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

May 10, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L043 - Thu 10 May 1979 / Jeu 10 mai 1979

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TOURIST INFORMATION CENTRES

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANT

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS CAMPAIGN

OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY AND TRESPASS REFORMS

GUELPH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

GAS AND OIL SUPPLIES

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

RADIATION FROM X-RAYS

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

RADIATION FROM X-RAYS

CO-PAYMENT FEES

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

FOODLAND ONTARIO PROGRAM

OTTAWA RIVER JURISDICTION

COMMISSION PAYMENTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES

DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE

EASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

REED PAPER COMPANY

FLOOD DAMAGE

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

GUELPH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

ANSWER TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

MEMBERSHIP OF POLICE COMMISSIONS

PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

MEMBERSHIP OF POLICE COMMISSIONS

PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TOURIST INFORMATION CENTRES

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the province’s tourist information centres, which have served Ontario well, are we believe an important part of our tourist promotion package. We have been concerned for some time about the effectiveness and attractiveness of some of the older centres and the use of only trailers at one or two key locations.

Mr. Kerrio: Sounds good so far.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Hang on.

Accordingly, I am pleased to announce an exciting new program to develop our travel information centres. We will be building a new tourist information centre in the fine community of Fort Erie to replace the current facilities.

Mr. Nixon: That’s exciting.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) isn’t even here today.

Construction of this $350,000 project is expected to begin this summer. The centre is the first of four projects to be undertaken this year as part of a plan to revitalize our information centres across the province. The other projects to be completed in 1979 include the remodelling of our centre at Barrie on highway 400, and the introduction of a new concept in unmanned centres at West Lorne, near London, and at Odessa, near Kingston on Highway 401.

These unmanned centres will be the first of their type in Ontario and will make information available on a self-service basis 24 hours a day. The sheltered kiosks at West Lorne and Odessa will complement the services provided at our tourist office in Barrie and our new permanent site at Fort Erie. We hope to build self-service centres at all 37 of our locations over the next four years.

During this time we also plan to renovate or replace all of our tourist information centres across the province. There was a fire in our Niagara Falls centre last year, and a trailer was installed to serve tourists in the area until last month when the repairs to the interior of the building were completed. We are in the process of locating a site for a new information centre in the Niagara Falls area.

At this time I’d like to acknowledge the assistance of the Ministry of Government Services in developing our proposal --

Mr. Nixon: And the member for Erie.

Mr. Ruston: And the member for Erie.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and for the cooperative way in which it has worked with the tourism division of our ministry.

I have one further statement.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANT

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I had the pleasure of meeting with the Smiths Falls Economic Development Commission. At that time I announced the cabinet’s decision to provide an Employment Development Fund grant of $450,000 to Dominion Twist Drill Limited, a division of Litton Business and Industrial Systems of Canada.

As a result of this grant, Dominion Twist Drill will today exercise an option to purchase the RCA plant which recently closed its operations in Smiths Falls. The company will invest $8.9 million over the next five years. We anticipate that 150 jobs will be created in the community by the middle of 1981, increasing to 300 jobs by 1984. High-skill jobs will be provided as well as lower-skill jobs with opportunity for advancement.

Dominion Twist Drill will manufacture specialized metal cutting tools for the entire Canadian market. The firm will compete effectively with imported cutting tools, contributing to our self-sufficiency in this area.

I am happy to report to this House the successful completion of these negotiations to attract Dominion Twist Drill to Smiths Falls. For $450,000 we have succeeded in bringing to that community an $8.9-million investment that would not have occurred in Smiths Falls without this special government assistance.

My colleague, the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman), working with Mayor Jack Aboud of Smiths Falls and’ Dominion Twist Drill’s management, headed by Mr. Mel Van Sickle, deserve much credit for bringing this development into existence.

Mr. S. Smith: Litton industries can afford to build without government help.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition had better tell that to the people in Smiths Falls because they don’t believe it and neither does Dominion Twist. He would gamble with Smiths Falls, but this government wouldn’t gamble with Smiths Falls. I’m sure he’ll go to that community in the next election and tell them he wouldn’t have given that grant to Dominion Twist

This project typifies the kind of development we intend to support through the Employment Development Fund. It will provide stable, long-term employment, foster the development of needed job skills in the area, contribute to import replacement and stimulate economic development in a traditionally slower growth region of the province.

Mr. S. Smith: They would have built it anyway.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Employment Development Fund grant to Dominion Twist Drill exemplifies our government’s commitment to ensuring that eastern Ontario as a region maintains and increases its overall industrial strength, especially its strength in high-skill, stable industries.

Mr. O’Neil: Don’t forget us then.

Mr. Hodgson: You don’t want it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I won’t but the member’s leader apparently will forget him.

Interjections.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS CAMPAIGN

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of personal privilege: I was able, with some return compensation, to give to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) a somewhat reddish-coloured flower in support of the campaign for multiple sclerosis. I did obtain another flower on behalf of the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), for which I have not yet been compensated, knowing that he would in turn wish to do this.

I would inform him the minimum is $2 and the maximum is whatever he would like to make it. I want to send this across the House to him, knowing how interested he is in the support of the multiple sclerosis campaign. If he wants to pay the money to me, I will in turn, give it to them; or he can take it out directly himself.

OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY AND TRESPASS REFORMS

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am today tabling the government’s discussion paper on occupiers’ liability and trespass to property. The paper sets out for discussion purposes proposals, including draft legislation, for necessary reform of the law governing an occupier’s liability to those who come on to his land and the law protecting an occupier from trespass to his land. The paper provides detailed examples of the problems that have given rise to these reforms and illustrates how the proposed changes would effect a wide cross-section of interests.

In relation to the liability question, we are proposing that the numerous duties of care that an occupier of land now owes to entrants to his land be replaced by legislation imposing one duty of care on all occupiers. This would sweep away needless legal complexity and remove the public confusion about the care that an occupier must take to protect entrants from injury and himself from liability.

Under our proposals there would be one duty of care on all occupiers: to take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises are reasonably safe while on the premises.

I want to stress that this duty of care would not apply to persons entering for criminal purposes. They would be deemed to have willingly assumed the risk of injury.

As members will recall, the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act of 1974 provides that an occupier of land owes no duty of care to a snowmobiler other than to not create dangers with the deliberate intent of doing harm and to refrain from acting with reckless disregard for the snowmobiler’s presence.

As part of this package of reforms, we are proposing that this act continue in force and apply to all land.

While that legislation deals with a specific recreational activity, the government feels there is a need for protections for occupiers who permit their property to be used for other recreational purposes, such as hiking, cross-country skiing, rock climbing and horseback riding.

The desirable growth of outdoor recreational activities, which the government has encouraged with a variety of initiatives, has had some undesirable side effects. Urban residents have flocked in ever-increasing numbers to the countryside, but farmers and other occupiers of rural and wilderness land have become fearful of being sued for damages by persons who might be injured while engaged in recreational activities on their land.

At present, an occupier owes a greater duty to persons he permits to use his land for recreational activities than he does to trespassers. This penalizes the occupier who is willing to permit recreational activities and discourages this type of benevolence.

For example, hiking trails depend on the use of private land, and trail associations have had difficulty in obtaining the consent of occupiers because the occupiers are afraid of potential liability.

Our proposal in this regard would protect the interests of the agricultural community and promote the availability of land for recreational activities by giving special protection to occupiers of certain designated classes of land, including all rural non- industrial land.

Where entry is prohibited to these lands or where entry for recreational activities is permitted without charge, the liability of the occupier would be limited to dangers created with the deliberate intent of causing harm or to acts done with reckless disregard for the entrant’s presence. The entrant would be deemed to have willingly assumed all other risks.

The land designated for these provisions would be as follows: land used for agricultural purposes, including land under cultivation, orchards, pastures and woodlots; vacant or undeveloped land; forested or wilderness land; golf courses in winter; unused or abandoned railway beds; utility rights of way and corridors, excluding structures on such land; undeveloped road allowances; private roads reasonably marked as such; and marked recreational trails.

This approach would effectively remove the occupier’s risk and thereby encourage private land owners to voluntarily make land available for recreational activities.

The second part of the discussion paper deals with trespassing.

The present Petty Trespass Act is similar to the act passed in 1834 and in the intervening 145 years has been showing its age; and a number of problems have arisen.

First, the wording of the existing offence is unclear and, along with other factors, leads to difficulties in prosecution. Second, the act does not deter trespass on to land under cultivation, even though significant farm losses are caused by trespassers. Third, the act does not ensure the privacy of occupiers of land or permit the control of recreational activities.

To clarify the effect and purpose of the legislation, we are proposing that the existing act be replaced with three specific offences. They would be: (1) without express permission, the proof of which rests upon the accused, entering premises where entry is prohibited; (2) without express permission, the proof of which again rests upon the accused, doing an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited; and (3) refusing to leave premises after being directed to do so.

The existing act prohibits entry on lawns, gardens and enclosed lands and provides that entry can be prohibited from other premises by giving oral or written notice and the posting of signs.

[2:15]

We are proposing reforms to deal with these situations and to enhance the rights of occupiers to privacy.

First, we propose to expand the classes of land on which entry is prohibited without the need for giving notice to include fields under cultivation and orchards. This is needed to protect those in the agricultural business from losses which result from crop destruction and theft from trespassers.

We propose retention of the existing system of giving notice orally, in writing or by the posting of signs where notice is required to inform persons that entry is prohibited, or to specify recreational activities that are permitted.

In addition, we propose creation of a system of coloured markings and a code for interpreting signs to promote the availability of land for recreation but still allow the owner full control over the activities he desires to permit on his land.

Because the posting and maintaining of signs is expensive, a system of coloured markings is proposed. Coloured markings would be placed at the ordinary entry points. Red would mean entry is prohibited. Yellow would mean entry is prohibited except for activities specified by the owner, and it would be the responsibility of the person entering to determine which activities are permitted. These markings could be made with paint or other inexpensive materials and could be placed on existing features of the land, such as trees and fence posts.

Because many signs in use are misunderstood and have no legal effect, we are also proposing the creation of a code for interpreting signs. The code would result in the positive entry system. Under the positive entry concept, which is recommended by the Ontario Trails Council an occupier could place signs indicating the recreational uses permitted. The code would provide that a sign permitting a particular activity would mean that all other activities are prohibited. It would also provide that a sign stating the name of an activity or showing graphic representation of an activity is a proper indication that the activity is permissible.

