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

May 31, 1984

32nd Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

FOREST REGENERATION

ACCESS TO CIVIL SERVANTS

ATTENDANCE OF STAFF AT ESTIMATES

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

VISITORS

GOLF TOURNAMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JAPANESE INVESTMENTS IN ONTARIO

SENIOR CITIZENS' MONTH

ORAL QUESTIONS

DAY CARE

ACID RAIN

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

BEACH POLLUTION

MILK PRICES

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

CASE AT METROPOLITAN GRACE HOSPITAL

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS

PETITIONS

FAMILY BENEFITS ACT REGULATIONS

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALDIMAND-NORFOLK AMENDMENT ACT

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

NEW FARM IMPLEMENT BUYERS PROTECTION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMENDMENTS TO LINE FENCES ACT

DISPLAY OF PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL

AMENDMENTS TO LINE FENCES ACT

DISPLAY OF PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

FOREST REGENERATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to advise members of the public and members of the press that the Marek report by Mr. George T. Marek, which was submitted at the request of the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), which was made available to me and to my colleagues in this party by the Ministry of Natural Resources and which we subsequently made available to the press, has now, we understand, on orders of either the deputy minister or the minister, been taken out of circulation by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

I am really just rising to draw members' attention to that rather bizarre fact and simply to indicate to anyone who may wish a copy of the report, which is a devastating critique of the policies of the Ministry of Natural Resources, that we would be more than pleased to provide the necessary copies, although it has been taken out of circulation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I need not point out to the honourable member that his point was hardly one of order.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The leader of the third party indicated that either I or the deputy minister of my ministry took the document out of public circulation. If the leader of the third party had any sense of responsibility at all, which he does not, he would have reviewed the transcript, the Hansard report of the discussion of the Marek report in the standing committee on resources development, which for the last week and a half has been examining the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

He would have understood that the Marek report had been in my hands for less than four weeks, that some of the recommendations in this report have already been in place as policies, directives and guidelines for our ministry for four years. He would also know that all the Ministry of Natural Resources guidelines are available to the public and that our library in the Ministry of Natural Resources contains more documents than he will ever find time to read.

Mr. Rae: Are you denying what I said is true?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Yes, I am. Do you want me to say it another way? Come on down to estimates.

Mr. Rae: I will be in estimates. I will be there. Do not worry.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ACCESS TO CIVIL SERVANTS

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the government recently introduced a bill with respect to privacy of information. I draw to your attention a very important principle I thought was supported by this Legislature and by the people of Ontario. It concerns the Ministry of Revenue, where one of the members of my staff and I have been trying to meet with the commissioner of assessment in the region of York. We have been told we cannot meet with this commissioner of assessment unless the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory) gives his permission each time we want to meet with him.

I find this practice intolerable. It means he is saying to us and to the people of Ontario that every time we as members of the Legislature want to speak to any one of the thousands of civil servants, we have to call his office in order to get permission to do so. This is going be a bureaucratic nightmare, aside from --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member please resume his seat. I must point out, as he must already know, that this is a point of neither privilege nor order.

Mr. Epp: We must have that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did let you make your statement. Would the honourable member please resume his seat.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I raise this as a point of privilege because this is the second time that honourable member has raised this as a point of privilege or a point of order rather than as a question in the House.

If the member wants an honest answer to that question, he should place it as a question. Instead of taking this cowardly way he takes of raising it as a point of order, I suggest he ask a question.

Mr. Sargent: What is the answer, John?

Mr. Speaker: Eddie, I can just point out to you that oral question time is coming.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I want some clarification on this. I am told by the minister that I now have to ask a question during question period in order to be able to speak to his staff.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the honourable member please resume his seat. I just want to point out to the member and to all honourable members that you are asking something of me that is beyond my authority to do.

Interjections.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, may I ask why you listened to the minister, but you are not prepared to hear the opposition member? Perhaps you could clarify that.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know where you were. On the contrary, I did hear the honourable member and I heard him fully. I then thought it was only fair and evenhanded to listen to the minister. I am not going to engage in a debate. I have made my decision.

ATTENDANCE OF STAFF AT ESTIMATES

Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday last I undertook to consider the points raised by the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed) and other members concerning the right of a committee considering estimates to request the attendance of civil and public servants.

By convention, it is the responsibility of a minister to defend the expenditure proposals of and the policy implied in the estimates of his ministry. However, civil and public servants have attended estimates committees to assist their ministers personally, and in recent years there has been a gradual movement towards more direct participation of civil and public servants in the estimates process.

It has become the practice of many ministers to make their officials available to the committees to provide factual and background information on ministry expenditure proposals and to explain the administration of ministry policy. Traditionally, such witnesses have not been asked to state their own views on, advocate or defend government policy or political matters or to reveal confidential or privileged matters.

On April 2, 1984, the House by order established the committees for the current session with the "power to examine and inquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, with power to send for persons, papers and things, as provided by

section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act."

Accordingly, a committee considering a minister's estimates may, on motion adopted by a majority of the committee, invite or request a civil or public servant to appear before the committee. The failure of a civil or public servant to answer a committee's invitation or request could result in a report to the House asking the House to authorize the Speaker to issue his warrant to compel an official to attend the committee and give evidence.

With the concurrence of the majority of the assembly, civil servants and public servants may be compelled, pursuant to

section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act, to attend a committee to answer any question and deliver any document required by the committee so long as the committee is acting within its terms of reference. Whether or not the witness is a competent witness who should be heard by an estimates committee is a matter on which the chairman of a committee should rule.

Finally, I would like to reiterate what I have said on a number of occasions. Procedural difficulties that arise in standing and select committees ought to be settled in the committee and not in the House. It is clearly established that matters alleged to have arisen in committee, but not reported by the committee, may not be brought to the attention of the House as a question of privilege and the opinion of the Speaker may not be sought on such matters.

[Later]

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek clarification on the ruling you made on the calling of witnesses before a committee. Am I to understand that because of your ruling and because the majority of members on any given committee are government members, any time the government members decide the opposition should hear the facts concerning any ministry only from the minister involved and the facts as interpreted by that minister only, that is all members of the committee will be entitled to hear? Is that the impact of your ruling?

Mr. Speaker: Let me summarize it as simply as I can. I do not have any authority to direct any committee to do anything.

Mr. Rae: I think we understand now what the rules of the game are.

Mr. Speaker: I thought you would.

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr. Speaker: I have further had the opportunity to review the report of the remarks of the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) made during the proceedings following oral question period on Tuesday last.

The standing orders contain specific prohibitions against the use of words that may be judged to be offensive or disorderly. The determination as to whether words used in the House are offensive or disorderly rests with the Speaker, and the Speaker's judgement depends on the nature of the word and the context in which it is used. I remind the House that all members are judged to be honourable members and the Speaker cannot be expected to judge which member is telling the truth.

In this case, I find the remarks of the honourable member were offensive and disorderly and I would ask him to withdraw his words.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I will be only too happy to withdraw if I know what it is I am to withdraw. Would you mind telling me what it was I said, and then I will judge as to whether to withdraw?

Mr. Speaker: Let me recall. If my memory serves me correctly, you suggested the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), whom you named by name, was distorting the truth. Just withdraw, please.

Mr. Riddell: I am going to. I have been given to understand this is a weakness the member has possessed ever since he entered politics. He is more to be pitied than anything else. I will withdraw.

Mr. Martel: That is gracious.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery the Honourable George H. Ryan, Lieutenant Governor of Illinois. Mr. Ryan is visiting Ontario on a courtesy call, meeting with the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) and with officials of the Ministry of Energy and Ontario Hydro.

Further, we are honoured to have members of the Great Circus of China who are seated in the Speaker's gallery on the west side. I am sure all honourable members join with me in welcoming this talented group to the Legislative Assembly.

[Applause]

Mr. Breaugh: Welcome to the great circus here.

Mr. Rae: We have our own acrobats.

Mr. Speaker: I did not think they would have this effect.

For the information of all honourable members, it is interesting to note that this circus is based in Canton, China, and is one of more than 100 circus troupes in China. As members may know, the circus has been an important part of Chinese culture and Chinese life for more than 2,000 years.

GOLF TOURNAMENT

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the harmony of the afternoon, I would like to report on our successful golf tournament yesterday afternoon in aid of the heart fund. We had the eclipse out there also, but it really did not eclipse the Sun because Claire Hoy was the big winner with 75, followed by our own Alex McFedries from the Clerk's table.

2:20 p.m.

From my naturally unbiased and nonpartisan observations, it seemed the Progressive Conservative shots went right down the fairway. Those of the official opposition were somewhat scattered. It seldom happens, but on this occasion they were a little unpredictable. There was one shot from the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) that did not veer to the left. It went closest to the pin, and did he not win an award? He was on target for once.

The big winner was the heart fund. I want to tell the members and you, Mr. Speaker, that no less than $1,700 was given to the heart fund from this very modest effort. I think it exceeds that amount. On behalf of the heart fund and the golf committee, we thank all the contributors. In fact, we are keeping the books open until tomorrow if anyone wants to kick in. We hope to make it an annual event.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, as the representative from our party who helped a little with the planning, I would like to join in the comments made by the member for Mississauga South. It was a pleasure for me to do so and to see the heart fund be the winners.

I submit that the honourable member's comments about shots straying to the right or left perhaps are a degree inaccurate, but given that some of the shots may have wandered a little to the right or to the left, they went farther than most of the Progressive Conservative shots.

