

I think what we should be doing is making a greater effort with other ministries -- the Ministry of Education specifically, and possibly the Attorney General’s ministry -- to see what can be done to effect, not this kind of quasi-volunteer approach to rehabilitation but rather some compulsory program that will ensure the individual is rehabilitated.

Where rehabilitation cannot be effected, then the existing situation that was described to us during the course of our estimates should apply, that is that upon the direction of a physician or some evidence that the individual is affected as an alcoholic, the ministry should be able to remove the individual’s driving privileges.

The other sections of the legislation I think generally are self-explanatory. Frankly, I’m quite surprised the

section regarding conditions which are imposed on a licence have not been enforced in the past, however, I’m pleased to see it’s coming into effect now.

I hope there will be some police discretion in a number of the areas of the legislation as it is proclaimed. Hopefully there will be some publication of these changes to the Highway Traffic Act.

The permission to allow left turns onto one-way streets, I think, is a good idea and one that may in time see us save a great deal of energy. Recently I heard of some studies on the excessive amount of fuel wasted at four-way stops. I would hope possibly the ministry might give some consideration to re-evaluating the importance of the four-way stop. It would appear on many occasions we are seeing four-way stops in areas where they’re not necessary, and in time it causes a great deal of waste of fuel.

I spoke with the minister privately on

section 13. I gather I’ve been favoured with an amendment on this

section and I appreciate receiving it some time in advance. This is the

section that relates to tailgating. I appreciate the difficulty law enforcement officers have had with regard to enforcing following-too-close legislation or tailgating, and I can appreciate that the minister must get complaints on a regular basis, especially about big trucks following immediately behind passenger vehicles, particularly small passenger vehicles.

But I must say I have some second thoughts about how effective this particular amendment will be. While it may clarify things to some extent, I am sympathetic with the position that commercial carriers will be in on the highway. I offer the minister this example. If an individual is travelling, say on the Gardiner -- where I believe the speed limit is 90 kilometres per hour -- that truck or commercial vehicle will, I think on a continuing basis, be subjected to some difficulty as passenger vehicles especially overtake the vehicle and pull in front in the 60-metre zone.

That being the case, the driver or operator of the commercial vehicle will be in violation of the legislation. I can see a great number of difficulties for those carriers who are driving along, maintaining a safe distance, as safe as possible, and then as a result of the actions of another driver they are put in violation of the legislation.

I suppose we’re going to have to give the benefit of the doubt to the law enforcement officers on this piece of legislation, but I am worried we’ll probably end up back here half a year from now after there have been a myriad of complaints from people who have been convicted under this amendment of following too close, when really it’s no fault of their own.

I offer those comments to the minister. I’m not certain what the solution is. Maybe we just consider leaving it to the discretion of the law enforcement officers. With that, I have no further comments.

Mr. Philip: The bill is one that certainly meets with our agreement. I’m in agreement not only with the bill, but also with the amendments the minister has proposed. Certainly the bill makes a number of changes that various municipalities and members of the opposition and the minister’s own good staff have talked about for some time. I’m pleased that the bill has finally come before the House. It seemed to be an on-again off-again bill, which is one of the things that often happens in these hectic days before the recess of the Legislature. I can understand how the scheduling has been difficult.

I couldn’t help but wonder if my understanding of

section 15 is that there have been a number of violations of the present act and that it’s just been impractical. I couldn’t help but wonder out loud if the minister had at any time been one of the people who violated the present act in this regard, but I don’t expect that the minister would answer that question anyway.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Not guilty, not guilty.

Mr. Philip: Not lately. I hope the minister will not have to use the new

section to get his airplane off the QEW or any other highway.

The Liberal critic has spoken at some length concerning

section 2. I must say I’m in agreement with the basic thrust of his comments, but at the same time, with the new requirements that are coming in concerning pictures on licences, at least those particular offenders will not be on the road for that

section of time outlined in the bill.

Certainly alcoholism is broader than just a transportation problem and must be approached as an industrial and a social problem and by several ministries. But at least this particular section,

section 2, does go somewhat in the direction that has been recommended by members on all sides of the House. I can’t find any quarrel with it.