For example, if an occupier granted permission to use his land for horseback riding but no other activity, a sign “horseback riding” or a graphic illustration of the activity could be posted. All other activities would be prohibited and persons engaged in other activities could be prosecuted.

With respect to trails, such a positive entry concept is practical. Certain activities are incompatible with others and the permitted uses can be signified.

The code for interpreting signs would also result in the negative entry concept. Where there is a desire to open large tracts of land to general recreational use with a few exceptions, it would be less expensive and more convenient to list the prohibited rather than the permitted uses. For example, if a thousand acres are to be open to all uses except fishing, it would be more practical to signify the prohibited use.

We are also proposing changes to the method of dealing with violators of the new legislation. The maximum fine for trespassing would be raised from $100 to $1,000.

To make it easier for an occupier to collect compensation for damage caused by a trespasser, the judge who convicts the trespasser would be empowered to make an order for compensation up to $1,000. The occupier would also have the option of a civil action to recover damages.

In addition, we are proposing that to facilitate the prosecution of offenders, the trespasser be required to pay the reasonable costs of the prosecution when a conviction is registered.

These proposals are the result of many months of discussion within government, with members of the Ontario Trails Council and with organizations such as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. In addition, many individuals, particularly the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) and the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. Johnson) have been of great assistance.

The government’s proposals are designed to strengthen the property rights and privacy of land owners and at the same time to encourage compatible recreational activities without fear of liability.

We are distributing the discussion paper widely to all interested groups and individuals and hope to receive your submissions by June 30. The government will assess them over the summer and I expect to bring forth legislation in the fall.

To adequately serve the needs of Ontario residents, the law must take into account the diversity and complexity of this province. The law must meet the needs of residents of wilderness regions, agricultural communities, areas relying on the tourist industry and urban centres. The proposals made in this discussion are an attempt to meet the needs of all Ontario residents.

GUELPH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, this statement is somewhat inspired by a four-page press release put out by the member for High Park-Swansea which was largely, or in a great many parts, inaccurate.

The Guelph Correctional Centre is calm again today as the mop-up of the damaged area continues to be done by inmates. Nineteen inmates were transferred to Millbrook Correctional Centre yesterday following disciplinary hearings. Investigation and disciplinary hearings continue today to determine which inmates were involved and to award appropriate penalties.

On Tuesday morning, following the disturbance, a total of 103 inmates were taken to tunnel areas in the basement of the centre. They were dressed in shirts, pants, socks and underwear -- all dry clothing -- and were not allowed to retain their boots, because these could be used as weapons.

As a result of investigation and hearings, 52 of the inmates have been removed from the tunnel areas and dispersed to other parts of the institution. Last night some 30 inmates returned to their dormitories, having made the dormitories sufficiently habitable.

The 51 inmates remaining in the tunnel area are divided into two groups, each group located in a different tunnel area. Each of these areas has a toilet and sink, contrary to comments made by the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba).

The member for High Park-Swansea has also made a number of other statements in which it would appear that he has been given incorrect information by the inmates. He implied that the fluorescent lights were broken by fire hoses used by the staff.

I was personally present during the hosing on Tuesday morning which occurred only after the inmates had pried stones and bricks from the wall, broken the lights, broken windows at the end of the tunnel area and started to throw bricks at the staff. I think the action taken by the staff under the circumstances was justified. Fluorescent lights were replaced yesterday and have not been broken again.

It is true that the inmates have received sandwiches since being placed in the tunnel areas. This institution normally provides meals in the dining room and does not have facilities for delivering meals throughout the institution.

The staff are working as hard as they can to complete the disciplinary hearings. A number of inmates not involved in the disturbance will be removed from the institution in order to accommodate the inmates remaining in the tunnel areas. In the meantime, inmates will remain there in the two small groups.

The honourable member has described keeping the inmates in the tunnel area as cruel and unusual punishment. I would suggest to him that the inmates were the authors of their own misfortune. They rendered a number of their living units uninhabitable through a rampage of wilful damage which was not justified, in my view, by any of the actions taken by staff or by any grievances of a serious or profound nature.

I think the taxpayers of this province probably feel that the fact they have to shell out some $37,000 to pay for the damage caused by these inmates is cruel and unusual punishment to their pocketbooks.

GAS AND OIL SUPPLIES

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, recent reports of shortages of motor gasoline in some parts of the United States have resulted in concerns being expressed about similar prospects for Ontario.

Needless to say, the question of whether supplies of motor gasoline and fuel oil are adequate, and whether there is a prospect of shortages and allocations in Ontario, is of utmost importance for us all.

As things stand now, prospects look good for at least most of this year for supplies of both gasoline and home heating oil.

There is a requirement, however, to monitor closely supplies of fuel oil for the coming winter. With reasonable care, though, there should be no need for allocation or rationing. Our domestic production of crude oil is holding up reasonably well and, to the extent that natural gas can be substituted in the fuel market, we are fortunate to be in a strong natural gas supply position. That does not mean, however, that we can afford to be extravagant or wasteful with the supplies we have.

The essential fact is that Canada is a net importer of crude oil. To that extent, all regions are vulnerable. The reality is that there is really no reliable source of crude oil on the international market. And our Atlantic provinces could face shortages if there were serious interruptions in world crude oil movements. That is the reason that for most of the decade of the 1970s the Ontario government has been concerned about energy supply and has vigorously pressed its concerns on a reluctant national government.

Mr. J. Reed: What has it done about conservation?

Hon. Mr. Auld: For Canada, domestic crude oil self-sufficiency is obtainable. Even though crude oil self-sufficiency will take some years to achieve, it is the only logical, reasonable and defensible policy objective for this nation, and it would provide us with relative energy security for some decades beyond what we would otherwise experience.

Mr. S. Smith: Why do you want to eliminate Petrocan, Bill? I don’t understand that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I figured you must he in favour of keeping it.

Mr. Speaker: Why don’t the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition save their energy for a later time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I agree.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I don’t wish to seem to assume a self-righteous posture relative to the United States, but the fact is that country is short of motor gasoline and may be short of other fuels because it simply consumes and imports too much.

It is imperative we realize this fact, because on a per capita basis Canadians consume even more than Americans but to date at least we have relied less on foreign suppliers. It might be useful to remind ourselves that the United States was self-sufficient in oil at one time and indeed was a major exporter. Today it is dependent upon foreign suppliers for nearly 50 per cent of its crude oil requirements. It is now importing crude oil at a rate of close to 10 million barrels a day.

These demands on the world market have moved both world price increases and world oil shortages forward in time. It is perfectly evident that United States consumption cannot continue to expand at historic rates. The oil to satisfy this appetite does not exist. Canada was self-sufficient in crude oil as recently as the early 1970s. We are not any more.

As I implied earlier, we are less dependent in both relative and absolute terms upon the world markets than is the United States, but we are nevertheless extremely vulnerable to interruptions in crude oil supplies from overseas. The response in this country must be a policy of self-sufficiency in crude oil by 1995 at the latest.

Mr. J. Reed: What have you done to help it along?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Canada has the capability of self-sufficiency in crude oil. We have locked-in reserves of conventional crude oil. We have undiscovered and undeveloped conventional crude oil resources. Secondary and tertiary recovery can result in increased oil flows.

Ms. Gigantes: Let the oil companies do their own PR.

Hon. Mr. Auld: There is increasing evidence of frontier resources, and of course we have the incredibly large resources of the oil sands and the heavy oil.

Mr. J. Reed: The most hypocritical statement I have heard this year.

Mr. J. Reed: What has the plan been so far?

Hon. Mr. Auld: We must consider the price of domestically-produced oil if we are to talk of self-sufficiency. I don’t think these are difficult objectives to reconcile. I don’t believe prices should be escalated without consideration of the possible impediment energy costs might place in the path of economic development or the consumer’s interest, but given our supply requirements and the real dangers of shortages, the prices of petroleum must be such as to result in the optimum development of new traditional and non-traditional energy resources.

Mr. J. Reed: It’s taken three years to get that out of you.

Hon. Ms. Auld: The present constraint on production from oil sands derives more from an uncertainty of policy than from the level of price. I would not support a domestic price that was blindly tied to the world price irrespective of what that price might be. Self-sufficiency will result from some combination of national commitment, energy price developing technology, capital investment, transport capability, conservation and the defining of self-sufficiency in crude oil as a national purpose. This commitment is far overdue.

The alternative to self-sufficiency could inevitably be oil shortages, allocations, rationing -- in short the kind of militance embodied in Bill C-42. In the months ahead, it will be one of the purposes of the government of Ontario to increase and intensify the pressure in the direction of domestic self-sufficiency in crude oil and oil products. That’s our only sure defence against gasoline lineups and rationing and critical shortages of home heating oil.

Mr. J. Reed: Wait until Allan Lawrence makes up for 11 years.

Ms. Gigantes: What nonsense.

[2:30]

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: A point of order, if I might: The minister also has an answer on the Rolphton matter, but I take it he doesn’t have copies for myself and for the leader of the New Democratic Party. I would be willing to hear his statement without the copy, and if the leader of the third party is willing to do the same we could hear the minister, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, last week the Leader of the Opposition addressed a question to the Premier (Mr. Davis) regarding the Rolphton nuclear station concerning the ability of the emergency core cooling system of that particular reactor to handle a loss of coolant accident. There were also a number of other questions relating to Rolphton.

The Premier’s response on that occasion was, as usual, full and complete.

Mr. Foulds: Full of what?

Hon. Mr. Auld: He did suggest, however, that I provide the House today with such supplementary information as might be available.

Mr. Speaker, the ministry has discussed this matter with the president of the federal Atomic Energy Control Board and I have been advised that: One, with respect to the request of the Renfrew County Citizens for Nuclear Responsibility for a public hearing, the AECB has assured them they are taking their request very seriously; two, the AECB has indicated it will provide the Renfrew county group with a complete chronology of actions taken by AECB, Ontario Hydro and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited with respect to the Rolphton plant, along with a statement of the AECB’s views in response to the matters raised.

This response from the AECB will, I understand, be available within the next 10 to 12 days.

In addition to providing this response to the Renfrew county group, the AECB will also make the information available to the public at the same time.