I also want to add that the small but mighty band of Grits who showed up yesterday feel that perhaps the score-card of the press representatives should be rechecked.

To get a little more team competitiveness out of this, we are working on the possibility of a True Grit trophy which would go to one of four groups that participate -- the three political parties and the press gallery. I submit that if it becomes an annual event -- we had the best average score -- we will present the trophy to the group that scores best.

In

summary, it is a pleasure to participate, and I reiterate the words of the member for Mississauga South that the books are open until tomorrow. Perhaps we could get another few hundred dollars and make it to $2,000.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I had my one good shot; I won a bottle of Scotch, and then I missed a three-foot birdie. I did not want to win everything.

I simply want to say that in my opinion, it was a great effort, a humble start, but I think it will grow because those of us who were there, and participated, thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. The efforts on behalf of the heart fund are commendable, and I hope it can be repeated next year.

The discussion that will ensue is that more members should participate, because we were far outnumbered by the press. The only reason Claire Hoy won was that there were about eight members and the odds were in favour of the press, although we tried hard enough. But next year, if we could just prevail upon members to --

Mr. Foulds: If there had been television coverage, he would not have won.

Mr. Martel: If there had been television coverage, I would have starred, Claire.

I hope more members can participate next year to make it a success, a repeat of yesterday but enlarged so the contribution to the heart fund will be even greater.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JAPANESE INVESTMENTS IN ONTARIO

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the members of this House on the progress being made in attracting Japanese investments to Ontario.

My ministry's objective is to demonstrate to Japanese industry that Ontario is the ideal location for serving the North American market. Success in this regard means not only immediate job creation in Ontario but also new technologies, new management techniques, access to new markets and the generating of spinoff opportunities for Canadian-owned firms.

The first such venture was launched a year ago with the purchase by Mitsubishi of the RCA Midland facility. I am pleased to advise the honourable members that production of picture tubes at the Midland plant is now well beyond the levels originally anticipated.

Until a week ago, the plant was operating only one shift, according to plan. As of next week, there will be three shifts and the total work force will nearly double to more than 400 people, well ahead of schedule.

The Midland facility now is supplying four firms in Canada and exporting to the United States and the United Kingdom. Further markets are expected in Singapore and Australia.

Mitsubishi is also working with Electrohome, a Canadian firm, to provide picture tubes for a line of television consoles that will be marketed by Mitsubishi in the United States. This is the sort of joint venture we had hoped for when attracting Mitsubishi to Ontario.

Perhaps most important, the Midland facility is among the most productive in the world, with standards of quality equal to those of the best operations anywhere.

We are now hopeful that Midland will begin to produce high-resolution tubes for video display terminals in 1985, a year earlier than planned. This development would create further jobs and a substantial increase in export earnings.

The Mitsubishi success has been followed up aggressively with other Japanese firms. As a result of my visit to Japan last fall, I will participate this afternoon in the sod turning for a new plant in Uxbridge being constructed by Tokai Seiki. This plant will produce up to 30 million disposable lighters a year. Initially, it will employ about 30 people, but further expansion is anticipated on the 80-acre site. In addition to the manufacturing plant, Tokai will also build a management conference centre, which will be used by executives from around the world.

Mr. Foulds: Did you get the approval of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) for this?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just sit there and be jealous.

My ministry is working in close co-operation with the federal government, and I am confident our partnership with Ottawa will be successful in attracting further Japanese investment to Ontario in the near future.

SENIOR CITIZENS' MONTH

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, as this is the last day of May, I would like to remind honourable members that June is Senior Citizens' Month in Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Well done, Gordon. You did very well.

Hon. Mr. Dean: There is more.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Dean: This year marks the 24th anniversary of this tribute to seniors, which recognizes both the past contributions and the enormous potential of a vital and growing segment of our population.

It is my pleasure to announce that in honour of the province's first month-long celebration of seniors, the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development is sponsoring two special variety shows for the entertainment of senior citizens.

I would also hope that all honourable members will take the time to visit the St. Lawrence Lounge in the Macdonald Block during June. The secretariat has arranged for a month-long exhibit featuring the crafts of the Ontario division of the Red Cross involving veterans from Sunnybrook Hospital. Participants will be demonstrating their craftsmanship, and the exhibit will include such items as handmade wall hangings, silk-screened scarves and glass figurines.

We plan to kick off Senior Citizens' Month with a Salute to Seniors show on Sunday, June 3, at Hamilton Place, and in Thunder Bay with a performance at the Coliseum on Thursday, June 7. Nationally known broadcaster Joel Aldred has assisted the secretariat in putting together a two-hour program of first-class entertainment and will be the master of ceremonies for both events.

This Salute to Seniors show demonstrates not only the government's appreciation of seniors' contributions to Ontario society but that of the community as well. Admission to Salute to Seniors is free as the province's gift of thanks to senior citizens.

Along with my secretariat, I have been very enthusiastic in the preparation of Senior Citizens' Month celebrations. I am pleased to report that municipalities, libraries, seniors' organizations and businesses throughout the province have also shown tremendous support of the province's tribute to seniors.

This month provides the perfect opportunity for all of us to show our seniors our appreciation for past and present contributions to the community. I hope all my colleagues will encourage the development of Senior Citizens' Month celebrations in their own constituencies.

To assist the public with the promotion of local events that focus attention on seniors, my secretariat has produced a colourful poster depicting the month's theme, "We all have a lot to share." The message is clear. The skills, knowledge and experience that seniors can share with all age groups makes them a vital part of our society. Senior citizens have much to give, and our communities are greatly enriched by their contribution.

2:30 p.m.

We are also fortunate to have the contributions from senior citizens of various cultural backgrounds. In our desire to acknowledge Ontario's multicultural heritage, we have made the Senior Citizens' Month poster available in 32 languages.

One of the highlights of this year's celebration is an awards ceremony. My secretariat has initiated the province's first Senior Achievement Awards to recognize and reward annually, individual senior citizens for outstanding contributions made to the quality of life in Ontario. Since this is our bicentennial year, a time to reflect on this province's great heritage and progress, I believe it is appropriate that we honour individuals whose accomplishments have contributed so much to Ontario's growth and prosperity.

Our Premier (Mr. Davis) will present the Senior Achievement Awards to this year's distinguished recipients on June 20. In the near future I will be announcing the names of these honoured seniors who will have been chosen from across the province.

I hope all members will join me in this tribute to the seniors of Ontario by celebrating this very special month at local events in their own communities. As the month's theme imparts, we all benefit through the sharing of our time, our concern and our interest.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DAY CARE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. We read with some interest his speech to the conference, I believe yesterday, suggesting some new initiatives.

Why has he chosen to take the lead from the back seat three or four weeks after the budget with respect to proposing tax breaks for better day care? What are his specific recommendations to deal with the Ontario tax system to give substance to those ideas he suggested yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) has not had the opportunity to read the remarks I shared with my colleagues from across the country. Those sessions were being held at Niagara-on-the-Lake, the first capital of Upper Canada, and we had the benefit of the products from that area.

Mr. Sweeney: That was in 1791.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Listen, we do not need a tourist's travelogue.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That was only after the constitution. There were a lot of people here before 1791. I am surprised the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) as a school teacher would not know that. I hope this does not get back to Kitchener. Did he not hear about the American war of -- the revolution?

Mr. Sweeney: It was in 1791, not 1784.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think 1784 was when the first Tory association was formed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Actually, one of the reasons these comments were shared yesterday was at the request of the working group that planned the conference. Ontario is seen as a leader in this area. The federal government and the governments of all the other provinces asked Ontario to present this paper. I was very flattered, on behalf of the Ontario government, to have that opportunity. It was good to share with my colleagues -- the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for the status of women -- some proposals about this very important area of child care.

Mr. Martel: Another study?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, not just another study. The speech from the throne made some reference to the fact that we are going to have an in-house review. This government wants to be on record as making it quite clear that child care is a major issue which faces us today, considering the changing face of the work force and new family lifestyles. We set out some propositions for discussion at that conference which would include the opportunity to explore new partnerships and new arrangements to face up to the new challenges to ensure that women enjoy certain access to the work place.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That was a very full answer.

Mr. Martel: Full of hot air. Now to the issue.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: They were the very highest words. I think I understand. We have heard them before. I am concerned that the minister as the lead spokesman on women's issues for this province, making him one of the lead spokesmen in the country on that issue, would not be seen as just a windbag, just talking through his hat. I am concerned that he would give substance to those proposals.

Mindful as I am of his reputation at those great councils, why would he not have used his influence here in Ontario to suggest to his colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) that we should have a specific Ontario tax credit for child care in this province? Would that not have given more substance to his remarks? Would that not be the way to show leadership in this issue? Would that not be the way to bring the other provinces into line, so he could again take the lead?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think it should be recorded here that the Leader of the Opposition has access to the officials of the federal government with respect to this paper. I think the paper did set out a good many options. I would remind the member of the comment in the throne speech, setting out very clearly that we are going to review the whole question of the supply and quality of child care. A 12-ministry inter-ministerial committee is now doing this.

I was joined at the conference yesterday by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) and I was very pleased to have him there to share at first hand, as a minister with line responsibilities, the commitment of this government with respect to this study and the expansion in these areas.