I would like to hear the minister’s comments concerning the matter raised by the Liberal critic concerning the problems in those areas that are heavily built up, with the possibility of a group of people being fined or harassed unnecessarily for following too closely at a time when it really isn’t their fault. Perhaps the only way we’ll know whether this is the case or not will be to monitor the situation and, in a year or two, find out whether there have been a number of convictions under this act and where they’ve taken place.

I think there are a number of controversial bills coming before the House today on which there will be less agreement and I don’t want to take up any further time.

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to deal particularly with that part of the bill which has to do with the increase in suspension to three years.

I’d like to make my initial comments this way: If the minister can’t get the drinking driver off the road in two years with a two-year suspension, I simply fail to see how he is going to do it in three years. For that matter, he might as well make it four or five.

The simple fact of the matter is that whether it’s a six-month suspension, a one-year suspension or a two-year suspension, it has been my experience in dealing with people who are charged under the

section that covers driving while under suspension that inevitably the day will come when they will get in that motor vehicle and they will drive it away. In many instances they again will be under the influence of alcohol when this happens.

As I say, I don’t think the answer to the problem is jacking up the penalty. A more realistic approach to it is one which has been taken in the North Bay area. It’s called the impaired drivers’ program. If I may take a few moments, I would like to explain to the minister how this program works.

I corresponded with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) about this program in May 1978. I must apologize for not forwarding a copy of my letter to the minister. I should have realized that as Minister of Transportation and Communication and responsible for the Highway Traffic Act he should have received a copy of this letter and I should have been corresponding with him. For that I do apologize.

However, I would like to bring to the minister’s attention this North Bay impaired drivers’ program, which is now in its fifth year of operation. It appears to have a significant impact. My information is that the rate of recidivism -- the repeater, the guy who goes out and does it again -- between North Bay and other comparable places like Thunder Bay, for example, is 80 per cent lower in the North Bay area than it is in other areas in northern Ontario. There are statistics which show this, Mr. Speaker.

I also understand there are several similar programs in operation throughout North America and their approaches and results vary quite a bit. There is a program, for example, in the state of Virginia which has been quite successful. In fact, there was a conference held at the Donwoods Institute some time in June to deal with this question of the drinking driver and some people, at that time, had spoken about the Virginia program.

Dealing again with this program, and seeing that there are changes in this bill increasing the penalty from two to three years, I think it is now the time to talk about the question of dealing with the drinking driver. As it now stands in Ontario there is nothing needed in addition to existing legislation, except the power to direct that a program be put in place in the event there is a community in which some key figures are reluctant to co-operate in the implementation of such a program.

In advance of any type of legislation like this being passed, I am informed that a number of judges in Ontario are ready and eager to see programs of this type put into operation and there would be a large number of judges ready to co-operate in the implementation of this program.

The candidates for this program -- this is the program in North Bay -- are second offenders under the impaired driver

section of the Criminal Code of Canada. These candidates who are processed through court, let’s say on a second conviction of impaired driving, are subjected to very sophisticated testing at the Addiction Research Foundation right at the beginning of the program. The results to date have been sufficient to attract the interest and support of the school of alcohol studies at Rutgers, as well as some other schools in the United States which study this program.

What happens with the drinking driver at that stage is as the minister knows, if a proper notice is served on the person who is convicted of his second offence it’s an automatic 14 days in jail plus a six-month suspension. Under this program, that person is given an alternative.

The alternative is to attend the Addiction Research Foundation program, which consists of 12 weekly sessions which the person attends with a number of other candidates. It’s like a group therapy session that involves a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a doctor and a lawyer. The significant thing about it, aside from the fact that the rate of recidivism has been reduced considerably, is that the problem drinker is identified at a much earlier age in his life than is now being done.

[3:45]

The problem drinker now is being identified at or about the age of 45 to 47. This again has come out in studies which is reflected through industrial plants et cetera, where they monitor this. It identifies that problem drinker at the age of 32, and then that person, through proper counselling, through proper direction and through proper group therapy can overcome this problem which he has and become a more useful and meaningful citizen to society.

This program was first set up in North Bay with the Addiction Research Foundation. The whole idea was brought out by the director of the association there, Mr. Poudrier, and the provincial court judge Lunney has been instrumental in seeing to it that people are encouraged to go. I really urge the minister in his future deliberations relating to penalties that he take into consideration this particular proposal.