As the honourable members know, the AECB is the legally responsible agency in Canada, charged with regulating the safety of nuclear reactors. With this in mind, I believe it is appropriate that the concerns being expressed by the Renfrew county group be assessed by the control board in the context of that agency’s expert knowledge of nuclear safety standards. If the AECB feels the concerns being expressed have any validity, we have been assured it will take the necessary steps to see that any deficiencies are corrected.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before we go to oral questions, I would like to call to the attention of the honourable members of the presence in the Speaker’s gallery of Mr. Michael Egan, an Associate Attorney General of the United States of America, with particular responsibilities for civil litigation and immigration. Would you welcome him, please.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RADIATION FROM X-RAYS

Mr. S. Smith: I hope our guest enjoyed the Attorney General’s (Mr. McMurtry) speech on civil litigation matters.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my first question to the Minister of Health, and it obviously concerns the study by Dr. Kenneth Taylor on X-ray machines and the dose of radiation given to patients as reported in the newspapers today.

Since the responsibility of the ministry would seem to be the inspection of these machines in their setting where they are used and the question of licensing those people using these radiological machines, how is it the minister appears to be surprised by the data which suggests that in fact in some instances a barium series can result in an exposure of three rems and yet in another instance 90 rems, more than the lifetime dose of radiation to which people are supposed to be subjected? How is that an IVP in one instance can be 1.5 rems, and in another instance 40 rems?

Why was the minister not aware of these matters as a result of his inspections? Why has he not taken steps to make sure people using these machines are properly licensed in every instance? Why is it that some action was not taken prior to this particular study and these revelations?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to point out we funded that study. That study was prepared under grants from the Ministry of Health.

Coming out of that study is a more detailed project which it has been proposed be done by Drs. Johns and Taylor, which we are also assisting in funding to the extent of $100,000 a year for each of the next three years. As I see it, the effect of that will be, first of all to complete the broader survey of the problems, to identify ways and means of educating the people who are using and ordering the uses of these facilities and taking the fluoroscopic pictures; and out of that, possibly, will come changes in legislation or regulations.

I am concerned with respect to this issue that we not unduly alarm the public. In that regard I want to read into the record a statement that was prepared by Drs. Johns, Taylor and Hobbs. I apologize that it will take a few minutes but I think it is important.

I should say that I had hoped to do it during statements, but I was told that the 30 minute limit under our rules had, in fact, already been filled. That is why I apologize that I have to do it this way. I expect that Mr. Speaker will add the time to the question period.

Mr. Speaker, this statement has been prepared by these three physicians. I think I should read it into the record to put the whole matter into perspective. There are bound to be supplementary questions I will be glad to answer.

“The staff of the radiological research laboratories, University of Toronto, in cooperation with the radiologists and technical staff of 20 hospitals in Ontario, have surveyed the doses to patients from different diagnostic X-ray procedures. A

summary of the results is contained in a scientific paper in the March, 1979, edition of the Journal of the Canadian Association of Radiologists.

“This work shows that the dose to a patient from a given procedure may differ from one X-ray room to another; in the extreme case by a factor of 60 and on average by a factor of 10. Furthermore, as much diagnostic information is obtained from the low doses which are given as from the high, indicating that unnecessary radiation is being given to many patients.

“Similar findings have been made by groups in the United States. We are now looking for ways to change the high dose rooms to low dose rooms in hospitals thoughout Ontario. Some of the methods for achieving this dose reduction are outlined in the paper and others are being found.

“One might ask, whose fault is this? The answer is that it is no one individual’s fault but the problem has arisen because more and more powerful and complicated diagnostic equipment is being used by the medical profession to diagnose sick patients.

“Medical personnel are trained in medicine, not to measure and to control the output of these machines. Hospitals in general do not employ people capable of this type of work. We need to develop groups of such people as an in-house facility in modem hospitals. These people could assure quality control which would maintain equipment at or near optimum conditions and thus minimize the dose to patients. Training of such people is one of the main purposes of the radiological research laboratories.

“The dose reduction problem is being tackled by the radiological research laboratories and involves the Ontario Medical Association, radiologists, X-ray technologists, hospital administrators, manufacturers and suppliers of X-ray equipment in a co-operative program which is unique in North America and which covers the whole of the province of Ontario.

“We have obtained support for this program from the Ministry of Health of Ontario at a level of about $100,000 a year for three years, which, added to the support we already have from the University of Toronto and the Physicians’ Services Foundation, about $10,000 each year for the next five years, will enable us to solve this problem.

“The public is interested in the biological risks resulting from this irradiation. The biological risks of X-rays such as production of cancer and damage to foetal tissues are well known. Unfortunately, there is no hard data that can predict exactly the effects of this level of radiation. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that there will ever be such data since it is unethical to carry out experiments to measure the risks to humans from diagnostic radiology.

“Because risks do exist and because the high doses are not necessary for good diagnostic pictures, the OMA, in co-operation with the radiological research laboratories, is initiating a program in Ontario to reduce unnecessary doses. By a simple method these can be reduced by a factor of three and by more sophisticated methods by a factor of 10.

“This will have two main effects. First, it will substantially reduce the risks of diagnostic radiation from their present level without any loss in diagnostic information. Second, the detailed investigations which will be required for each X-ray machine to accomplish this dose reduction and the lower doses themselves, will lead to improved performance and longer life of the equipment, and hence in the long run to lower costs. This imaginative program is unique in the world and should make available to the people of Ontario the best and safest diagnostic X-ray service.

“To quantify the risk of radiation is very difficult. Dr. Rosalind Berthell in Buffalo has found that the incidence of leukemia is 20 per cent higher in groups of patients who have received X-rays compared to those who have not. This kind of figure is an indicator, but it cannot be used as a criterion for Ontario because it depends on the X-ray dose that was used.

“From our preliminary studies, we estimate that in Ontario 20 extra leukemias per year may have resulted from excess doses in radiology. This figure should be judged in terms of the 600 leukemia cases per year in Ontario. This relative risk is surely small compared to that of refusing an X-ray and subsequently dying from an undetected disease.

“However, our dose reduction program could reduce the extra number of leukemia deaths from 20 to two. In spite of the possible risks from radiation, no sensible person should ever refuse an X-ray that is recommended by a doctor as part of the diagnosis of a medical problem. It is tempting to suggest that dose reduction can be achieved by government regulation and inspection. This is far from the truth, since we are dealing with very sophisticated pieces of equipment and many disciplines with different levels of knowledge.

The only real solution to the problem is a co-operative one among the various groups mentioned above and the eventual creation of inhouse capabilities in radiation control.”

As I mentioned, the study which has been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition is one which was funded by the Ministry of Health because of a concern about this very aspect of health care. The follow-up work, along with the work of our own staff in the inspection branch, is being funded to a great extent -- approximately 50 per cent -- by the Ministry of Health, involving the people who can best bring about a resolution of the situation, namely the medical profession and the people in the hospitals of Ontario working closely with the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: As that was partially an answer and partially a statement, we will add four minutes to the question period.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr.

Speaker: Given the fact there are two things the ministry can do to deal with this question, the first being to make sure those who use the equipment are all properly licensed and well aware of these problems; and the second being to make sure that the equipment is regularly inspected to be certain that it is of the best quality and not creating an additional hazard more than is necessary; may I ask the minister why, first of all, he has ignored the pleas of the radiological technologists over the years, including letters written to him last year in August and before then, insisting that all the people using this type of equipment be properly licensed and that proper standards be set for the equipment; secondly what have the ministry inspectors been inspecting, what have they been telling the minister, why don’t they have the very kind of information which Dr.

Taylor had to obtain?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, back in August 1977, about 18 or 20 months ago, we sent to radiologists throughout Ontario, and on request to a number of other organizations and groups, a paper for discussion on the question of X-ray facilities. In fact if memory serves me correctly, in November or December of that year, during the consideration by the standing committee on social development of my estimates, I was asked about that paper, I think by the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), who had obviously been approached by a physician or radiologist or someone in the community who was aware we were looking at the question.

In that paper they identified several potential courses of action, one of which involved new legislation for licensing and the question of standards. We had a number of meetings with interested groups representative of radiology and of medicine generally. The concern was expressed that the group that had developed that paper did not include any radiologists, and that the standards that were referred to would perhaps be out of date or unrealistic inasmuch as radiology as a discipline had not been involved in the preparation of the paper.

Accordingly, we asked the medical association to come back with proposals on the matter of standards. I think it has to be recognized that the medical profession as a whole is as much interested, or more so, than anyone else, in ensuring there are appropriate standards.

[2:45]

Concurrent with that, the ministry funded in 1977-78 and 1978-79 the paper that has been released in the March 1979 issue of the Journal of the Canadian Association of Radiologists and has resulted in this proposal which came to us in late 1978. It was approved -- if memory serves me correctly -- about two months ago to have the Ontario Medical Association to go this next step in developing a broader base of knowledge and applying that broader base of knowledge among the people who are working the machines and ordering the tests.

Within the branch, we have as well been working with other groups that are using X-ray facilities with much lower doses, namely, dentistry in particular, where my staff have worked with the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario and with dentists generally to reduce doses being applied in dentists offices.

A great deal of work has gone into this. I think the course we are launched on puts us in the forefront in the world in addressing what is more and more acknowledged widely to be a general problem in the world in the use of diagnostic X-ray technology.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr.

Speaker, since the radiation received by patients getting these X-rays exceeded the lifetime radiation standard established by the International Commission on Radiological Protection on a number of occasions -- not just once -- and specifically since that international council, which is the authoritative body, says no one in his lifetime should have radiation of more than 50 rems, and yet on a number of occasions here in Toronto -- not in the rest of the province -- patients were receiving as much as 50 rems, 90 rems, 16 rems, 20 rems, 56 rems and 128 rems in the course of having routine X-rays, can the minister explain why he is saying that people should not become unduly alarmed while a three-year program of control is undertaken?

How can the minister say no one should refuse an X-ray when there now is in a single X-ray a very real risk that patients throughout this province could have more radiation than the international experts say they should have in a lifetime?

Surely the government should act now to identify those X-ray machines that are hazardous or are being used hazardously and either take the machines out of operation at once or ensure that the method of operation is changed at once to stop these very dangerous levels of exposure.

Mr. S. Smith: What have the minister’s inspectors been inspecting?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: My inspectors have been inspecting the machines. I want to point out, though, that the inspectors can be in there today, and a problem can develop tomorrow.

Inspection is certainly a big part of a control measure. But in the long run what is going to be most effective is a body of knowledge, properly applied among those who are ordering the diagnostic procedures in the first place and among those who are carrying out the diagnostic procedures.

Inspection is one part of it, but ultimately it is the professional qualifications and the application of those qualifications that are most important.

I have not got that paper in front of me -- perhaps one of my staff who is here will check for me -- but it seems to me the figures quoted in the report were in milliroentgens, not in roentgens. I will check that figure and report back.