I have no trouble with my colleagues throughout the country with respect to this matter. Indeed, they are very anxious to be part of the study group. I would be very happy to send a copy of those remarks to the Leader of the Opposition so that his research people would have an opportunity to read and summarize them for him for his next question.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a very specific question of the minister. He has the power to do something about tax credits in Ontario. The government of Ontario has failed to move on enriching tax credits for seniors and in other areas. If the government is so concerned about using the tax system as a means of allowing more day care and some real shifting in priorities with respect to day care, why did the minister not push the Treasurer to use this budget as an opportunity to bring in some tax credits for people who are having to spend so much money for day care today and for people who cannot afford any accessible day care at all?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly credit that the leader of the third party is trying to suggest we have been less than generous in our response to the seniors of this province. I think that is certainly something he could well have left out of his

preamble.

When we talk about this issue, the member knows full well the paper explores a number of possibilities to address the whole question of affordability. There are certain things that have to happen in this child care issue, and the Treasurer is very sensitive to these matters. Child care is an economic issue, and a very important economic issue as far as women are concerned. We have to get it out of the welfare mould and we have to make it quite clear we have to be involved with new arrangements and new partnerships.

Mr. McClellan: The minister has been reading our speeches.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is the road to Damascus.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: As we explore all these matters, I am encouraged by these questions because they help to keep a very high profile for a very important issue with which this government is associated and in which it is prepared to give leadership.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: When is this going to happen?

Mr. Rae: Has the minister any dates?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: I notice in his remarks the minister sensitively pointed out that salaries for qualified child care workers need to be improved. I am sure the minister is aware that the average salary in nonprofit child care centres in Metropolitan Toronto for 1983 for trained people was $12,980 and for untrained people $10,807, to be very precise. He recognizes that problem.

It is my understanding that at one point the Ministry of Community and Social Services had a salary enrichment fund for child care workers and that fund was not spent. Why was that money not employed? Is the minister recommending to his colleagues the establishment of another salary enrichment fund to address that real problem he has pointed out but as yet has done nothing to correct?

Hon. Mr. Welch: When I came to that

part in my notes dealing with the salary for child care workers, I did it with a great deal of feeling. That

section of my notes was written by my daughter Elizabeth, who is a child care worker. She graduated from Niagara College as an early childhood educator and she has been drawing that whole issue to my attention, as have a number of them.

As far as I am concerned, it is as the paper states. Once again, I invite the member to read the paper because we do draw this to the attention of those who are involved in making some necessary changes in this area. I feel quite satisfied that he is going to be delighted with respect to what the outcome of all this will be in the fullness of time.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: If the minister needs a new speechwriter, I will give him my six-year-old son.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

ACID RAIN

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment with respect to acid rain in this province. No doubt he will be aware that last week the levels of acidity in the Ottawa area reached 3.8 on the pH scale, almost as acid as vinegar, an alarmingly high result. According to the press reports in the Ottawa Citizen, indications from the Chalk River area are that this acid rain emanated from Ontario.

I am also mindful of the comments the minister has been making publicly that public moneys are going to have to be expended in cleaning up acid rain. How is he going to address this very real problem when the evidence is so alarming? The evidence shows it is coming from Ontario. The minister's budget has been cut. How much money is he going to put into cleaning up acid rain in this province?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the budget of the Ministry of the Environment for this program has not been cut. It was never contemplated that the 1984 budget would be used for any kind of cleanup program. The announcements and the comments I have made with respect to the acid rain program, which we are working on co-operatively with the federal government and the other provincial environment ministers, are specifically directed at industry in the first instance, which has an obligation to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and also public utilities such as Ontario Hydro.

In the case of Hydro, we have an order requiring emission cutbacks in 1986 and 1990. I do not know how the comment could be made that the level of acidity in the Ottawa area, to which the member is referring, emanated from Ontario sources unless the source of that information had access to the computer monitoring program of my ministry. To the best of my knowledge, we are the only ones who can come up with that kind of information. I was not advised the sources were in Ontario.

Mr. Peterson: I do not understand the minister's answer. Is he denying it is coming from Ontario? Is he saying it is coming from across our borders? Is he denying responsibility? Is he denying there is a very real problem with an alarmingly high rate? Evidence is accumulating everywhere in this province. He is no doubt aware of the Parry Sound area. I am sure he has been informed by his colleague that there is an abnormally high death rate among maple trees. Some experts believe that is strictly a function of acid rain. It is having an impact on the maple syrup business in that area.

Why will the minister not take the lead, given that Nanticoke is now generating some 22 per cent of Ontario's power and is becoming one of the larger emitters in this province because of problems with the nuclear program? Last year, it pumped out 255,000 tons of sulphur dioxide.

Why will the minister not at least take the lead with his own utility? Surely, that is his responsibility before he lectures industry. Why was that commitment not put into his budget for this year?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: In my earlier answer, I was suggesting the sources of sulphur dioxide in the area mentioned by the member, as well as Parry Sound, in all probability were complicated and aggravated by sources beyond the jurisdiction of Ontario. I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition that no jurisdiction in North America has taken as hard and as strong a stance with respect to a public utility as this province has.

That happens to be a reality and it happens to be a fact. There is no jurisdiction in North America that has a control order requiring a public utility to reduce its emissions such as the reductions being required of Ontario Hydro. The member asked us to take the lead. The reality is no jurisdiction has taken more of a lead than this province in showing the way to reduce acid rain.

I want to say one further thing. We are meeting tomorrow in Ottawa, as the member is probably aware, with the federal government to see what contribution our federal colleagues may make with respect to the costs associated with an abatement program. I can assure the members that we are taking the lead on acid rain in this province.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the minister is simply this: Is the minister denying the fact that Ontario Hydro's acid gas emissions are now higher than they have ever been in the history of Ontario Hydro?

Is he denying the fact that those emissions are a major contribution to the acid rain problem in Ontario, that they are directly affecting the acidity that is taking place in several lakes across the province and that up until this time, the total effect of the government of Ontario's blabbing with Ontario Hydro has been nil? It has not reduced emissions at all; in fact, in the last year there has been an increase.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party is well aware that the current increase in sulphur dioxide emissions is only a temporary situation. The matter has been under active review on the part of my colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) and myself. We are constantly reviewing Ontario Hydro emissions and the operations that may have any environmental impact. That temporary situation will abate very shortly and those emissions will come down. They are not constant. They do not reflect a trend on the part of Ontario Hydro, and they will only be in position for a very short time.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that the minister feels the pollutants arrived at the site from outside of the province, I understand that the mix of pollutants has been discovered to be such that it would originate in Sudbury and other areas in Ontario.

Would he tell us, in the light of the fact that there is some upturn in the nickel industry market now, what sorts of programs are being developed in his ministry? In one of his earliest statements he told us he was endeavouring to put together a package to help finance the improvement of acid gas emission controls in industry in Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I would hope there is going to be an upturn in the level of economic activity in Sudbury. They are under a control order, a maximum of 1,950 tons per day.

Mr. Elston: That is not the question.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The question the member asked is with respect to the financing package. That is the whole intent of the meeting I am attending in Ottawa tomorrow. I cannot tell the member today what the outcome of tomorrow's meeting is going to be.

Mr. Peterson: What are you putting on the table?

Mr. Boudria: Do not stand in the rain tomorrow, Andy. Look at what happened to Claude.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Whenever they are through, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to carry on with the answer.

Mr. Roy: The minister is sensitive.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am glad to see the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is here.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the answer, please.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I would be most pleased to have my esteemed critic from the official opposition informed of the outcome of the meetings after they have concluded in Ottawa tomorrow.

I will be meeting with the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Charles Caccia, and other ministers of the environment in the eastern part of Canada. We are attempting to come up with a package that will be applicable to the smelter industry, as well as to some of the public utilities that are causing us problems.

I do not deny the fact that some of the sulphur dioxide emissions from Ontario sources are affecting the environment, as are those other sources from outside the province. I want to say to members again that we are taking the lead. In all jurisdictions that one might look at, no jurisdiction has made a more forceful comment and more forceful advances with respect to the whole question of abatement than Ontario.

Take a look at one example. In the case of the smelter industry, we have already reduced Inco's acidic precipitation levels and emissions from a high of some 7,000 tons per day to the present level of 1,950. I think that is a rather commendable record.

2:50 p.m.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act. The minister knows we have been debating them, both inside the House and publicly, for a number of years now. What I want to know is, what in the world is going on?

How is it that after all this public debate, the Workers' Compensation Board would conduct a poll among employers -- only among employers -- to find out their attitude towards proposed changes? Why would the board consult the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation, according to press reports, and not the labour movement, the injured workers and the opposition members of this House?

How is it that the minister could talk one day about bringing in amendments and having them dealt with in this session, and say the next day that perhaps it is not going to happen at all? Can the minister tell us who is running the show concerning Workers' Compensation Act amendments? Is it the employers' council, the Workers' Compensation Board or the Ministry of Labour?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I think I heard about a dozen questions there. The significant one, I believe, was a comment that I had said we were not going to deal with it at all. I never said that on any occasion. I did not even come close to saying that.

I have said in this House on at least two occasions, and I have been quoted in the media on more frequent occasions, as saying that I have every intention of bringing the amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act in during this session. That still stands.

Mr. Laughren: The minister did not answer my first question. Is it his intention that these amendments will be dealt with in this session? Is that his intention?