The Criminal Code of Canada has amendments now to deal specifically with this problem, i.e. the identification of the problem drinker and putting him on probation whereby he undertakes to go to the Addiction Research Foundation or whatever the case may be to take proper treatment. The legislation has not been passed but the amendments are there. In fact, they are printed in the Criminal Code of Canada, but they have not been implemented as law.

So I urge the minister to consider acting in this regard because there certainly is nothing that prevents him from getting into that type of legislation at this time. As I say, if he can’t stop that person from getting in a motor vehicle and driving with a two-year suspension, I certainly can’t see how he is going to do it in three. Again I urge the minister to consider this.

There is only one other question I would like to raise, which has to do with the tailgating provisions which have been alluded to by other members in the House. I really am somewhat concerned as to what that is going to do to the traffic in a city where a motor vehicle, a truck or the descriptive motor vehicle which is mentioned in the act, is required to stay at that particular distance. I am quite concerned about what type of horrendous traffic tie-up this is going to create. I am looking forward over the next year to see just what is going to happen over that.

The constable or the police officer is going to be put in an extremely difficult position of making judgement calls on 60 metres. Can you see yourself at the corner of some busy intersection in a city where there is a heavy flow of traffic, all 180-some feet apart? Generally speaking, as the minister knows, a charge of following too closely does not arise until such time as there actually has been a collision. If there ever is any evidence of following too closely it is when the one motor vehicle runs into the other.

I can appreciate the intent of the legislation. However, I am wondering just what kind of experience it is going to create for the drivers and for the traffic flow, particularly in busy communities.

Mr. Bradley: Speaking briefly to a few sections of the bill, I would comment, first of all, on the

section that was touched on by the member for Nipissing regarding the number of years in which there would be a suspension of the licence. I certainly think that the program that he has described in North Bay offers a lot of choice, at least to the people of Ontario, to have a program implemented that can be reasonably successful. I know it is not necessarily as successful in all jurisdictions, but as the member for Nipissing mentioned it does offer merit.

However, that would certainly not prevent me from supporting the three years as an improvement, although I recognize we’re really not solving the problem as well as we could by simply implementing the three-year provision. I think few in this House would disagree with the point and I know the minister had this in mind in bringing this forward that we have to deal with the problem of the drinking driver who has caused many fatal accidents and many accidents that have left people in dire straits for the rest of their lives in terms of their physical condition. Any steps that can be taken to remove these drivers from the road should be taken.

The problem, as has been described by the member for Nipissing, is that you don’t necessarily remove them from the road by suspending their licences, Mr. Speaker. However, by stronger enforcement of this we do move in the right direction.

I would also mention that in the field of correctional services, many of the people in the correctional system in this province, and certainly in the federal system, are there, as the former minister mentioned during his estimates, because of alcohol-related or drug-related problems. It seems to me that within the correctional system more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitating those who have alcohol problems, ultimately removing them from the highway system if they aren’t able to conquer their problem and act in a responsible manner. I hope that would be taken into consideration.

I realize it’s not under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, but I know he will relay that information to his colleague the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker) because it would affect the need for legislation of this kind.

The second question, and it may be a matter of definition, relates to

section 10. I was wondering what a “pedestrian crossover” means. I missed the initial remarks of the minister and I wondered if it means a crosswalk, such as they have in Metro Toronto, or if that means any pedestrian crossover such as an intersection. Perhaps the minister could clarify that for me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is going to committee. I think it could be clarified there.

Mr. Bradley: The last thing I would mention is a little bit of a concern although I realize it will make traffic flow faster, and that is the provision for traffic making a left-hand turn from one one-way street onto another on a red light, which the member for Nickel Belt felt was a very progressive provision.

While in Metropolitan Toronto, for instance, it could have the effect of moving traffic much more quickly, and with the heavy traffic perhaps that’s required, I wonder whether allowing discretion on the part of the driver is wise in terms of the chances that might be taken. Having a regulation or a firm rule that must be followed cuts down on the number of accidents. When we allow discretion on the part of the driver we make opportunities for more accidents.

With those very brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, I’ll conclude.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I thank the honourable members for their contributions. I recognize the points made with regard to

section 2 of the bill. I recognize that there is nothing magic about the three-year term; it could have been four or it could have been two-and-a-half. But with all the best judgements we have at our disposal, it was felt that a more severe suspension was necessary for those people who tend to be habitual offenders; in other words, those who have committed three or more offences.