The point is -- and I cannot emphasize this enough -- that only through the co-operative efforts of the profession and the hospitals with the ministry can we effectively develop a program that will ensure we address this problem effectively.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, since the royal commission on health made suggestions back in 1964 with respect to training of radiological technologists, and since it would appear that the occupational health branch of the Ministry of Labour has resolved many of its concerns, does the minister recall correspondence in August 1978 from the past president of the Ontario Society of Radiological Technologists which said:

“It has come to our attention that only about 10 per cent of X-ray unit operators within your ministry are registered technologists. The remainder, in the past, have been given on-the-job training practising on civil servants before going out into the field. The radiation hazard to the people of Ontario is the reason for our concern”? Does the minister have any comment on that view?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can assure the member that I did answer that letter. I recall it vaguely. That service, the chest X-ray inspection service which was, I believe, the subject of the inquiry, was under the direction of an extremely capable physician until his retirement recently and is now under the direction of another extremely capable physician.

I can assure the member that the training was, in fact, carried out in the highest of professional standards to ensure a minimum of risk to the operator as well as to those being exposed. The highest current standards of knowledge have always been applied. Again, it bears repeating that what we’re talking about here is developing a body of knowledge. The Leader of the Opposition said: “Why were you surprised?” I think he was surprised to hear that we, in fact, funded these studies because we want to develop this body of knowledge.

I think it’s fair to point out that a great many in the professions were surprised at the results. Quite a considerable body of knowledge has recently been acquired by a great many people and we will, in the course of action that I’ve outlined, ensure that that is properly applied with the interests of the ultimate safety of our population in mind.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: I want to send a copy of this

article over to the minister from the Journal of the Canadian Association of Radiologists and ask him to look at the table on page two. He will see, by the way, that the credit for the funding of the study is given to Toronto General Hospital Foundation and not the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the table shows that the measurement of radiation is roentgens or in rems and not in millirems, and in view of the fact that it shows for barium meal, barium enema, intravenous pyelogram and gall bladder investigations --

Mr. Speaker: There still has yet to be an interrogative. “In spite of” or “in view of” is not a question.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that a large number of these investigations showed radiation to the patients which exceeded the five rems per annum standard of Ontario Hydro for exposure of its workers, and in certain cases exceeded the 50 rems per lifetime standard of the International Commission on Radiological Protection? In view of the fact that the ministry would instantly --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Minister of Health have an answer to anything that’s been said up to this point?

Mr. Cassidy: Why won’t the ministry act t& stop these machines when it would close down a power plant that was irradiating the workers to this extent?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Give them more X-rays, that’s what you people say.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think this issue is important enough that I’m not going to try to play the technical expert. I know that in all of these things there are certain levels of background radiation which are considered to be acceptable. I know that certain procedures or certain diagnostic needs require higher levels of radiation and, therefore, what I will do is take the member’s question as notice and when I’m in the House again on Monday I will answer it then, when I get some technical advice on it. I think this is the important point, I am not going to try to play the technical expert; neither, may I suggest, should any of us.

To go back to the point the member raised earlier, my concern is that people not be unduly alarmed if a physician says, “You need an X-ray for that procedure in order that I can determine what is wrong with you.” The risk of people dying unnecessarily from the lack of having had an X-ray --

Ms. Gigantes: Necessary death is all right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- is many times greater than what they have indicated in this statement I read today may be a problem.

Mr. Swart: You’re copping out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister had covered that ground previously. A new question, the Leader of the Opposition.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to address my second question to the Minister of Energy regarding the Rolphton matter. I thank him for making his statement earlier.

Surely the minister recognizes the time has come for the public to be better informed about these matters and for decisions to be made by bodies that are not all committed to the nuclear industry; therefore, I ask him this: Since the Rolphton plant is at the moment coincidentally shut down, would this not be a good time for the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs and nuclear safety to examine the concerns of citizens in Renfrew county and hear evidence on the matter pertaining to the Rolphton station so the station may be either reopened or modified in the appropriate manner as the facts might indicate?

The whole situation could be made public in the select committee with all the documents brought forward and put there?

I say that especially --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. S. Smith: -- in view of the fact --

Mr. Speaker: The question was asked.

Mr. S. Smith: -- that all this was published a year ago and no action has been taken.

Hon. Mr. Add: Mr. Speaker, as part of an answer to another question from the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) I have the facts about Rolphton, which I might just give the honourable member at the moment.

That plant, which is a 20-megawatt nuclear demonstration plant, has been on a planned outage since March 26 of this year. The principal work which is being done during this outage is the inspection and overhaul of the turbine generator, inspection and repair of the main boiler, in-service gauging of selected reactor pressure tubes and the annual safety system testing. The unit is expected to be returned to service on May 31, 1979.

I may say I have heard nothing from anybody in the Deep River area about any particular concern. In fact I believe there is a message from the mayor indicating he is not aware of any concern in the community.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, does the minister not recognize the citizens who have brought this matter to our attention have pointed out the modifications and corrections which were supposed to have been made at the plant, according to them essentially seem not to have been made and the reason the plant is operating at full power is because it would be useless to derate it, since even that would not affect the defect that occurs in the emergency core cooling system?

Under these circumstances and given the desire, an appropriate desire, of people to have these things dealt with publicly, does the minister not feel, since Ontario Hydro is operating the plant and is being accused of being in violation of its licensing requirements, that the select committee is the proper place to have all the documentation looked at right now while the plant is not being operated because of the turbine overhaul? Does he not feel this is the appropriate place to have a hearing of this kind and if need be reassure the people of the area?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I repeat, the Atomic Energy Control Board is the controlling agency; it has the technical expertise. With the greatest respect to the chairman and members of the select committee --

Mr. Mancini: You’re just repeating that you’re not going to do anything.

Mr. J. Reed: You’re telling us once more that you’re not prepared to do it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- I don’t believe there is the body of expertise on the staff of the select committee that there certainly is with the Atomic Energy Control Board.

[3:00]

Mr. Mancini: What’s wrong with reassuring the people? It would seem to me that the proper procedure is, if there is concern -- not necessarily from people in the area, but people from any place -- the Atomic Energy Control Board, which must have been satisfied that whatever changes were necessary had been made before a licence was continued, would be the agency to approach. As I say, the board has indicated it is looking at this very seriously and it may well be it is planning to have a public hearing or some other kind of open review to clarify any misunderstandings that may have occurred.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to ask the minister, considering the fact the health and safety of Ontario citizens may be at stake in this question and certainly is the issue raised in the application before the AECB, and considering the fact it has not been established that the AECB, in fact, is allowing the operation of this reactor within the terms of the licence -- and that is again what the application is about -- doesn’t he consider it would be wise for his government to take the stand, at this point, that Ontario Hydro should not operate that plant until these matters are cleared up?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I repeat that the control board is the licensing agency. It has people on site at the larger plants.

Ms. Gigantes: That’s good enough for you?

Hon. Mr. Auld: When any changes are made the licence is, in effect, suspended until the control board is satisfied that the new equipment or the modifications are acceptable; then the plant is permitted to start again at whatever rating from one to 100 per cent the board feels is adequate. As the honourable member I am sure is aware, the board is very careful about those things. For example when Bruce started up it was permitted 50 per cent, then about 65 and, finally, 88 per cent for power.

The board is constantly monitoring and will only licence when it is satisfied that all the safety and other standards are met.

RADIATION FROM X-RAYS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question to the Minister of Health arising out of the radiation hazards to patients receiving X-rays in Ontario.

Knowing the outcry across the province a couple of weeks ago when nuclear plant workers in the Bruce were exposed to just over five rems of exposure, and knowing the concern among the public that far greater levels of radiation exposure are occurring routinely through X-ray examinations in our hospitals in this province, what steps is the government prepared to take now to identify the machines, the hospitals and the operators that are carrying out X-rays giving levels of radiation that exceed safe limits by enormous degrees?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think the use of the word “routinely” is an unfair

interpretation of the report which the member has before him. It really is the kind of statement by a member of the opposition which unnecessarily and irresponsibly alarms and can potentially mislead the public.

Mr. Cassidy: I am alarmed.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You are so much to be alarmed about at times -- you are.

The fact is, that is an improper use or description. What I described to the member is a course of action which will ensure that we can, in fact, get at this problem. The member makes it sound as though some people purposely set out to overexpose people. That’s the way it comes across.

I would like to point out, and I think this bears some reflection, that every medical procedure carries some risk. We are launched on, and have been launched on, a course of action to minimise to the lowest possible level the risk associated with diagnostic radiology.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Is the government prepared to act now and inform physicians of the risks entailed in having their patients X-rayed by specific machines, so that before sending their patients to be X-rayed on those machines the physicians can know whether the risk of having the X-ray exceeds the information which they will get diagnostically from that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The success or failure of a diagnostic radiology program in a specific room or in the whole of the province ultimately depends upon the application of up-to-date knowledge by the people operating that machine.

Ms. Gigantes: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am answering the question.

Ms. Gigantes: You’re not.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Listen to the answer. People over there think they can play games like this all the time. We’re dealing with a very serious matter which is not the kind of thing that is going to be solved overnight. The member makes the suggestion about a problem machine. Our inspections do pick up problems and correct problems. The fact of the matter is, as I said earlier, another problem can occur the day after an inspection. Ultimately, the success or failure of the entire program, as in anything to do with medicine, depends upon the application of the most current possible knowledge in that area.

This has gone a long way to improving on that body of knowledge. The course of action on which we have been launched with the co-operation of the medical profession and the hospitals will ensure that our ultimate goal will be achieved.

Mr. Conway: My supplementary deals with the ministry’s inspections. Is it true that in the recent past a substantial portion of the inspection service unit formerly with the Ministry of Health was transferred to the Ministry of Labour? If so, can the minister indicate why and, generally speaking, what is its professional status? What kind of expertise does the ministry have in its unit in particular reference to the chief of the Ministry of Health’s present inspection service?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: When the Ministry of Labour was given the responsibility for the inspection of the operators, I’m not sure what the numbers were. I’ll get the member the numbers that were involved in the service establishment. I can tell him that Mr. Ritchie is the head of our unit. I don’t have his curriculum vitae in front of me, but he has been the director in the last two years. Since the Ministry of Labour took over the question of operator safety, that branch has been able to devote exclusive attention to the question of patient safety. In the last 18 months when all of this activity has gone on, we have funded the research launched under this particular course of action.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter and I wonder if I could ask for a final supplementary at this time?