Further, will he assure us that any amendments brought in will separate the more fundamental restructuring parts of the amendment from any increase in the level of benefits for injured workers?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I intend to deal with the amendments in this session. At this time I cannot assure the honourable member that the amendments will be introduced separately to the increase in the benefit structure.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the minister will recall that in his report in November 1980, Professor Weiler had this to say about the permanent disability rating system, the so-called meat chart:

"This central ingredient of workers' compensation has now totally lost any legitimacy which it might have ever had. People no longer tolerate the inequities in individual cases which are produced by a system of average 'rough justice.'"

The minister will know that in a letter to the Kitchener-Waterloo and District Labour Council last month, he promised that his final package would "reflect the very real needs of those injured workers and their families who require further assistance."

Can the minister stand in his place now and confirm that when he brings in his package of amendments on workers' compensation, he will deal with the matter of permanent disability ratings in this province in a meaningful and substantive way?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I believe the amendments that will be brought forward in due course in this session will address the concerns of the injured workers and those of the employers. We have spent a great deal of time on this very serious matter, and I am not prepared at this time to indicate or to debate the various amendments that will be introduced.

Mr. Laughren: It becomes clearer now as to why the minister evaded the question put by my colleague the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) earlier when he asked about separating the structural amendments of the board from the benefits increase.

Besides, the minister still has not told us who is running the show over there. Why is it he consults only with employers when it comes to amendments?

Finally, does the minister not understand that if he does not separate the increased benefits in the act from the other fundamental amendments, what will be perceived out there, and in my view accurately perceived, will be that this minister is continuing that long tradition of playing games with injured workers' level of benefits in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am in a relatively good mood today, so I am going to ignore that last comment, but the honourable member did have a point there. He repeated a question he had brought forward in his first question today. I did not answer it at that time; I had intended to, and I am glad he reminded me of it. That is the matter of consultation.

We have consulted with so many groups, so many people for so many months and we have not consulted with any group at the expense of any other. Everybody has had equal treatment. I have never refused a meeting with any group or individual who has wanted to talk to me about the Workers' Compensation Act and its amendments.

Mr. Rae: The minister should know that is not the point; the point is that the Workers' Compensation Board took a poll of employers.

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question was to the Minister of the Environment, who was in the House until 30 seconds ago and, to my surprise, has just stepped out. It concerns the quality of drinking water in Lake Ontario and the case that is being argued at this hour by counsel for the government of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you could place another question.

Mr. Rae: He is right here. I wonder if I could ask him that question, since right at this very time counsel for the government of Ontario is making a case in Buffalo. I would like to ask the minister if he can explain the discrepancy between two very simple statements.

The first is a statement the minister made in this Legislature on April 10: "We are definitely not satisfied that the proposed cleanup measures are adequate and we are expressing that dissatisfaction in the strongest possible terms to Judge Curtin."

I wonder how he would square that statement with the fact that in the lengthy brief that has been filed by his counsel before Judge Curtin there is no mention of the court's disallowing or disapproving the agreement; there is mention only of the court's modifying the agreement.

If he is really going to be expressing his disapproval and, to use his words, his dissatisfaction in the strongest possible terms, why is he going in and asking only for a mere modification of the agreement when clearly a disapproval or rejection of the agreement, which fails to provide for a cleanup of the site, is in the best interests of the people of this province and of the four million Ontarians who rely on Lake Ontario for their drinking water?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the position of my ministry and of the lawyers representing us in that particular case has been consistent. We indicated that the short-term measures associated with the cleanup program proposed by Occidental Chemical were less than satisfactory; and although they would be appropriate for a short period of time, in the long term they were not satisfactory to Ontario. That is the position we have held consistently, and that is why we have indicated we are not satisfied with the short-term cleanup proposed by Occidental Chemical.

Mr. Rae: With great respect to the minister, he has not answered my question. Why, if he is so dissatisfied with the agreement, has he not asked that it be rejected, unless it provides for the specific items he says he is so concerned about?

Specifically in that regard, why did the ministry's counsel fail to call the expert witness, Dr. Grisak, who, according to the minister's previous discussions here, is somebody of great expertise who would have been able to inform the court on the question of the cleanup of the site? Why did he not adjourn the hearing for a lengthy period of time after the evidence came in from Occidental Chemical in order that the people of Ontario would have the best possible case made on their behalf?

The problem Judge Curtin has today is that, regardless of the arguments that are put before him by counsel, counsel can refer only to evidence that has been put before the court. There is much evidence that is not before the court, and the people of Ontario are all the poorer for it.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The final oral arguments in this case were heard on May 30. That being the case, I want to assure members once again, as I have in the past in response to earlier questions from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), that we are asking for a change in the agreement, rather than a modification, to bring about a total cleanup of that site.

This means the removal of the contaminated soil and the ultimate treatment based on the best-known technology available in that jurisdiction. That has been our position. I do not understand why the member continues to press the case, to imply that Ontario is taking anything other than the most substantial line of defence we possibly can to protect our interests. That is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, as the minister realizes, my leader pressed this issue several times before and asked the minister to do certain things. One of those things was to prepare his witnesses in a much better and more thorough way. Has the minister learned his lesson about refusing to co-operate and deal in an above-board manner with the public interest groups that are much better informed and prepared to proceed on behalf of the public interest in Ontario with respect to this hearing?

The groups had counsel who had the expertise and the experience of appearing in front of this very same judge in another hearing. Will the minister admit to this House now that he is planning to use all the resources of this province, including the expertise of the public interest groups that know this issue far better than anyone in his ministry does or could hope to do?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard any comment in this House that is more misleading than this suggestion that there are public interest groups far more informed about this issue than the experts in my ministry. I refute that statement. It is so totally incorrect as to be almost laughable.

Mr. Bradley: It is laughable in the case the minister put forward. That was laughable.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: As soon as the member for St. Catharines is finished, I will continue. He has been very interested in this issue and has yet to ask a question about it.

In the case of the evidence we were prepared to submit on the part of our expert witness, I know the member is aware, but failed to mention in the context of his question, that the evidence being presented on the part of Occidental Chemical was changed at the last minute by that firm during the course of the hearings in New York state.

Further, the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States was not aware that evidence was being changed. The level, the volume and the amount of contamination were lowered very considerably with regard to the evidence placed before Judge Curtin. As a result of that evidence being changed before the court, we withdrew our witness to review our position more thoroughly. The position we have taken has been consistent and proper.

If the public interest groups to which the member refers want to co-operate with Ontario and make a contribution by dialoguing with us, I indicated during meetings I had with a number of public interest groups that we would welcome their input. They decided not to do that because, for reasons known only to Judge Curtin, he determined, quite justifiably, that the province of Ontario should be the representative of the people of Ontario. That is the position we are in, representing the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister may want to reconsider the remark he inadvertently made suggesting the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) had made a misleading statement.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Could I delete that word and insert "ill-informed"?

Mr. Speaker: Whatever. I think you should just withdraw it.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because the government of Ontario has a unique role at the hearings that so many observers of the scene and so many of us in this province are disheartened by its failure to put forward a world-class case on a problem that affects the quality of the drinking water of four million Ontarians. The government has had a chance. It has had a job to do. The overwhelming evidence so far is that it has not done the job. The minister has had a chance; he has had a job to do. The overwhelming evidence so far is that he has not done the job and his ministry has disappointed literally millions of Ontarians who have a stake in the future.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: If, coming into this House, he said he wanted to play such an important role in the dispute, can he explain why one witness was withdrawn and why another key witness who testified as to what was going on had not even visited the S area site, a so-called expert who had not even been at the site and was torn apart on the stand because he had not been there?

Why did his counsel argue at two points in his initial argument to the court that the government of Ontario intended to play a relatively minor role in the proceedings? If the minister is really interested in protecting the drinking water of this province, why did he have his counsel go in and say all the government wanted was a fairly limited role, a relatively minor role, in an issue that affects the drinking water and the future of water in Ontario for decades to come?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, Ontario or my ministry is in no way taking a minor role on the quality of the water that is being made available to the people of Ontario. To represent our interests in New York state, we have engaged one of the most reputable and well-recognized environmental law firms in the entire United States. Such esteemed environmental groups as the Sierra Club in the United States have hired the same law firm.

I cannot tell the member what the outcome of this case is going to be, whether we are going to win or lose. That is something I cannot tell him at this time. I can tell him our position has been consistent. We have a well-recognized, reputable law firm and we intend to pursue the best interests of Ontario in the courts in New York state to the extent we are able and to the extent that is possible. If the leader of the third party will listen, since I am answering his question, we will do that to the best of our ability and to the extent that our resources are available for this case.

BEACH POLLUTION

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment concerning the limitation and the extent of his resources and what that allows him to do with respect to the beaches in Toronto and throughout the province.

I have information that indicates the minister is using a good amount of the money allocated for the cleanup of beaches to manicure those beaches and make them attractive on the shore for people to visit. I understand that will not deal much with the quality of water being discharged into Lake Ontario.

I would like to find out from the minister how much money he is putting into the cleanup effort along the Toronto beach area this year and how much he is projecting over the next several years to clean up the water quality, bearing in mind that the municipality of East York needs to spend about $35 million to fix its sewers, York needs about $90 million, Toronto this year alone needs $22 million, and that there are some 79 other beaches in the province which need efforts made to clean up their water quality. Can the minister provide us with those figures with respect to his limited resources?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say, and I know the honourable member will be most happy to hear, that the request that was made to my ministry on the part of Metro Toronto, with respect to assistance for a two-year program to assist with beach cleanups in the area the member is talking about amounted to some $3 million over two years.