I was most interested in the comments of the member for Nipissing regarding the North Bay program, although I understand there is limited knowledge of it in the ministry. I personally had not heard of it. As I’m sure the honourable members all know, dealing with the person who becomes a chronic impaired driver or who commits a second offence is not a simple matter.

Anybody can make a mistake once. I think we all realize that. But once they have committed the third offence, it has been the decision of the government that a stronger suspension should be administered. This was announced some time ago by my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Affairs at that time, now the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman).

With regard to

section 13 of the bill, the tailgating provision, I realize this is not perfect. I think the amendment I will be introducing when we go into committee will improve the wording over that in the bill. I still agree it is not perfect. This has been discussed in detail with senior law officials, senior police officers and they have assured us the wording would be certainly satisfactory to them and a great deal of discretion is used by the officer when laying charges. There must definitely be a tailgating situation before they would use this

section to lay a charge for following too closely.

The amendment I will be introducing will change it so it only applies to highways where the speed limit is higher than 60 kilometres per hour, so it doesn’t affect the situation in a built-up area, a city, where you have the normal 50 kilometre speed limit. It does not apply within a built-up municipality.

With regard to comment of the member for St. Catharines, about the crosswalks; the crosswalks that are referred to are the definitely designated crosswalks, just not any place where somebody saunters across the street.

I am afraid the honourable member and I disagree on left-hand turns. I just cannot understand why something that makes as much sense as this hasn’t been implemented years ago. Where you have two one-way streets with a stop light, there is certainly no reason why a left turn can’t be allowed on a red, the same as a right turn is allowed.

Mr. Laughren: That cost me a few tickets, I will tell you, at one time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: While I am very sorry for the member for Nickel Belt, I would hate to do anything that would prevent him from obtaining tickets and adding to the revenue of the province.

Mr. Laughren: Can you make it retroactive?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think this situation will help traffic in certain of our more heavily travelled areas in the cities.

I think those comments have answered the points that have been raised by the members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Snow has moved second reading of Bill 150. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT A

Consideration of Bill 150,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Sections 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

section 10:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that

section 10 of the bill be amended by striking out “unless the driver of that other vehicle is signalling an intention to turn” in the sixth and seventh lines.

Any discussion on the amendment?

Motion agreed to.

[4:00]

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Section 11 agreed to.

section 12:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that

section 12 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“12(1) Subsection 1 of

section 98 of the said act is amended by striking out ‘making’ in the sixth line and inserting in lieu thereof ‘marking.’

“

(2) Subsection 3 of

section 98 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“‘

(3) Where a person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway is overtaken by a vehicle or horseman travelling at a greater speed, the person so overtaken shall turn out to the right and allow the overpassing vehicle or horseman to pass, but this does not apply to a vehicle, roadbuilding machine or apparatus while engaged in the construction, maintenance or marking of a highway’.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

section 13:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that

section 13 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“13. Subsection 2 of

section 105 of the said act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1977,

chapter 19,

section 11, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“‘

(2) The driver or operator of a commercial motor vehicle when driving on a highway at a speed exceeding 60 kilometres per hour shall not follow within 60 metres of another motor vehicle, but this shall not be construed to prevent a commercial motor vehicle from overtaking and passing another motor vehicle.’”

Motion agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.

section 16:

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, while I am in agreement with

section 16, I have a couple of questions. This is the kind of recommendation that the Canadian Trucking Association has been trying to promote across the country. I wonder if the minister can give us any insight as to what guarantees he may have from the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) that this will be promoted in a very strenuous way. What information can he give us on his talks with that ministry? What can we expect as a result of passing this amendment? When can we see the results?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I am told by my officials that this driver improvement program is being expanded by the Ministry of the Attorney General in the Metropolitan Toronto area at the present time but, as far as I know, not in other parts of the province.

Mr. Philip: Can we expect it in other parts of the province? Or do we have to wait until the Attorney General’s estimates are before us to ask questions on it? Can the minister give us any more information?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, this particular area is involved only with the traffic tribunal setup, which was initiated, if I recall correctly, when I was Minister of Government Services. We were involved in getting space for the first tribunal in North York. It was tried for a three-year period. I think it has been extended and is being expanded in Metro, but I can’t tell you what the Attorney General’s plans are for expanding it in other areas of the province.