Mr. Speaker: No. We started the question period at 2:34 p.m. and we’ve added another four minutes to it. We still haven’t got to the leader’s final question yet. We’ve actually spent about 20 minutes on this question. I agree that it’s very important, but we can’t monopolize the entire time of one question period for that alone. There are other issues in the province that other members are entitled to raise. I must hear your second question now.

CO-PAYMENT FEES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question for the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of Health explain why the government has now gone back on the commitments that it gave in March not to allow co-insurance and has just approved a rate

schedule for Blue Cross to offer private insured coverage of the $9.80 a day user fee for chronic care in hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Co-payment in the nursing homes has always been co-insurable. Inasmuch as it is the same co-payment, it’s co-insurable. Without going into all the legalistic background, it’s because of the structure of the Health Insurance Act and the difference between insured and non-insured benefits. It has always been the case.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister explain why be is using one breach in the present structure of the law in order to justify a further one and how this equates with his promise back in March that there would not be co-insurance? Does this mean the minister agrees with the president of the OMA, who has recently been saying the answer to the problem of underfunding the health-care system in the province is to allow private money into the system? Is that what he is trying to say?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: From the beginning, insured services have not been co-insurable and non-insured have been. That’s why the people have always been able to get coverage for drug plans and for various other things, including extended health care, which has included nursing-home co-payments and now includes chronic care.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain why it is that he is prepared to block co-insurance with respect to opting-out fees by doctors when patients in most parts of the province can still, it is hoped, have a choice of getting Ontario Health Insurance Plan coverage, but when patients are being required to pay this $9.80 fee he turns around and says he is not going to block co-insurance in that particular area? Why is he allowing the principle of universal medicare coverage to be undermined?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the latter is sheer fabrication, and I have already answered the former.

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Is it true that the Bradley-Georgetown hydro corridor and possibly other corridors in the province are being built for the export of electric power and not for domestic consumption at all?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the honourable member’s concern with respect to the Bradley-Georgetown corridor. I had a very pleasant meeting with some of his constituents -- some of them were not his constituents -- with respect to that particular part of the corridor that is an integral part of the major transmission facility.

I think it is fair to state that transmission lines are not being built for the purpose of export.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: If that is correct, then why has the government authorized the construction of this particular line, and possibly others, in areas that are not serving the most urgent domestic need?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is a lot of history to this, which I know the honourable member has researched with great care. He has a particular point of view, and I understand that. I am sympathetic to the concerns of the people who are affected by this corridor; I happen to know two or three of them -- perhaps for a longer period of time than the honourable member has -- and one or two of them formed part of that delegation.

But, as I attempted to explain to them, this is a part of the transmission system required by Ontario Hydro, the planning for this had gone on for a number of years and this matter has been debated for a number of years. It has been the subject of extensive litigation and the subject of a hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board.

As I explained to the people who were there, the government in its wisdom maintained the judgement of the Ontario Municipal Board. There was nothing presented to us that would justify an alteration of the board’s decision. Those who were in to see me would argue that not all of it was determined at the OMB. But the decision was made by the OMB and we could find no justification for its alteration.

I have to say to the honourable member that we have gone through this. I tried to explain to his colleague. They were seeking another inquiry. They committed themselves to saying, “If the inquiry says this is the location, we will accept that location.” I understand that. But I pointed out to them that part of this Nanticoke to Pickering transmission line was determined partially as a result of Mr. Solandt’s inquiry some years ago, an inquiry which, incidentally, I initiated.

I realize the honourable member is not talking about that; he is talking about the Bradley to Georgetown corridor, which forms part of the transmission facility coming out of Bruce, and the need by Ontario Hydro for this corridor. I mean, it is built to one end and it goes from the other end. There is, in the interim -- this gap.

Mr. J. Reed: It doesn’t serve the most urgent domestic need.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We can debate for hours the degree of urgency, but the honourable member and, I think, even the delegation recognized -- they can argue it is not necessary for a year or two years, but I don’t know; Ontario Hydro says it is needed now -- the point is that it is going to be built.

I am sympathetic but I know that if the line is moved from point A to point B, the fact remains there are going to be some people affected as far as their property is concerned.

I am sympathetic to this, but I cannot alter it in any way. If we could find an economic way of transmitting power underground, that would be great. But the honourable member, who is an expert in all of these fields, knows that underground transmission over long distances simply is not technically feasible; so, unfortunately, property owners are going to be affected, and this is true in that particular alignment.

[3:15]

Ms. Gigantes: Would the Premier undertake to provide us with an estimate, as far as he can make it out from Hydro sources, of what proportion of that line will be used domestically and what proportion will be used for export?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that is really beyond my competence, although I don’t like to acknowledge that there are many things beyond that competence --

Mr. Roy: But you have visitors in the public gallery and you have to be modest.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I try to be modest; it becomes me. You should try it on occasion. Let’s be frank with one another: modesty is not your greatest quality.

Mr. Speaker: I am more interested in your being concise than modest.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are interested in my being concise, Mr. Speaker? It is not easy to be concise.

The member has asked me whether I can get Ontario Hydro to give an accurate guestimate, that is really what she is asking for, an accurate guestimate as to how much of the power that might be going from Bradley to Georgetown might be for export as opposed to domestic use. I would have to say to the honourable member that guestimates, to be accurate, would depend I guess on Hydro’s further guestimate as to the extent of the export of power at any particular time. I think it would depend on whether that export was on the basis of interruptible or non-interruptible.

It would also depend, with my limited knowledge of the system, on exactly at what point of export it may be. If they were to guess that there might be an export into Michigan --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am trying to help the members as much as I can. If they were to guess that there was to be an export into Michigan, chances are it wouldn’t involve that line at all; it would go across at Port Huron if that is where that export is. If it were to go through to Niagara Mohawk, then the export would be going through some other transmission facility.

Mr. Speaker: Given the Premier’s modesty, maybe he could take the balance of the question as notice.

FOODLAND ONTARIO PROGRAM

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Would the minister tell the House what steps he has taken to prevent the misuse of the Foodland Ontario logo since I brought cases of its misuse, both in newspaper advertising and on shelf displays, to his attention last year? Specifically, could he explain why United States carrots, and it has been verified they are United States carrots, are now being packaged by Hardee Farms International of Bradford in bags displaying the Foodlands Ontario logo?

May I inform the minister that I purchased two of these bags, one at Dominion Stores on Ontario Street in St. Catharines and one on Wellesley Street in St. James Town here in Toronto, and I will send one of them over to him now.

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: And may I inform him that the latter was displayed in the Dominion Store at St. James Town, along with other United States carrots, beneath a counter sign saying,

“Canada No. 1 Grade Carrots, Ontario-grown,” but that there wasn’t an Ontario carrot there? Would he explain that?

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the honourable member for the carrots. I know my wife will put them to good use. But I don’t know why he says these are US carrots. Does he know whether or not they are US carrots?

Mr. Swart: Yes.

Hon. W. Newman: How does the member know that?

Mr. Swart: I checked with Hardee.

Hon. W. Newman: You know, Mr. Speaker, it is like everything else. We get a good thing going here in this province, we have a good program in the Foodland Ontario program --

Mr. MacDonald: Answer the question.

Hon. W. Newman: Just be quiet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. W. Newman: I shall be glad to investigate the member’s question and I will be glad to investigate the contents in this bag and get back to him on it.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the honourable minister is looking into the question, would he look very closely at that bag I have sent him and note the Food- land Ontario logo is not a sticker, and’ that it is imprinted on the bag? Would he turn to the other side and read the print, “Produce of USA,” and would he note that also is imprinted and not a sticker? Therefore, this is not the mistake of a clerk --

Mr. Warner: It is fraud!

Mr. Swart: -- this is deliberate.

Mr. Pope: And the minister did it all by himself.

Mr. Speaker: Order! Are you asking the minister to look at the label?

Mr. Swart: Would he look at the label? Would the minister also think it is a pure coincidence this false promotion of United States products appears at a time when the Women Against Soaring Prices are boycotting all imported produce that could be produced domestically?

Mr. Warner: Try protecting the farmers.

Mr. Swart: Would he not think this is misleading advertising and that his ministry should lay charges against Hardee Farms and Dominion stores so as to protect our farmers and our consumers?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if there is a misuse of the Foodland Ontario symbol, we will take the appropriate action.

Mr. MacDonald: What is the appropriate action? Slap him on the wrist?

OTTAWA RIVER JURISDICTION

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier: In view of the fact that periodically and recently we have had severe flooding on the Ottawa River all the way from Mattawa through Deep River, Pembroke, Westmeath township, Buckham Bay, Constance Bay, Britannia and Cumberland, does he not feel part of the problem might be eliminated if there were a better handle on who had jurisdiction over the waters of the Ottawa?

Presently Hydro-Quebec, Ontario Hydro, the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company all have a jurisdiction of one sort or another over these waters. Does he not feel the ill-fated and horrendous piece of legislation passed on February 19, 1943, by the short-term Conant government, called the Ottawa River Water Powers Act is the source of most of the problems we have now with the Ottawa in the way of flooding?

Mr. Speaker: A question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is no question whatsoever that the few significant problems remaining in this province had their authorship and foundation in the administrations of Mr. Conant and Mr. Hepburn many years ago, but we are still working at them and I am sure we can solve them.

Mr. Yakabuski: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the Premier not feel that perhaps it is time to have that horrendous piece of legislation reviewed and perhaps the terms and the regulations pertaining to same renegotiated with the province of Quebec?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot guarantee successful negotiations with the province of Quebec on some issues, but I certainly agree with the honourable member that we should take a look at these matters to see if we can find a solution. I do thank the honourable member for his question and his constant interest in his constituency, which includes of course, the total county of Renfrew.

COMMISSION PAYMENTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board. I wonder if he is concerned, or is even aware, that some comments have been expressed by the provincial auditor for the past two years in a row with reference to the bills of two different royal commissions? This was in connection with bills in amounts larger than $1,000 for private sector legal counsel which were paid without the signed authorization of the Attorney General. This is clearly against the guidelines established by Management Board.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is yes, I am concerned. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) will be making a statement tomorrow.

Mr. Mancini: A supplementary question: If the Attorney General does not recommend these bills be taxed by the Law Society of Upper Canada, will the Chairman of Management Board do so?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I will take that under consideration.

DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Have the minister and his cabinet colleagues had a chance to review the applications for assistance for flood victims from communities such as Searchmont, Goulais River and Iron Bridge and the report of his officials that visited the area last week? If so, has the cabinet made a decision on what assistance might be made available to those communities?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, cabinet reviewed the reports of the flooding in those communities -- I believe the ones mentioned by my friend. Yesterday they declared them a disaster area. A release was issued today on this matter. These communities are being handled in the same manner as the Field situation.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Am I to understand from the minister’s response they are being handled in the same way as Field? That is, it would be a four-to-one matching grant? If that is the case, is that also being considered for other communities such as Onaping Falls and Walden?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is right. It is on the basis of $4 for every $1 raised locally. The areas of Onaping and the town of Walden, I believe, were also declared disaster areas yesterday and are included. The head of our subsidies branch is in that area, or will be either today or tomorrow, and he is going to ascertain whether it wouldn’t be more beneficial to have one fund for northeastern Ontario, rather than separate funds for each community. Then everything could be handled with one administration. They are looking into such an arrangement.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Can the minister indicate what is the status of the Renfrew county snow damage with respect to the disaster relief fund, since he has indicated cabinet has recently reviewed applications made under that fund?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Renfrew situation is this: Renfrew was declared a disaster area last January under the terms of the fund on a dollar-for-dollar arrangement. It is now up to the Renfrew area to establish their fund and it will be matched by the disaster relief fund.

EASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. In view of the fact an eastern Ontario development agreement has not been signed to date with the federal government, could the minister please give some indication to the members whether or not an agreement might be reached before the federal election on May 22?

Mr. Lawlor: Did you rehearse this, Norm?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I wish I could give that kind of assurance. We seem to be making progress on one agreement only of the three being discussed, and that is the pulp and paper agreement. The other two agreements have been stopped because the federal government is not negotiating with us.

Mr. Bradley: Oh, they’re a bad bunch.

Mr. Roy: You won’t have any problems with Joe.

[3:30]

Mr. Sterling: In view of that fact, will there be any announcement by the provincial government as to how farmers will treat drains that are under way in terms of drainage reports and that kind of activity that is now going on?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think the details of that would best be given by the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We were trying to determine whether or not some of the projects that were under way would be financed. I understand some will, but there’s still some doubt about where the cutoff date is. Therefore, there’s some question about those where engineering works are currently under way being financed.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has brief answers to questions previously asked.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, last week the member for Carleton East asked a question of the Premier regarding the NDP reactor -- excuse me, the NPD reactor --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- I wish we had a little more time -- about “new information that had been leaked to the Ottawa Citizen from staff at the site.” An

article in the Ottawa Citizen on May 8 referred to two documents about equipment and equipment work procedures associated with non-nuclear equipment at NPD.

One document referred to a pumphouse gasoline tank, which has now been relocated to reduce the already small risk of equipment fire damage;

whereas the second document referred to a caution given to employees working near steam pipes in the condenser room. There is no public safety concern associated with either of these events.

Ms. Gigantes: You mean you’re not concerned.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The honourable member also asked about contingency plans. Contingency plans which include arrangements with offsite authorities have been in place for NPD since 1962. Currently, these contingency plans and the contingency plans for other nuclear generating stations in Ontario are being reviewed with the Ministry of Labour to incorporate lessons learned from the Three Mile Island incident.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Would the minister very briefly indicate what time frame he imagines for the contingency review he spoke of with respect to negotiations with the Ministry of Labour? Could he elaborate whether or not there is any time frame for review and new regulations, if such are deemed to be necessary?

Hon. Mr. Auld: That question should go to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of their daily plans.

REED PAPER COMPANY

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to table to a question from the Leader of the Opposition last week about allowable cuts at the Reed paper company.

Mr. S. Smith: We’d almost given up on you.

FLOOD DAMAGE

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have the answer to a question asked last week by the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway). He asked: “Could the Premier at this time explain how it is that along the Ottawa River in the area of Westmeath, south of Pembroke, through to and including the town of Mattawa, we are continuing to experience high water conditions?” He related this to Hydro’s operation of the dam.

Mr. Nixon: The Premier answered that too. He said: “There’s too much water.”

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I’m informed that the operation of the dam by Hydro during this particular critical situation was and is being co-ordinated through daily conference calls between the concerned agencies of Ontario Hydro, the federal Department of Public Works, Hydro-Quebec, the Ministry of Natural Resources of Ontario and the Department of Natural Resources of Quebec.

Regarding the low levels at the Ontario Hydro dam at Rolphton, the practice is to lower the level of the reservoir prior to spring runoff every year, and hold it at a low level until river flows subside. This is done in order to minimize the risk of flooding at the town of Mattawa.

If the forebay level was raised, as suggested, water levels in the town of Mattawa would also increase. The forebay is kept low until it is felt it is safe to raise it again without flooding Mattawa. The maximum practicable use has been made of storage in Lake Timiskaming and reservoirs further upstream to minimize the flooding. These lakes are now almost full.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have one other answer to a question raised by the honourable member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt). A couple of weeks ago he asked: “After 41 years, why is there not a master plan for the Ipperwash Provincial Park to guide its development and operations, and why was exemption MNR 8 issued under exemption orders under the Environmental Assessment Act?” He also had a supplementary.

A plan for Ipperwash Provincial Park was prepared about 1970, and that was prior to the time of having a master plan for each provincial park. An interim-management plan was prepared and approved in February 1977 and in this plan the need for relocation of the park entrance road was identified, as well as the importance of protecting the wet meadow. I am advised by my staff that this project is exempt from environmental assessment by virtue of the Minister of the Environment’s order No. 8 under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The formal master plan has not yet been completed, primarily because the priority has been given to natural environment parks rather than recreation parks.

Ipperwash is 109 acres, but it accommodates several thousand people on busy days. As a result there were very compelling reasons to upgrade the park’s entrance -- reasons of safety as well as handling the heavy traffic. In siting the entrance road, it was recognized that an alignment to tie in with the park control facilities and avoid using the beach, or crossing in front of the concession complex but lining up properly with an existing bridge crossing, while avoiding the three wet meadows which are in the area, would not be easy. Nevertheless, it would have to be accomplished.

The value of the wet meadow was certainly recognized when a number of meetings were held by the staff to see how it could be least affected. The road is not located in a wet meadow but runs along the side of a sand dune adjacent to the wet meadows --

Mr. Martel: That’s a statement.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- and several feet of the lower part of the dune containing juniper and red pine lie between the edge of the road and the meadow proper.

Mr. Bradley: Andy, there won’t be any time left for your resolution.

Hon. Mr. Auld: In connection with his supplementary question that it had ruined the unique meadow which contains rare plants otherwise unknown in Ontario and now considered to be endangered species, I am informed that there is some difference of opinion, even among experts, as to the identification of a wet meadow. Some define it as a single area while others feel it is made up of several more specific sites. We use the latter

interpretation.

Mr. Bradley: You wouldn’t do that to Darcy.

Mr. Peterson: Here is the exciting part.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Here we are. In the final analysis, we acknowledge that according to some observers, one stand of blue-hearts may have been affected. The habitat, however, has not been destroyed and other stands of this flower have been identified in the vicinity. I was looking at them last Friday morning.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Aren’t you glad you asked, Murray?

Hon. Mr. Auld: In fact, the meadow, as a plant habitat, has not been ruined. The blue-heart is protected in two fenced nature zones in Pinery Park, which is about 10 miles away. It’s also found in other locations outside the nature zones in Pinery Park and it seems to be growing well.

Finally, the blue-heart is not at present in regulations under the Endangered Species Act. It has widespread occurrence south of the Great Lakes and up to the road at Pinery park.

Mr. Speaker: There is no way the member will have a supplementary to that.

When the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources is talking about endangered species, I wish he would have some regard for the effect he’s having on other species.

GUELPH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Ziemba: A point of personal privilege: The Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker) has accused me of sending out incorrect information regarding the condition of the Guelph Reformatory tunnel. Would the minister permit the press and media to inspect it, and would he join me in a personal inspection of this tunnel in order that the public may be informed of the truth?

Mr. Speaker: There was no point of privilege there that I could recognize.

Mr. Foulds: Let the record show the minister chose to ignore that.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously the minister doesn’t choose to respond.

ANSWER TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 164, 165, 167 and 168 standing on the Notice Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would also like to use this opportunity, pursuant to standing order 13, to indicate to the House the business

schedule for the remainder of this week and next week.

This afternoon we will take into consideration ballot items 11 and 12. Tonight we will resume consideration of government legislation, starting with second reading of Bill 48, and then do second readings and committee work as required with respect to that bill, plus Bills 50, 51 and 49, and, if time permits, we will take into consideration Bill 17.

Tomorrow we will have the budget debate.

On Monday, May 14, the House will be in committee of supply to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On Tuesday afternoon, we will do second reading of Bill 24, second reading and committee stage of Bill 17 and committee consideration of Bill 29. We will carry on with that until six o’clock. If there is time before six -- and certainly at eight -- we will do the following legislation: Any bills standing in the Treasurer’s name not completed this evening; second reading and committee work for Bills 31, 32 and 33; then, as time permits, Bills 71, 22, 34, 72 and 73, second reading and committee stage.

On Wednesday, May 16, the resources development, general government and justice committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday, May 17, in the afternoon we will do ballot items 13 and 14 and on Thursday evening any legislation not completed on Tuesday, May 15.

On Friday, May 18, committee of supply will continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

MEMBERSHIP OF POLICE COMMISSIONS

Mr. Watson moved resolution 13:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should no longer be under an obligation to appoint a judge of a county or district court as one of the members of a police commission and that the government should consider introducing the necessary legislative amendments to accomplish this purpose.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes and may reserve any portion of that for a final response, if he so wishes.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve any time I may have left over. I would like to thank the House for the opportunity to introduce ballot item 11. This is my first private member’s resolution. It deals with a matter which has come to the attention of my riding and of the riding of the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan). There are police commissions in the city of Chatham and the town of Wallaceburg, and the same county court judge has been asked to sit on police commissions in Tilbury and Dresden.

Since I started to discuss this matter, I have found out that it’s being discussed in many forums throughout the province. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to present it in this forum this afternoon so that members on all sides of the House can express their thoughts on this matter

The role of the county court judge in Ontario, and indeed in Canada, is often an extremely busy one. Many of the functions the judges perform go unnoticed by the public and many people are unaware of the degree to which the county and district judges are involved in administrative or non- adjudicative duties.

[3:45]

The Ontario Law Reform Commission in its 1973 report on the administration of Ontario courts divided these administrative duties into four broad categories: ceremonial, investigative, ministerial and operational.