We met every single, solitary dime of the request on the part of Metro Toronto for that two-year cleanup program. What more can this ministry do than to meet 100 per cent of the request on the part of the lead government, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, which is primarily responsible for this problem? We have met every request it has made.

Mr. Elston: The effort so far directed to cleaning up the quality of the water along the beachfront has been to build walls to extend the flow of the Humber River past the beach area and has been to extend the outfall to a deeper portion of Lake Ontario.

Mr Speaker: Question, please.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Elston: Would the minister not agree that by proceeding to dilute the poor quality effluent coming from those outfalls and from the Humber River he is merely postponing a catastrophe which, in the long run, will cost the citizens of this province and others several millions of dollars to clean up? When will he get to the root of the problem rather than trying the same thing that was tried in Sudbury, and that is to develop a superstack to dilute instead of to cure the problem?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Of the total amount of $3 million, which is only the provincial contribution to the beach cleanup, the project the honourable member refers to represents $150,000. The amount of money being expended by Metropolitan Toronto as well as by my ministry well exceeds $10 million. As he can see, the whole matter of additional dispersion as a result of extending the wall along the side of the Humber River and to disperse some of the effluent farther into Lake Ontario is a very minor part of that entire undertaking.

I might add that the environmental experts who have studied this particular proposal, which calls for the effluent to be dispersed farther out into Lake Ontario, have indicated that this is quite a sound and proper principle and that it will avoid some of the contamination from entering around the shoreline of the beaches where most of the problem occurred last summer. The reality is that this is quite an appropriate direction for this entire project to take, namely, to disperse some of the contamination farther out into Lake Ontario.

In addition to that, the question was raised as to whether or not we will be providing additional moneys for specific cleanup programs. I want to assure the member that we have studies going on now that are very detailed, very specific and quite expensive -- these are in co-operation with Toronto -- to determine exactly what areas we can control with respect to further discharge problems we have along the Humber and Don rivers. That is an ongoing program, and we intend to be involved at some future point in assisting, as we always have in the past, bringing about this cleanup.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the city of York, which is part of Metropolitan Toronto and which has a major problem with sewage construction, has plans on the books for sewage separation in order to deal with the fundamental problem that is causing the pollution. It does not have adequate funding; it cannot get adequate funding either from the provincial government or from anywhere else. That is the root cause of the problem.

When is the minister going to face up to it and, rather than get cuts from the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) in his budget, which affect his ability to deliver services to the people of this province and to provide clean water, get involved in the kind of capital expenditure that will put people to work, provide jobs for construction workers and solve a major environmental problem at the same time?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, what the honourable leader of the third party is asking for is a change of policy on the part of my ministry. In fact, we have not been involved in those sewer separation projects in the past. They have been --

Mr. McClellan: We have seen the results.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The results are, to quote the Minister of the Environment of Quebec, who made a statement on this particular point just the other day in the National Assembly in Quebec --

Mr. McClellan: Does he swim at the beach?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: -- it will take Quebec 20 years at the very least to catch up with Ontario in this kind of environmental control program. He was complimenting this province because we happen to have the most advanced environmental control programs of any province in the entire country in place right at the present time.

MILK PRICES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition signed by 4,000 residents of the city of Sault Ste. Marie with respect to the price of milk there and the fact that a town that at one time had six dairies now has only one.

I would ask the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), how he feels about the fact that residents in Sault Ste. Marie are spending $2.22 on average for two litres of two per cent milk while in Toronto it is $2.06 and in Montreal it is $1.55. How does the Premier feel about that fairness as distributed across the province and across the country? How does he feel about the fact that Labatt's now controls 50 per cent of the dairies in Ontario and the rest of the industry is concentrated heavily in two other companies?

What is he doing about this monopoly which is ripping off the public of the province? It is ripping off those people who have only one dairy from which they can purchase the most basic commodity, milk.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to answer the member. I am not going to get into a debate as to what number of dairies are owned by any particular organization.

Mr. Martel: They might ruin your ball park.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Pardon? I cannot hear the member.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I always want to listen to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). He is so cogent, so relative, so polite.

Mr. Martel: That is not like you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry, I cannot hear the member.

Mr. Martel: The Premier should turn up his hearing aid.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted to but the member should speak up a little louder.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Take the marbles out of your mouth.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am wondering if the member for York South (Mr. Rae) can discipline the member for Sudbury East. I guess that is totally beyond his capacity. That is increasingly obvious day after day.

Mr. Samis: Many have tried.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I cannot hear the member.

Mr. McClellan: You must be getting old.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly I am maturing. The member should try the same thing. It would be good for him.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite hear the figures as quoted by the member as to the price per quart. If he can translate it into quarts, I would understand it more readily.

I understand from his question that his concern is the price per quart or litre for milk in the Sault which is higher than it is, say, in Metropolitan Toronto or in the city of Montreal. I cannot comment on that because I have not had any running account as to the price levels of milk in the city of Montreal over any period of time.

I am sure the member has kept a running record, but that it does not reflect a particular sale on milk at a particular chain in the city of Montreal on any given date. I assume that it is not a constant price for the last four or five months. Is he assuring me it is? Of course, he is not. He does not know.

There have always been price differentials on some commodities between northern Ontario and parts of southern Ontario. There have been differences in price commodities between this province and Quebec. He might select some other commodity. He might just check what the price of gasoline is per litre in Montreal vis-à-vis Toronto -- perhaps even Sault Ste. Marie. He may find the price for that commodity may be modestly higher. I am not sure of that, but it could be.

I think it is fair to state that this government has always recognized the concerns expressed by residents of northern Ontario as they relate to the cost of certain basis commodities. I would be quite prepared to receive that petition, although these issues have been brought forward to us in a very constructive, positive and sensitive way by the member from Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay). But if the member wishes, if it is the purpose of his question to present the petition to the House and if he is using this occasion to do so, I would be delighted to receive it.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, since the Premier is talking about sales it might interest him to know that the price quoted by my leader regarding the retail price of milk in Sault Ste. Marie today is as a result of a sale that is now going on in Sault Ste. Marie. In fact, that price is still very much above the retail price in Toronto and in Montreal.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wildman: Is the Premier not aware of one of the main reasons for the difference in the retail price of milk in Quebec and Ontario? One of the main reasons is that the Quebec government not only controls the farm-gate price, as we do here through the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, but also sets a maximum and a minimum retail price for milk. As a result, retail milk prices are much lower in Quebec.

Is the Premier prepared to have his government look at that proposal as one for Ontario so that we can moderate the price of milk at the retail level for consumers in this province as has been done in Quebec?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member is suggesting we implement certain policies that exist in Quebec as they impact upon consumers and producers, then he should recite the whole spectrum of what programs Quebec has. He can single out milk or one or two other commodities, but if he wishes to persuade the people he represents that they would be better served by the policies that exist in our sister province as they relate to their cost of living and tax levels, I wish him luck because he will never succeed.

He might also check the price of a litre of milk in Winnipeg for me because I really do not know what it is.

Mr. Rae: It is cheaper.

Mr. Martel: In Winnipeg it is a lot cheaper.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has agreed that there is a price differential between the north and the south in so far as milk is concerned and, beyond that, in so far as other food items or commodities are concerned. Will he not agree that the people in northern Ontario deserve a tax credit to help them accommodate the higher costs they have to pay?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this government has always recognized the differential in terms of cost, although not necessarily as it relates to individual commodities. However, the differential has been reflected in the grant structures of this government. For instance, the differential in terms of cost has been reflected in the grant structures of the Ministry of Education and of other ministries of this government, whether for municipal services or in some cases the cost of commodities.

We endeavoured, and I think with some success, to address this as it related to the differential in the cost of fuel, for example. We have used the differential in the licence fee to offset what we know is a differential between the cost in southern Ontario and that in the north, primarily because of transportation and partially because of the distribution system.

We recognize this by and large in the price of what some would describe as an essential commodity -- some alcoholic beverages. The honourable member may not agree that it is essential, and I may not agree that it is essential, but it is a commodity used by a large percentage of the population. We have been able to do this because we have some greater measure, not of control but of involvement.

It is much more difficult to do it with respect to fresh fruit and produce where we as a government do not have any involvement as we do with respect to tax levels on the price of beer. It makes it a far more complicated issue.

I can only assure the member that this government has demonstrated a sensitivity to the concerns of the people in north and will continue to do so.

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the House on Tuesday, and I guess even prior to that in response to a question on Orders and Notices placed by the member for Port Arthur, there has not been any formal study undertaken with respect to the cost implications.

Mr. Stokes: That is, if he has the money.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The honourable member can moan and groan all he likes, but I have been forthright about that from the very beginning.

Mr. Rae: The minister made it up.

Mr. McClellan: He made it up.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, I did not make it up.

Mr. Rae: Where did it come from?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I also explained in the House, although it was after the departure of the member for Port Arthur the other day, how the figure was arrived at as a rough calculation. I indicated that it was a rough calculation. It was a first run at it, not a detailed study. I think it was a very honest effort to get a rough estimate of the cost. We took the number of hospital patients discharged to points outside the region in which the hospital they were in was located and multiplied that by an average cost of transportation.