Mr. Philip: To conclude, maybe the minister can give us his assurance, since it is a program that has certainly been welcomed by everyone, that he will at least meet with the Attorney General and see if he can get some more detailed information as to how this program may be expanded and exactly what expansion is anticipated in the near future.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I say, I don’t know the exact plans. I know from the latest reports I have heard that they were very happy with the success of this type of traffic tribunal and they were expanding them. I will certainly speak to my colleague the Attorney General and get brought up to date on just what expansion plans he has in this area.

Mr. Lawlor: One question: On subsection 5, where you exclude actions arising out of these landings, I can well understand why the police force or a police officer would not be subject to it, because he is clearing the path to get the plane off the highway. But why would the pilot, a private citizen --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I would point out to the member that we are on

section 16, not

Section 15 has carried.

Mr. Lawlor: I’m on

section 15(5).

Mr. Hodgson: Too much party last night, eh?

Mr. Lawlor: It’s up to the minister if he wants to answer the question.

Motion agreed to.

Section 16 agreed to.

section 17:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that

section 17 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“17(1) This act, except sections 3 and 13, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

“

(2) Sections 3 and 13 come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Section 18 agreed to.

Bill 150, as amended, reported.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 183,

An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Since introduction of this bill for first reading I have considered some of the comments that have been made on it. I have also been made aware of some specific emergency situations that justify the introduction of some amendments. I shall move the four amendments as we proceed through Bill 183 and give my reasons as we proceed into the various sections.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering whether we have all those amendments of which the minister speaks. I know we have two of them, but I am not sure about the other two. The minister referred to four of them, I think. One of them deals with

section 2; I wonder whether he would share that amendment with us?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: My understanding is that the four amendments I will move this afternoon have been circulated.

Mr. Epp: I have just received the package and I see they are at the back. I am just getting them now.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1 agreed to.

section 2:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that subsections 4(

b) and 4(

c) of

section 29 of the act as set out in

section 2(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“4(

b) where a parcel of land is conveyed by way of a deed or transfer with the consent given under this section, subsections 2 and 4 do not apply to a subsequent conveyance of or other transaction involving the identical parcel of land unless the committee of adjustment, the land division committee or the ministry, as the case may be, in granting the consent stipulates either that subsection 2 or subsection 4 shall apply to any such subsequent conveyance or transaction.

“4(

c) Where a committee of adjustment or land division committee or the minister stipulates in accordance with subsection 4(b): (a), in the case of a committee of adjustment or the land division committee the certificate provides for subsection 20 of

section 42; and (b), in the case of the minister the consent given by the minister shall contain a reference to the stipulation and if not so contained the consent shall be conclusively deemed to have been granted without the stipulation.”

Hon. Mr. Bennett further moves that subsections 9 and 11 of

section 29 of the act as set out in

section 2(4) of the bill be amended by striking out “or 4(c)” in both instances.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The first amendment changes subsections 4(

b) and 4(

c) as set out in

section 2(1) of Bill 183. The amendment now being made removes the retroactive effect of the bill in recognizing the past consents. Moreover, provision is made for a committee of adjustment or a land division committee to stipulate in regard to specific consents that the effect of

section 4(

b) will not be applicable. This will permit the committees to judge each case on its own merits and decide in which situations the new provision would not be appropriate.

I am still of the opinion that the provisions in the original bill are appropriate in that once a person has gone through the consent process he or she should not have to go through it again for the same piece of land. However, I recognize that the process for validating past consents by municipalities in Bill 183 could perhaps raise problems. I’ve asked my staff to review the matter further in connection with our forthcoming white paper and in the meantime propose the amendments now placed before you.

Mr. Epp: In fairness to the minister, I must say that we had some idea that some of these changes were going to come in, but I am at a loss to know why he delayed giving us these amendments until he was already making his statement. They’re somewhat complicated. They’re not straightforward. They involve a number of sections, subsections and so forth. It takes a little time to find all of these within the act and to find out whether the amendment really says what he says it is supposed to say. That’s not to I suggest that it doesn’t say that, but I would have preferred for him to have shared those amendments, which is usually the courteous thing to do, with the opposition parties.

I know that on the amendment I proposed just the other day, which was to delete the words, “or heretofore” in

section 2(4)(b), I shared copies of that amendment with the minister, I think it was last Friday or last Thursday, so he did have about three or four days to study it. These are a little more complicated.