Ceremonial functions include the performance of marriages, granting of citizenship certificates, visiting schools and acting as a public official where some person of prestige is required.

Investigative duties are of course conferred by municipalities under the Municipal Act and from time to time when committees or commissions of inquiry are established.

Judges assume the ministerial role when they exercise their powers of appointment. Bailiffs and insurance appraisers are a couple of examples of such appointments.

Finally, the operational duties are performed under such acts as the Notaries Act or the Justices of the Peace Act where either the justices of the peace or the notaries public must be examined before assuming these offices.

It is interesting that the law reform commission was unable to classify under its scheme the function which the county court judges perform as members of boards of police commissions, although it did make specific recommendations concerning this matter.

Briefly, it is

section 8 of the Police Act which requires that one of the members of every board of police commissioners be a judge of any county or district court designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The various municipalities or regions are responsible for paying the nonjudicial commissioners for the duties they perform as members of these boards. Hiring, maintenance, the disciplinary powers regarding police forces, are things these boards deal with. They also have powers to pass bylaws dealing with, as the law reform commission states, a wide range of matters having little to do with the policing itself. The Municipal Act, for example, allows police commissioners to pass bylaws which regulate licensed cartage businesses, taxi companies, magazine stores, newspaper stands, second-hand shops, restaurants, auctioneers, salesmen and many others.

I myself am not so concerned as to whether or not these particular functions necessitate the presence of a county court judge on boards of police commissioners. What does concern me is whether the scheduling and operation of county courts can be efficient when some judges are obviously going to be tied down with administrative responsibilities of no small significance.

The extrajudicial duties of the newly appointed Kent county judge are quite extensive. As I pointed out earlier, he is a commissioner on four of the separate police boards within Kent county. It is not merely the administrative burden that concerns me. Our own judge in Kent will have difficulty in sitting on local commissions merely as a result of the steadily increasing court trials that he is faced’ with.

The McRuer Royal Commission of Inquiry into Civil Rights, in discussing the appointment of judges to police commissions, made the point that chief judges are put in difficult positions when making arrangements for the dispatch of court business when some judges engage in extrajudicial activities which remove their ability to assist during periods of court congestion or overload.

What the McRuer commission did state, and what I see as being of some importance, is that it is not always the least busy judges in a county who are appointed to police commission boards. Often it is the reverse. In my particular case there is not even the luxury of choosing the county court judge to perform the extrajudicial duties, because there is only one. Under the present legislation it is not even permissible for either one of the two provincial court judges to assume a place on any of the four police boards.

It is for these reasons that I feel there is a need to remove the requirement of the county court judge appointments. This does not mean that the province could not encourage these judges to serve on boards. I think we are all aware of the important contribution that can be made to the present police system administration by experienced, impartial and independent judges sitting on a commission or commissions.

In this respect, I suppose I am simply resurrecting a proposal contained in Bill 113, introduced by the former Solicitor General back in 1977. That bill would have made a judge’s inclusion on commission as a commission member, optional. Where it is deemed by members of the judicial system inappropriate to make an appointment, the Lieutenant Governor in Council could appoint a local citizen.

I suppose when I first set about to introduce this resolution, I did so somewhat innocently. Frankly, I was I concerned with the one issue only -- that of alleviating the abnormal and inconsistent burdens experienced by some of the county court judges and specifically the one in Kent, and consequently, by the courts themselves. It was only after delving into the matter that I became aware of the other philosophical issues that surround the composition of police boards.

My concerns deal with the routines governing the court judges themselves. However, it seems that municipal authorities are more concerned with such things as police accountability and the budgetary relationships between the commissions and municipal councils. Other groups are more concerned with the possible conflicts of interest evolving from the dual adjudicative and administrative roles of the county judges. Both these groups argue that rather than becoming optional, the appointments of judges to police boards should be restricted entirely.

The McRuer commission report pointed out that in certain instances such as when a judge is presiding over a contest between a citizen and a municipal police officer, it may appear to interfere with the element of impartiality or independence. The report states it’s unfair to expect a judge in one capacity to tell the police what to do, while in another decide where the police policies have been acted upon fairly.

Personally Mr. Speaker, I’m really not in a position to argue these points, however, I do know that the Solicitor General has stressed that a judge’s role in court and his role as an administrator of police are separate and distinct except for the obvious fact he has a direct responsibility for the administration of justice in both roles.

It has been suggested that judges could easily avoid these specific instances where the public might see a possible conflict of interest simply by declining to sit on such cases. I would hazard a guess, that by and large, judges, with their superior knowledge of law, their impartiality and their independence, are less likely to become involved in interest conflicts than almost anyone else. I believe the public perceives this and consequently I can see no reason for restricting the appointment of judges to commissions. Rather, as I have stated, these appointments should become optional.

Although many municipalities recently have issued reports recommending that local councils be given control, or more control, over the formation of police policy, the Robarts commission report on Metropolitan Toronto is most reflective generally of municipal concerns. This report questions the organizational separation of police and other local service agencies when they seem to have such a close functional relationship.

The report also states provincial legislation dictates the creation of a separate board of commissioners of police, with a majority of its members provincially appointed, because there is an appeal to the provincial body if the municipal council objects to the police budget. Because provincial regulations in this field are so extensive, the police function might well be thought to be more closely allied with the province than with the municipality.

In any event, it is certainly true that decisions regarding policing are taken quite separately from the rest of the local decision-making process. The commission, in short, felt policing was properly as well as literally a local responsibility and different organizational arrangements were required. The then Solicitor General, in his reply to the commission report of 1977, stated as follows: “Organizational separation exists for a very good reason. Local boards of commissioners of police and the Ontario Police Commission have a special role which arises out of our system for the administration of justice.

This system is prevalent in democracies and law enforcement is of course an integral part of it.

“The police are part of a system which involves the prohibition of certain forms of conduct by the state, followed by the imposition of punishment in the case of transgression. It is imperative that justice be fairly, evenly and impartially dispensed and the present organizational structure is designed to ensure this end.

“The board of commissioners of police is designed to shield the police from direct political control and permit them necessary independence in enforcing the law. This independence would be lessened if the police were directly controlled by elected officials.”

It was also stated that although the police function was more properly allied with the province as opposed to municipalities, there is justification for this. Under the law, a police officer is an agent of the crown. He or she is therefore a holder of a public office exercising original authority.

‘In my view, therefore, it would be quite proper for the province to make two appointments to police boards where an acting court judge was not a commission member. Furthermore, if the assumption that an Ontario police commission will always uphold local police commission budget appeals were removed, and if municipalities were to establish more effective systems of budgetary review, I believe municipalities could have a great deal of input into the police service policy without sacrificing the optional inclusion of judges to police boards.

It is my hope that this resolution will receive the support of the House. I would hope, too, the Solicitor General is, as he appears to be, receptive to removing this difficult requirement in the Police Act and that he will soon introduce the appropriate legislation for consideration of all members.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent has reserved six minutes. The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Blundy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to rise and support the resolution that has been placed before the House today by the member for Chatham-Kent.

I am supporting it because of its wording. The resolution is that the province be no longer under the obligation to appoint a judge of a county or district court. This would seek to remove that obligation. There is still the element of discussion and debate and so forth that can be exercised by the government in the matter. I submit there are some places and some times where it would be worthwhile to have a judge on the police commission, but it is not always so.

As the previous speaker has pointed out, the judge in the ordinary court in the province is an extremely busy man. We have seen the increase in court cases that require his attention, as well as the other statutory duties of a county court judge.

I speak with a little experience in this matter, after having served on a board of police commissioners for eight years. Four years of that time I served with two judges on the commission and the last four years I served with one judge and one civilian.

[4:00]

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of difference in judging. I am not detracting from the judges as a whole, but as with all humans, there are some judges who are particularly interested in certain aspects of municipal life; there are some who are totally devoted to their judiciary duties and do not display those same interests. Therefore, I believe the municipality and the province can better be served by not requiring that the county court judge be on every police commission.

Another point I would like to make is that the board of police commissioners in today’s business has chiefly an administrative role and a very important one. When we look at the budgets for policing our municipalities today compared to the budgets of 10 years ago, we see differences of hundreds of thousands of dollars; it is now very big business.

I am making reference not only to the moneys required for the operation of a competent municipal police force, but also to various administrative problems, much of which can be handled by the chief of police, but much of which has to be referred to the commission by the chief -- the promotion of an officer from one rank to another; the continuation of the probationary system for the probationary constable.

If the police force is to be well run, well managed and capable of serving the municipalities, the police commission must look at all of these things, in addition to having a good deal of input into the budget of the police commission.

In some respects I prefer that a judge sit on a police commission -- in my past experience, it has proven to be a valuable thing. But as I have said before, this is not always the case. As a matter of fact, more often it is not the case. If the local hoard of police commissioners require legal opinions or legal advice in any of the operations of the police commission and/or the police department, they know to whom they can go to get that type of advice and assistance.

The municipalities, which are being burdened more and more with the provision of police services today, ought to have the right to have other than a judge on the police commission. They need a civilian from the community who is able to reflect the views of his fellow taxpayers and the opinions that have been expressed by the ordinary people in the community. They can be well expressed by a representative other than a judge in the community.

The mayor or the head of the municipality is there, so he can report back to the council and report from the council to the police commission on matters that are important to the taxpayers of the city. Over and above that, getting away from the financial aspects, in which of course the mayor is going to take a great leadership and play a great part, I believe that the views of the community as to the type of police force and the type of policing in the community can very well be given by and interpreted by a civilian representative to the police commission.

As I have said before, from my experience on the police commission I believe I can speak with some degree of understanding of the resolution before us today. I just want to say again that I am not opposed to a judge, but I do not believe it should be mandatory that a judge be on the police commission. Let us involve other very intelligent and capable people in our communities, through co-operation with the province of Ontario and the local government, in the running of the police department and the setting of police commission policies in our municipalities.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of the resolution standing in the name of the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) which would remove the obligation from the government of Ontario to appoint a judge to the board of police commissioners. To my mind, this is one small step in the right direction. If I had been writing the resolution, I would have gone even further than this and put the responsibility for the board of police commissioners where I think it properly belongs, that is, within elected local councils which, by and large, are responsible for the funding of police forces across the province.

From many years of experience on the city council in the city of Sudbury, both as an alderman and as a controller, I was always frustrated by the lack of control I had over the expenditures and the activities of the police department. Despite the fact that the budget as formulated by the board of police commissioners did come for approval to the board of control, there was still no way we, as a board of control, could change the estimates or the spending of the board of police commissioners. It was just a mandatory rubber-stamping of what it thought was in the best interests of the municipality.