I was interested to read in the newspaper just today, I guess, where the member for Port Arthur was quoted as using an average cost factor that was even higher than the one we had used. If we had applied his cost figure, our estimates would have been even higher than those I have presented.

Mr. Hennessy: I find it difficult to believe that the minister would make a guess on such an important program as this. I think it is his responsibility as a minister of the government to document his facts and present them to the people. Then they would know what the true costs are going to be.

If he is going to guess, I can guess that it is going to snow tomorrow or that it is going to rain, but it does not mean it is true. With all due respect, I ask the minister for a documented report. The people of northwestern Ontario deserve to be told the truth about this matter. A guess is not sufficient as far as I am concerned.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If I were in a position to contemplate seriously undertaking major new expenditures to cover transportation costs other than those under emergency circumstances as part of the health care costs of this province, one of the first things I would do would be to commission a detailed study of the cost involved. However, I think it would be money unwisely spent since I already know roughly what the cost implications would be from the preliminary work that has been done.

The money is simply not available to undertake such a program. I am sure I would be criticized by the members of this House, particularly in the opposition, for expending government funds to do a study that might ultimately sit on the shelf until some time in the future when a program such as this might be seriously contemplated. I would be accused of wasting the taxpayers' money on studies that have no immediate application.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, as this has been a central issue in this Legislature and with his predecessors since at least 1967, I want to ask the minister to explain why the Ministry of Health has undertaken no such study. Can he tell us how he can decide what his priorities are in instituting programs when he has admitted today that he has done no study of the cost implications of such a program?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member is just playing games with words.

Mr. Foulds: The minister is the one who plays games with words.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think there is nothing wrong with "playing games with words." I do not think that is unparliamentary.

Mr. Foulds: Let us not play games with the issue.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member heard my answer the first time. I was being honest with him. I do not think any further response is necessary simply because he reiterated the question and changed the words around a little bit.

Mr. Foulds: The minister is not going to do the study because he decided he is not going to do the program, but he does not know whether he can do the program without a study.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I know full well from the preliminary work that has been done that the cost implications are such that I simply cannot seriously contemplate undertaking such a program at present. If the member were being really open with himself and with the people in northern Ontario, as well as with the people in this Legislature, he would admit he knows that as well.

3:30 p.m.

CASE AT METROPOLITAN GRACE HOSPITAL

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Has he been made aware of the case of 70-year-old Wilfred Bellehumeur, who entered Metropolitan Grace Hospital in Windsor on Monday, May 14, and who was strapped into his bed on Wednesday, May 16, because the staff were too busy to watch him wander. He died the following Sunday, May 20, of an aneurysm which, according to the coroner, had not been properly searched for by the hospital staff. If the minister has been informed of this case, has he taken steps to look into the procedures used?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of the case, although I hasten to point out that I am not aware of the conclusions stated by the honourable member in his question. I urge him to be very cautious about quoting conclusions if they have not been received directly from a person such as the coroner. If they are coming from other individuals, there is a possibility they might be somewhat biased by the perception of the individuals involved.

I am aware that there is a controversy over the circumstances. My information is that when the gentleman was placed in constraints -- for his own protection, according to the staff at the hospital -- it was done with the authority and under the direction of his physician. It was not done arbitrarily. It did not relate to anything such as staffing levels. The staffing levels at that hospital are substantially higher than is generally the case at such facilities; so it was not a question of shortage of staff.

I understand the gentleman had a tendency to wander. When the members of his family objected in the matter, the restraints were removed, at which time the gentleman began to wander further and at the doctor's request they were reimposed.

Mr. Newman: This man was admitted to the hospital complaining of stomach pains which, according to the coroner, would have revealed the aneurysm that ultimately caused his death had the proper investigative procedures been followed. Further, the man was actually strapped to his bed because the staff were too busy to watch over him.

Unless the minister agrees with that kind of treatment for a 70-year-old man, will he undertake to investigate this case and report back on the legitimacy of such procedures as were followed by the staff of this hospital in the case of Wilfred Bellehumeur?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think the first step would be for me to await a copy of the coroner's report. I must say that if the coroner has gone on record making statements such as have been quoted in the House this afternoon, I am not yet aware of that. I shall certainly undertake to review the coroner's report and at that point decide whether any further action is appropriate.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: When the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) asked his question of the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton), and when that was followed by a supplementary from the third party, I submit that our party should have had the opportunity to ask a supplementary. If that is the case --

Mr. Breaugh: You have to stand up to do it.

Mr. Wrye: He did stand up.

Mr. Van Horne: I will ignore the interjections.

The point is, if this issue is one of concern to all of us, and it certainly is to this party, we should have had the opportunity to make that point.

Mr. Speaker: I point out to the honourable member that supplementaries are asked at the discretion of the Speaker. Because time was running down -- I think we were at four minutes and 27 seconds -- I thought two supplementaries were adequate. I recognized the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman), who I am sure you will agree does not get as much opportunity to participate as some other members.

Generally speaking, you are absolutely right; I would have given you the opportunity had there been the time to do so.

Mr. Van Horne: For clarification, it was not a matter of whether we had the right to ask the question --

Mr. Speaker: No, you do not have the right.

Mr. Van Horne: Does a member not have a right to ask a question?

Mr. Speaker: As I said before, supplementaries are at the discretion of the Speaker. In that particular case, I felt two supplementaries were sufficient, given the amount of time that was left and to treat everybody as fairly as I could in spreading out the use of question period.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Perhaps I can seek some clarification from you. You indicated earlier that you wanted to follow a consistent pattern. It is my understanding that on occasions when members of the government party ask private members' questions, and you allow them one supplementary, it has been traditional in the three years and some months I have been in this place that each opposition party is given one supplementary. If you are now telling us that you are changing that rule, I would be interested to know that.

My understanding is that each opposition party has been given one opportunity to ask a supplementary on those issues. I simply want to know whether that is the rule or whether the rule is being changed.

Mr. Speaker: As you are aware, and I do not want to be stuffy about this, this matter is not covered specifically by the standing orders. It has been my practice in the past to recognize all members who wish to ask a supplementary. But given the fact that one of my responsibilities here is to protect the rights of the minority -- and, quite frankly, I see the back-benchers on all sides of the House perhaps as a minority -- I thought it only fair, given the amount of time left and having listened to two supplementaries that I felt adequately addressed the problem, to recognize another member with a new question.

I am not changing the tactics; it was a discretionary call. Given the time, I thought it was the fair thing to do.

PETITIONS

FAMILY BENEFITS ACT REGULATIONS

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 25 residents of Ontario concerning the

interpretation by the Ministry of Community and Social Services of regulation 424/82 under the Family Benefits Act.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We, the electors of Essex North riding, are aware that at least five provinces in Canada recognize the public service role of independent schools with various forms of financial grants. Why does Ontario not do the same? As taxpayers, we contribute to the education of all children, but the children at Lakeview Montessori School are not permitted to benefit from our taxes.

"We ask that you change this situation with recognition and funding for independent schools in Ontario."

It is signed by 50 people in Essex North.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 100 people.

"We, the undersigned, support the proposed legislation on the Women's Economic Equality Act and urge you to pass it into law."

This refers to Bill 15, a private member's public bill that was introduced on March 27, 1984, by the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and provides for equal pay for work of equal value and mandatory affirmative action.

I support his petition, which is addressed "To Bill Davis and the Conservative government." I take great pleasure in sending it across the floor to the Premier. Unfortunately, he has left the House for the moment, but he will find it on his desk when he returns.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Kolyn from the standing committee on administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Solicitor General be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Ministry administration program, $6,679,000; public safety program, $26,936,800; policing services program, $10,729,400; and Ontario Provincial Police program, $262,243,200.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McLean from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 54,

An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

3:40 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 88,

An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as earlier recommended to this House by the standing committee on public accounts, an amendment in this bill will clarify the right of the crown to charge and collect interest on overdue amounts owed to the crown. The amendment will apply where a particular statute or arrangement does not deal with the question of interest to be paid for late payment of a debt owed to the crown.

In addition, the bill proposes a number of housekeeping amendments to bring the act more in tune with modern financial business practices.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALDIMAND-NORFOLK AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Andrewes moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, seconded by Hon. Ms. Fish, first reading of Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk Act.

Motion agreed to.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Andrewes moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, seconded by Hon. Ms. Fish, first reading of Bill 90,

An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Andrewes moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, seconded by Hon. Ms. Fish, first reading of Bill 91,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing bills to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act, the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk Act and the District Municipality of Muskoka Act. Each of these bills provides for the restructuring of the municipal hydro utilities in their respective regions and districts. These bills provide for the functioning of municipal utilities on the same basis as restructuring carried out in 10 other regions and will complete the process that began in 1977.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. Newman moved, seconded by Mr. McGuigan, first reading of Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

NEW FARM IMPLEMENT BUYERS PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Boudria moved, seconded by Mr. McGuigan, first reading of Bill 92,

An Act to protect the Purchasers of New Farm Implements.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this bill would entitle the owner of a defective farm implement to obtain a refund of the purchase price during the warranty period as defined or, if the machine is less than two years old or has been driven for less than 800 hours, an equivalent farm implement in replacement.

Where a defective farm implement is out of service for repairs during the warranty period for three days or more and the manufacturer or dealer fails to supply the owner with a replacement unit, the manufacturer or dealer is responsible for any crop losses during that period.