I suppose we will be supporting this particular amendment if it does what I indicated should be done with this amendment, but it does put us in a particular dilemma at this point.

[4:15]

Mr. Swart: We too are going to support this amendment as it is before us at the present time. I suggest again, as I suggested a week ago this evening, that it really should not be before us -- at least the original one should not be before us. It should have been part of the white paper on the Comay report. There was substantial variance in the land division procedures and it should have waited until we’re doing that comprehensive revision or re-examination of the Planning Act.

I took great exception to the original amendment because of what I felt it would do to the farming community and the great number of lots it would create or could create out in the rural areas, particularly in the municipalities or urban communities where they don’t have the full range of services at the present time.

At that time I got no support from the parliamentary assistant, nor from the Liberal Party on my right, including the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: I am almost always on your side.

Mr. Swart: In fact, statements were made at that time that there’s nothing wrong with creating these new parcels of land and having them transferred and being able to convey them in the future without any further severances.

The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Housing stated that if a new parcel of land is considered appropriate from a planning point of view, it should simply not matter what occurred in the past with regard to the ownership. He stated that “I have no worry whatsoever as far as the consents that were granted in the past are concerned. I think they should be recognized.” Then he admitted there could be thousands. “If there were a thousand granted throughout the province it was the councils and the planning boards of the day that granted them, et cetera et cetera.”

I’m not going to be critical of the parliamentary assistant because I suspect he may be the person largely instrumental for having these amendments before us at the present time in the form they are in.

The members of the House will remember that that evening I tabled a motion to delete this

section of the act because of what I considered the inappropriateness of it and the breaking down of planning in this province. As I suspected at the time, and found out afterwards, there had been no consultation. Even at this time I have some hesitation in supporting this amendment because I think it would be preferable to have deleted it and considered it later on after consultation with the Association of Land Division Committees and the committees of adjustment and after having consultation with the municipal associations and the PMLC.

Anyone who was at the PMLC meeting last Friday will know the objection of the municipal organizations to not having had any consultation in bringing this in. There was no need to bring this

section of the act in at the present time. It could have waited until spring.

While the minister announced at that PMLC meeting that he would be bringing in this amendment, we didn’t know what might apply to the future severances. But certainly I suggest the fact he has eliminated the retroactivity is exceedingly important because many of the consents were given simply because they knew it was going to be attached to another parcel of land, otherwise they would not have given the consent.

In many rural areas the majority of land division committees give consent to transfer land to an operating farm to increase the size of the farm. They don’t want to have another parcel of land on which a house can be built or where that land can be sold off. So it was important that they eliminated the retroactivity feature of this.

Now, they also include an amendment which he announced but didn’t give in detail at the PMLC, whereby in the future the land division committee or the committee of adjustment will be able to designate that subsections 2 and

section 4 do not apply. In fact, it will not be possible to be separated from abutting land without going through another procedure, although perhaps I would have preferred it to be the other way around so there would have to be some special consideration given if they wanted to separate it, and it would be on the certificate. Nevertheless, I have enough faith in the committees of adjustment and the land division committees that they are not going to give these severances willy-nilly, and in fact, they will use that certificate very extensively.

I think it’s fair to say, Mr. Chairman, the land division committees in this province, by and large, have done a good job. I think they have done more to protect farm land in the rural areas than the application of any other segment of the planning legislation. I have no doubt that is true. They are getting tougher and tougher because of the problems it’s causing the farmer, and getting tougher and tougher in giving severances on which housing can be built in other lots.

Mr. Johnson: Talk to the Chairman.

Mr. Swart: So, Mr. Chairman, in consideration of what is in this amendment, I’m not going to pursue that which I put the other evening, although it should have been dealt with first. It should have dealt with the deletion of the whole section, but I didn’t rise on a point of order to ask that because we had considered that these amendments do eliminate at least 95 per cent of the problem created by

section 2 of the bill which was before us. We will be supporting the amendment which the minister has put forward.