I think that elected members of city and municipal councils are the best representatives in any community to determine what level of policing they desire. Different people from different strata in our society have different values. To that degree, one might get a police force which is too lax with enforcement or one might get a police force which is too strict. Some place between those two extremes, a balance has to be arrived at. I can think of no one better qualified and more in touch with his community than an elected councillor.

I would suggest that the board of police commissioners might be abolished in favour of a committee of council, including the mayor and some two or three senior aldermen. I am not fussy about how many it is, probably three or four aldermen plus the mayor should be responsible for the administration of the police forces, because these are the people who have to go out and pick up the money. The board of control or the finance committee of the council has to tax the citizens in order to run the service, and I think the people who have the obligation of picking up the taxes from the people should also have the obligation and the control over the spending of taxes.

This evasion of responsibility by elected officials is growing too rapidly. Even at this level, the amount of dollars which is spent by boards and commissions beyond the control of the elected people is unacceptable to me. This is one way that we could get a handle on the spending of public moneys.

Just to give the House one small experience I had as a member of the board of control of the city of Sudbury some years back, when we had the chief of police in with his budget for the year showing his projected expenditures. We were going through it as a board of control, looking at all of the different costs, and in the budget was an item for four extra police cruisers. I think at the time we had 16, and the chief and the board of police commissioners had come to the conclusion that we should have 20 cruisers. So there was an extra expenditure there of probably $25,000 or $30,000. I was questioning the necessity of beefing up our cruiser fleet.

In my mind the level of police service in Sudbury at the time was adequate and I saw no need for tighter police control in the community. It was a peaceful community and everything was going well. I questioned the chief as to the desirability of four more cruisers. After about half an hour of his evading my questions and going around in circles, he said, “Mr. Germa, I may as well tell you that those cruisers have already been on the street for four months.” That is the kind of thing that goes on in the board of police commissioners.

At that point I said, “What the hell are we doing looking at your budget if you have already blown the money anyway? You have already got the cruisers and here you are coming to the board of control for approval by rubber stamp.” We had no control whatsoever at that time.

It was at that moment that I came to the conclusion that as an elected councillor I wanted to have control over the expenditures of board of police commissioners. As I said, this is one small step in the right direction, but I do look forward to the day when the local council will have control over the administration and the spending of our police department.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of this resolution. Being in favour of that resolution, I would like to offer some comment in relation to it. First of all, I think it is important when we look at the present status of a judge on a police commission that we recognize the important contribution these men and women have made to commissions in the past.

I think the present commissions, which consist of the mayor or head of council, together with a judge and one citizen appointed by the province, have achieved a proper balance within the commission. I think there is a danger, if we followed the suggestion of the member for Sudbury, that the commission could become a committee of the council. Although police forces are providing a municipal service, and I agree with the member in terms of the financial control of those services, I think there is a significant danger of improper political interference with police forces. In the past the various commissions, as they have been set up, have worked pretty well as they have gone in the past.

[4:15]

The member for Chatham-Kent mentioned in his remarks that there is a significant problem in some areas, such as Chatham-Kent, where there is basically one county court judge and he is tied up with other judicial duties. In those cases there should be the option whereby the province can appoint another citizen to the commission to take over that particular function.

It might be interesting to go back in history some time. Originally, a board of commissioners was first appointed prior to Confederation. In the early days, a police magistrate was a member. In the year after Confederation, in 1868, a county court judge was appointed at that time. So for some 110 or 111 years we have had the county court judge as a member of the police commission.

The members of the municipal police force are governed and directed by the police board. This body is designed to ensure that the police are independent of direct political control of the municipality. The autonomy of the police boards, in my view, is essential to the proper administration of justice. This independence would be lessened if the police officials were either directly controlled by the municipally elected officials or were, in fact, municipally elected officials.

The dangers are obvious where the membership of the board is beholden and indebted to its supporters. Two competing interests must be balanced, namely, the need to have the police fully accountable to the elected representatives -- as the member for Sudbury has pointed out -- and, at the same time, to have them independent so they are able to enforce the law without favour or improper political interference. The presence of the judicial member is therefore a highly significant factor, and has been in the past, in maintaining this proper balance.

The board of commissioners of police has traditionally acted as a buffer between the politician and the police officer. In other words, the board concept is designed to ensure that the police are independent of direct political control. I mention this because it has been argued that policing is a municipal service just like any other.

I submit, however, that police boards and the Ontario Police Commission have a special role which arises directly out of our system of the administration of justice. Justice must be fairly, evenly and impartially dispensed. The present organizational structure is designed to ensure this end.

In short, the police board shields the police from direct political control and permits them the necessary independence to enforce the law.

There is truth in the contention that the police function is more closely allied in some ways with the municipal government than with the provincial government. But under the law a police officer is not an employee or servant of the municipality. The police officer is an agent of the crown as well, the holder of a public office who exercises an original authority. This distinction is basic to our constitution and our system of the administration of justice.

I wish also to point out that experience has shown that police boards are keenly responsive to local needs and desires. The mandatory membership of the mayor on a police board certainly assists in ensuring that this responsiveness will continue. The main point of my comments today, however, is to stress the necessity of separating politics from the administration of justice and the enforcement of law. Society clearly benefits from this separation and the county court judge can and does play a significant role in this process.

I indicated at the start that I am for the resolution, but I wanted also to recognize the significant contribution a judge does make. We would encourage the continuance of the judge’s role in boards of police commissions. But we recognize the practical problem as outlined by the member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution although I must say I disagree with almost everything the member for Carleton-Grenville has just said. In my opinion, it is not only that we should not be under any obligation to appoint judges to police commissions, but that judges should not he appointed to police commissions.

As has been alluded to,

section 8 of the act is the

section which sets up this pattern which has been traditional throughout the province. Within the region of Waterloo, we have a five-member commission consisting of a provincial judge, two other appointees of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and two members of the regional council.

In the recent report issued by Mr. William Palmer as commissioner for a review of Waterloo region -- the report was issued in March 1979 -- he refers to suggestions as to his conclusions which would make the responsibility for police forces entirely a function, as a committee, of the regional council. In his opinion, the board of police commissioners for the region of Waterloo would be disbanded.

But he suggests one other item that, I think, should be referred to. That is the comment on page 158 of his report in which he says: “As an aside at this point, we fail to see the necessity for members of the judiciary to be involved in police governance. Such a requirement would seem an unnecessary use of their scarce time and an imposition upon the beleaguered gentlemen of the bench. As the hoary dictum would have it, moreover, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.’

“For this reason we have some reservations that a member of the judiciary may have an unwitting conflict of interest if required to supervise the police as well as to perform his foremost responsibility, which is to adjudicate the charges which those same police lay before him. This point of view was expressed by the McRuer Royal Commission on Civil Rights in Ontario, the Ontario Law Reform Commission and by three separate minority reports submitted to the Task Force on Policing in Ontario.”

I think that summarizes exactly the position which is, I believe, a sound one -- that judges no longer have a place on police commissions. The comments that have been made by Mr. Palmer might suggest we do not have a police commission within the region of Waterloo. Whether that’s acceptable or not to the parties involved, only time will tell.

There’s another way of doing it: it could be ruled that at least a majority of the members of that commission be members of the regional council. One could also, perhaps, have some volunteer or additional members added to a committee of council -- the matter could be dealt with in a variety of ways. But, in any event, the position of a judge on the continuing police governance body is something which I think is well out of date.

The member for Carleton-Grenville suggests that political influence might be brought to bear in this matter. Let me give you one more quote, Mr. Speaker. As you know, the British police forces are responsible to municipal councils through statutory advisory committees. But there is one quotation I would bring to the attention of the member for Carleton-Grenville. It’s on page 156: “The arguments for keeping politics out of police are largely fraudulent. No matter how the system is structured, the police governing body must ultimately be responsible to the public. That is accountability and that is politics.”

Mr. Ruston: You’ll have capital punishment.

Mr. Breithaupt: “The present system where the provincial government elected to a party system appoints the majority of police commissioners is every bit as political and more potentially dangerous than a situation in which a government composed of 24 separately elected individuals with at least three different political stripes and seven different factions, appoints the police governing body.”

That deals, at least to my satisfaction, with the matter of politics and the police force. Clearly, the governing of the police forces within this province is entirely different from the American situation of strong mayors, police commissioners and a great variety of other attributes. I have cited the British experience, and I would hope that concise comment from Mr. Palmer would be satisfactory.

In any event, former Chief Justice Gale, now retired, has suggested that, without question, judges be removed from police commissions.

Mr. Foulds: It’s hardly a revolution.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Attorney General, unfortunately, has not agreed. At least in the quotation I saw in the public press, the Attorney General said that he intended to remove the requirement in the Police Act that every police commission include a judge among its members, but that he would continue to make such appointments of judges in the future from time to time.

As a result, we may well find that the motion brought before the House today will be passed. It will not be blocked in the usual fashion by government members. The end result is that possibly we will have legislation brought in by the Attorney General which would at least remove this function of it being obligatory.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, at that point not only will I speak in favour of it being removed as obligatory; I will speak in favour of it being removed altogether.

Mr. Wildman: I wish to indicate that I rise in support of the resolution, for largely the same reasons the member for Kitchener just outlined.

It seems to me that the arguments raised by the member for Carleton-Grenville were somewhat off base when he talked about political interference. It seems to me that when we have a police commission, as we do, say, in Sault Ste. Marie, where we have three members, one of whom is a district judge, one is a provincial appointee and the other is the mayor, we already have two political appointees in the majority anyway.

Mr. Germa: Three.

Mr. Wildman: Yes. For that matter, a judge, even though he doesn’t take

part in the political process, is a political appointee.

Mr. Sterling: Not necessarily.

Mr. Wildman: Not necessarily, that’s true, but usually, shall we say?

Mr. Foulds: The member for Ottawa East is hoping for one of those appointments.

Mr. Wildman: At any rate, I’m not concerned about that in relation to the judge particularly. What I am saying is that in a three-man commission there already is a majority representing political bodies. I argue that by putting one person, a minority, on the commission he is somehow going to limit the influence of the two political appointees, if they happen to agree with one another, is not --

Mr. Roy: Is Berger a political appointment?

Mr. Wildman: Of course he is. They wanted to get him out of the political process.

Mr. Roy: He’d be glad to hear that.

Mr. Wildman: He was so effective in the political arena they wanted to limit him an