This is a farm implement lemon law.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMENDMENTS TO LINE FENCES ACT

Mr. Sheppard, seconded by Mr. McLean, moved resolution 24:

That in the opinion of this House more equitable settlements are desirable when awards made under the Line Fences Act are appealed, and in order to effect such, this House supports amendments to the act that would replace the current appeal system with an independent appeals tribunal.

Mr. Speaker: Before you commence, I would like to remind the honourable member you have up to 20 minutes for your presentation and you may reserve any portion of that time for your windup.

Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Speaker, I will probably use 14 or 15 minutes and save some time for the end.

I am glad to have an opportunity to move this resolution, which, if acted on, will result in a more fair and flexible piece of legislation. Ontario has had legislation dealing with fences between properties for a very long time. In fact, we have had laws on that topic in this province since 1834, well before Confederation. From time to time, these laws have been changed to cope with new developments and changing times. I believe the Line Fences Act needs changing again. I understand it was amended substantially in 1874, 1913 and 1979.

The change I am proposing is not major, but it is one I feel we must make. I know it will be welcomed by many, particularly rural, Ontario residents. Not only have individual farmers demanded it, but the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario would also like to see changes. I believe this resolution provides the changes these organizations and the people they represent would like to see.

The Line Fences Act is a piece of legislation with which some members may not be familiar. Simply put, the act spells out the fence building and maintenance responsibilities of adjoining property owners. The history of the act is based on the principle that each neighbour should normally contribute equally to building and maintaining a fence along the property line.

3:50 p.m.

The act also realizes that there can be circumstances when one property owner should contribute more than half the cost, and the act provides for such circumstances. The way this is done is through the position of fence-viewer.

The position of fence-viewer is an old and well-established office here in Ontario. Fence-viewers were created in 1793 by the first provincial parliament of Upper Canada. Under the act, municipalities appoint people as fence-viewers. When two neighbours cannot decide exactly where a fence should go, or on the kind of fence that should be put up, or on splitting the cost, then the fence-viewers are called in.

When neighbours cannot come to agreement, one of them will register a complaint with the municipal clerk. Fence-viewers will then investigate the complaint and make an award. A fence-viewer can vary the costs of the award depending on factors, such as the suitability of the fence to the needs of the property owners, the nature of the terrain and the nature of local fences. I am sure that in urban areas costs are usually divided on a 50:50 basis, but in rural Ontario this might not always be the case.

A farmer who has to look after a fence running through bush or swamp land will obviously have higher costs and more problems than the farmer who has to build a fence on cleared land. Fence-viewers can therefore divide the costs so one person does not suffer too much of the cost burden. If one of the parties involved does not want to meet his or her share of the fence-viewer's ruling, then the municipality has the right to have the work done anyway and charge the property owner on his taxes.

Up to this point, I believe the system has worked fairly well. The act, however, does provide the right to appeal the fence-viewer's ruling if one of the property owners is not satisfied. The decision can be appealed in small claims court and I think this is where the problem begins.

Recently, completely lopsided rulings have been made by judges. I think this may not be due to anything more than a lack of knowledge of the principles behind the act and a lack of experience in dealing with such cases. It may also be due to a legal

interpretation of the act. Judges very seldom get a chance to judge an appeal under this act and can be forgiven if, in many cases, they are not aware of historical obligations, community expectations or the intent of the act and its administration.

I do not believe all judges in small claims court avoid the responsibilities of neighbours regarding fences. There are also instances where the joint responsibility of neighbours to maintain a fence has been recognized in court. I would like to quote briefly from a judgement made about two years ago which illustrates this point. The judgement followed an action brought by a cash crop farmer against his neighbour for damage to crops as a result of livestock getting through a fence and destroying some corn and soybeans.

The judge said: "The evidence is clear that a part of the fence through which the animals came is that which is required to be maintained either by agreement, or by a decision of some other authority or by the plaintiff himself."

The plaintiff, who was responsible for maintaining the

section of the fence through which the animals came, was suing because the animals came through the fence. He was alleging that the fence for which he was responsible was inadequate. The fact that one property owner has livestock and the other does not should not necessarily require that the livestock owner pay the entire amount of the costs of construction.

A judge cannot foresee that the property owner with no livestock might not go out the next year and buy some after a neighbour has put up and paid for the fence. The only fair way to deal with this situation is to ensure that more awards split costs evenly. Unfortunately some appeals have not gone that way. In fact, judges have ruled that 100 per cent of the cost should be paid by the property owner with livestock and that the land owner with no livestock should pay nothing.

This situation can only get worse as more and more judges come from urban backgrounds and as more city people buy farm land. We have a situation where people from urban centres buy farm land and move to the farm. However, if they do not keep livestock, many do not see the need to maintain their fences, and they therefore refuse to pay half the cost of maintaining or building fences.

I do not know if in such a case the cost should be exactly half and half between neighbours, but is it not just as clear that the legislation was never intended to force one property owner to bear the full cost of fencing? To a farmer this could mean a great deal of money. However, 100 per cent decisions have been made, and I believe the situation is serious enough to require a change in the legislation.

The municipalities, the farmers and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture have made the need for change known to both the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, which is responsible for the Line Fences Act.

I hope the members who will speak on this motion will be able to contribute to finding a solution to this problem. As my motion states, I believe the best solution would be to remove the appeals from the small claims court to an independent appeals tribunal. My reasons for this are simple, and I hope I will not take too much time to explain them.

There are essentially two ways of solving the problem. The first is to leave the appeals system the way it is but to change the act to specify that one property owner cannot be made to pay more than a specific percentage of the costs. In other words, this would establish a maximum-minimum cost-sharing system.

The second system is the one I am proposing: that is, an independent appeals tribunal. I think this is the best method for a number of reasons. We have to remember that this act applies to all of Ontario, both urban and rural; it applies equally to cattlemen in Grey county, to cash crop farmers in Essex county and to condominium owners in Toronto. Quite obviously, fencing problems can and do vary quite considerably from one part of the province to another.

There are also long-standing historical obligations and attitudes in different parts of the province. I have been told that in Grey county it has been basically understood that each neighbour will pay an equal share in building a fence but that in Niagara, for instance, the traditions are somewhat different. Because of these local expectations the court decision back in January regarding an appeal on the award in St. Vincent township made a very large impact on the rural community. To judge from the reaction, the decision went completely against local traditions and expectations.

Obviously there must be a fair degree of flexibility in the legislation. Until recently I believe the small claims courts were able to provide that flexibility quite well; they do not now. I also think that a few minimum-maximum cost specifications in the act would not provide the required flexibility; an independent appeals tribunal would. Such independent tribunals would retain the flexibility of making awards of different proportions as the case might require.

For example, if a farmer or a property owner brought in very exotic animals with special fencing needs, it might make sense to have that person pay almost the full share of the fencing. A tribunal would be able to assess that and make the appropriate decision. A minimum-maximum limit in the legislation simply could not encompass all the possible circumstances, while a tribunal could deal with each case separately.

There is another advantage to a tribunal. One option is to make the members of a tribunal local appointees. As such, they would be an appeal body beyond the fence-viewers, but they would also be people with a better understanding of their area. As such, they would be more aware of local practices than a judge. In that case the tribunal would be able to base its decisions on local history, traditions and expectations rather than on

interpretations of the meaning of the act.

4 p.m.

In short, a tribunal would be able to retain the flexibility that is certainly required under the act while at the same time meeting community needs and expectations.

The other option for a tribunal is to have just the one for the entire province. There are only about 20 appeals each year. A single tribunal could therefore be in a position to become expert on the topic, while local tribunals could find it more difficult. I understand there were approximately 54 appeals last year.

I also do not believe a tribunal will be more bureaucratic than a court or even more difficult to operate. I do not think appeals arise all that often, which is a tribute to the good work done by fence-viewers. On the other hand, the rulings regarding Grey county may well give rise to more appeals as some land owners realize they can get away with not paying for line fences.

I think that acting on this resolution will free up the judges and allow them to deal with matters they are more familiar with. In fact, I believe people will not only be more comfortable appearing before a tribunal than before a judge in court, but also that appeals might take place more quickly.

We all recognize that arguments over fencing can make for bad relationships between neighbours. The faster the problem gets resolved the easier it will become to patch up relationships. A tribunal should help in this case. I hope these considerations and views are taken into account when the decision to draft the amendment is made.

I would like to cover a few more areas that could be considered in such a bill and in its administration. In view of the important but relatively small number of cases, periodic training or information sessions should be held for local municipal staff and fence-viewers. One was held in the town of Cobourg about six weeks ago.

It has also been brought to my attention that there is some need to reword the appeal time period

section of the legislation to remove any doubt as to when the period ends.

Finally, it might be advisable to ensure the legislation states that the act is established on the basic principle that the cost of fencing should normally be shared equally among neighbouring property owners. After all, a line fence provides other benefits to both property owners than just fencing in cattle. A line fence benefits both by marking the property, hindering trespassing and increasing the valuation of the property.

Less than two weeks ago I was talking to the Honourable Bill Stewart who wrote to me. There are several members here who will remember his many contributions to agriculture during his term as minister. In his letter he expressed his interest in receiving a copy of today's Hansard on the topic. His views on the matter were straightforward. In closing this part of my remarks, I would like to read what he said.

"As long as I can remember, and in any experience I ever had on my own farms, each farmer was expected to maintain his half of the line fence unless there was a mutual consent, registered agreement in writing to the contrary."