I had the opportunity of having an hour or two in consultation with some people from the ministry on this. As the member for Waterloo North has stated, the Planning Act is always difficult, and unless you have some time to examine in detail you’re never sure of exactly what you are dealing with or what you are enacting. I did have the opportunity. I’m satisfied this does, in fact, overcome most of my concern and the concern of our party. Therefore, we will be supporting it.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, I heard the remarks of the member for Welland-Thorold. I thought it was important these amendments be brought in order to clarify the situation with relation to the severances in the rural areas, in particular, where there have been add-ons of land. I don’t think we want to discourage add-ons because, in many cases, you have one agricultural user of land transferring a piece to another farmer who was using the land. I think this is a healthy situation.

There is one thing the minister could consider in the future. I had seen the original draft of this bill and brought to the minister’s attention this particular problem immediately upon reading it. One of the situations that does exist and which perhaps in the future the minister might consider is some kind of provision whereby when there are two pieces of property merged into one and they are meant to be kept as one, there might be some kind of requirement for the issuance of a new deed. It doesn’t really matter as to the severance laws whether you have two deeds to those two parcels of land or not.

Maybe that’s understood by the legal community, but as far as the individual is concerned, he understands, or has understood in the past that where there were two deeds he had two pieces of land. I think it’s led to a lot of confusion in relation to this type of problem.

Perhaps at some future time the minister might consider introducing into the Planning Act a requirement that when there was a merging of two pieces of property into one a new deed be issued to include the descriptions of both parcels of land so the land holder understands he has one piece of land within the one deed.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would offer my apologies to the member for Waterloo North for not putting the amendments in his hands as early as we did with the members of the NDP.

Mr. Laughren: You know who the real opposition is.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I take it the people in the ministry had been consulting with the wrong individual within the Liberal Party.

Mr. Breithaupt: I guess that is why he wanted to sneak them by us.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It was not a matter of trying to avoid discussing it with the member for Waterloo North and I do offer my apologies.

I recognize the comments made by the member for Welland-Thorold and I would only say that we brought these amendments in because there were a number of municipalities and groups which felt this was a valid time to do so. I suppose it would have been easy to say, “Let’s defer everything relating to the Planning Act until the Comay white paper comes in,” but you know very well when that Comay white paper comes into this Legislature some time in the spring, 1979, as I hope it will, it is going to be a fair period of time before it comes out of this House as a bill and a new Planning Act for the province.

In the interim, we are going to have to bring forward some amendments to the Planning Act that will speed up the opportunity and certify the position of certain individuals over this period.

Mr. Swart: The municipalities didn’t ask for that amendment.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The PMLC was at that meeting on Friday, as was the member for Waterloo North and most of the comments were related to some of the specific areas relating to lodging of consents and so on. The explanation offered to them must have satisfied them. The offer of the minister to meet with those municipal elected representatives who were assigned, I suppose is the right terminology, the responsibility of reviewing amendments to the Planning Act has satisfied them as far as I know.

Mr. Swart: You did a complete capitulation.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Carleton-Grenville indicated his concern about the future position as far as a new deed is concerned, and we shall take his remarks under review.

Mr. Laughren: That is ominous, Norm. You will never see that again.

Mr. Epp: In order to clarify the particular point the minister raised with respect to providing a copy, I must say that a copy of the particular amendments was given to my colleague about an hour and a half ago. He was called away for another important meeting and as a result didn’t have a chance to discuss it with me. That will help to clarify that particular aspect.

We did have an hour and a half, or an hour and a quarter’s notice of the particular amendments. Although I would have appreciated a little longer, nevertheless it was longer than I had originally indicated.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

section 5:

Mr. Swart: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I wonder if my amendment should come first because it deals with an earlier part of

section 5, I believe?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I will move a new

section 5 and the

section to which the member wishes to move an amendment will now be

section 6.

Mr. Swart: Okay.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following new

section 5:

“The act is amended by adding thereto the following section:

“33(a)(1): Where an action or proceeding or the partition of land is brought under the Partition Act notice shall be given to the minister.

“

(2) The notice shall include a copy of the application for the partition of land and shall state the day on which the matter is to be heard and subject to the rules of the court shall be served not less than 10 days before the day of the hearing.

“

(3) The minister is entitled as of right to be heard either in person or by counsel, notwithstanding that the crown is not a party to the action or proceeding.

“

(4) Where the minister appears in person or by counsel the minister shall be deemed to be a party to the action or proceeding for the purpose of an appeal and has the same rights with respect to an appeal as any other party to the action or proceeding.” And that the sections of the bill that follow be renumbered accordingly.

[4:30]

Hon. Mr. B