I think that is what the act is all about, and that is something my resolution hopes to preserve. I would like to save a little time for later.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has three minutes and 55 seconds remaining.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution on the Line Fences Act. I congratulate the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) for his words in the Legislature to help get the minister to move on these amendments. I hope the government will see fit to bring in amendments to this act before long.

I want to point out that the principle of the Line Fences Act was that each farmer was to pay 50 per cent of the costs. I was in the House at the time amendments were made to the act in 1979. At no time was it ever stated or thought that a farmer would ever pay any less than 50 per cent of the costs. Amendments were made to allow less than 50 per cent of the cost in some cases, but those were not cases where farms were abutting; they were cases where farms might abut against a drive-in theatre or some urban situation.

I want to point out that at no time was it ever thought that one land owner would be exempted entirely, which happened in Grey county recently when an appeal went to the small claims court. Subsection 4(1) of the act, where it is talking about the fence-viewers, states: "...to view and arbitrate as to what portion of the fence each owner shall construct" and so on. It does not talk about one or the other; it talks about what part each owner shall construct.

I also want to point out the argument put up by the cash crop farmers that they do not need a fence. This to my mind is entirely untrue. If I were a cash crop farmer, I would not like to go away for a couple of weeks' holiday and come home to find that the neighbour's cows had spent a week in my corn.

One might say: "You could get that covered by insurance," but I do not know anybody who has ever won such an insurance claim. Although I might try to get my neighbour to pay for the full cost of that fence, there is no way, if he did not, that I would feel secure not having a fence there. I would certainly not mind even paying half the cost to make sure that when I leave home and come back, the neighbour's cows are not going to be in the corn.

I agree with this resolution as far as it has gone, and I know a recommendation has been made by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture that an independent tribunal should be set up instead of the judge at the small claims court. There is nothing wrong with that, but I feel there is an easier way to correct the situation, and that is to make a further amendment to the act.

The real problem is in clause 7(1)(

b) of the act where it states: "...unless the fence-viewers, in the circumstances of the case, consider an award in the terms of subclauses (

i) and (ii) to be unjust, in which case the fence-viewers may make such award in respect of the construction, reconstruction, repair or maintenance of the fence as they consider appropriate."

That is the problem right there, and that is where the judge has taken it and said he can decide what is appropriate. That again, I want to point out, was not meant to apply between two farmers; it was meant if a farmer came up against an industry, a drive-in theatre or the like.

I wrote to the minister on this matter on February 10, as I know many others have. I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) has received many requests for changes to this act to correct the problems we have had lately when cases go to the small claims court for appeal and the fence-viewers' decision has been overturned.

I will read a part of the letter I wrote to the minister, which may explain it as well as I can:

"The people in my area are quite upset about the small claims court decision pertaining to the Line Fences Act. Even though the fence-viewers awarded costs to be split 50:50 to the farmers, the judge on an appeal awarded all costs to one farmer.

"The Line Fences Act was to allow proper negotiations to take place between farmers to allow for orderly fence building and sharing of costs. The intent of the act over the past 100 years, even though it was revised in 1979, was that the sharing of costs of the fence between two farmers would be 50 per cent each.

"The amendments made to the act in 1979 allowed the fence-viewers to award a variation of cost between owners rather than the previous stipulation of 50 per cent. This variation in no way was to mean that the variation was to take place between two farmers. The variation from the 50:50 split in fence costs was in no way to interfere when two farmers were involved, whether they be beef farmers or cash crop farmers.

"I have had numerous inquiries about this judge's decision and requests that an amendment be made to the act so this cannot happen in future. I totally agree with the farmers who are upset with the decision and feel an amendment to the act should take place."

4:10 p.m.

As I mentioned before, I was in the House in 1979 and I remember meeting with the late Honourable James Auld on the amendments to the act at that time. Those were the days of minority government, when we had quite a bit of clout in regard to the legislation taking place.

The minister did not want the government lands to be included in the Line Fences Act at that time. He wanted the government lands to be exempt. There was no way we were going to allow this to happen and leave Natural Resources, the Niagara Escarpment land, etc., exempt from the act. I remember saying to the minister then that if they were going to compete with us or with the people of Ontario to buy land, they had to be responsible land owners and should be included in the act.

The minister could hardly do anything but agree, but the government put in subsection 23(3) of the act to protect itself:

"Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, an award made under

section 7 in respect of lands vested in the crown in right of Ontario shall not require the crown to be responsible for more than one half of the fence or to pay to the adjoining owner an amount exceeding 50 per cent of the cost of the fence."

All we need is another clause, the very same, to be added for the farmer. If the government can do this, so can the farmer. I recommend that we make an addition to

section 23 of subsection 23(4), which would read as follows:

"Notwithstanding any other provision in this act, an award made under

section 7 in respect of lands owned by two adjoining farmers shall not require the farmer to be responsible for more than one half of the fence or to pay to the adjoining owner an amount exceeding 50 per cent of the cost of the fence."

This seems like a reasonable amendment, since the same limitation has been put in the act to protect the government from paying more than 50 per cent. I hope the member for Northumberland will now push on with the rest of us to try to get the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to bring these necessary amendments into the House as soon as possible. I also hope he will include the one I have just suggested.

I feel that is all that is necessary. It would help bring the Line Fences Act back into line, as it has been for the last 100 years, so it will work properly in our country. Maybe good fences will make good neighbours, and good neighbours will make good fences.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this, not only because I am interested in agriculture but also because during my years as reeve of a municipality, I was involved in many cases regarding line fences.

I have to say immediately, though, I am somewhat disappointed that we have to deal with this legislation here today. If the honourable member feels as strongly as I know he does about this, and if it makes so much sense, I wonder why the government has not already moved on it.

The fact that this motion is here today is a justifiable criticism of the government of this province. We could be using this time. The member could have brought in a resolution to deal with red meat stabilization or the provision of capital finance for farmers, matters about which there is great concern and great need at present.

However, I do not want those remarks to be interpreted as meaning that I do not recognize the importance of line fences and adequate legislation to deal with them.

The member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) has stated that good fences make good neighbours. Of course, that expression has been in existence for many decades; anyone who was raised on a farm has heard it before. I also want to point out, though, that sometimes arriving at the decision as to who is going to pay for those good fences has caused, and does cause, neighbours to be enemies for the rest of their lives; so it is very important that we have adequate legislation.

That legislation needs to be changed from time to time. Certainly the situation and the circumstances surrounding line fences have changed dramatically from the time of my youth, both in the sense of the kind of fences, from many of the stump fences that existed at the time, and of the need for fences.

The acting Speaker, the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens), would not know, because he is too young, but there are some members of this House who know that back in those days all farmers needed fences because they all had a few cattle, a few hogs and a few sheep, and it was as important for them to have a line fence as it was for their neighbours to have a line fence. Now we have many cash croppers adjacent to cattle producers or milk producers, and at any given time one may not even care whether he has any fences while the other farmer may very desperately need those fences; so the situation has changed in that regard.

The situation has also changed with regard to the cost of fencing. I am given to understand that at present, if you are going to get a contractor to do it, it costs you about $3 a foot to have a good farm fence installed. This means that if a farmer has 160 acres and he wants to put a fence all around it, it is going to cost him about $30,000. That is no small sum of money, especially with the rather desperate financial plight in which many farmers find themselves at present. Even if they do the work themselves, there are costs to it. The actual out-of-pocket expenses will amount to maybe $15,000 to put in a couple of miles of fence; so it is no small matter.

The reason we have this debate at this time, as the member for Northumberland has stated, is that judges in small claims court have made decisions recently in which they have awarded all the costs of the fence to one of the farmers. The present legislation, as the member for Grey has mentioned, never anticipated that.

The principle that is set out in subclause 7(1)(b)(ii) is that there should be an equal division of the costs, and I think anybody reading it would agree with that. Then it goes on to say, "unless the fence-viewers, in the circumstances of the case, consider an award in the terms of subclause (

i) or (ii) to be unjust, in which case the fence-viewers may make such award in respect of the construction, reconstruction, repair or maintenance of the fence as they consider appropriate."

The trouble by and large has not been with the fence-viewers, who are members of the local municipality and are generally farmers themselves; the problem has been with the judges, who do not have the background that the fence-viewers have and who therefore make what I and obviously the mover of the motion consider to be some unjust decisions.

4:20 p.m.

To award all the costs of a fence to one side is grossly unfair. There is a benefit to both land owners in a line fence; there is no question about that. Although one of the land owners or farmers might not have any need for a fence at that time, his type of operation can change quickly. Perhaps two or three years later he will need a fence, and then he has a costly and good fence for which he has paid nothing.

Anyone would have to agree that good fences around a property and a line fence increase the value of that property. Therefore, if he is going to have an increase in the capital value of the property he owns, he should pay part of the cost.

As has already been mentioned, good fences prevent trespassers and so on. There is an advantage for both sides of a line fence. Granted, sometimes it may be more of an advantage for one land owner or farmer than to the other, but there is an advantage for both sides.

I believe a decision to assess no costs against one of the land owners has been and continues to be unfair where it has been done. The resolution we have before us provides for a tribunal instead of a judge. I support that. I think a local tribunal in particular will make a decision that is more in tune with the feelings of the agricultural community than a judge would.

I also understand that in some cases, when they go before the judge, one side will take a lawyer, sometimes a very expensive lawyer, and there are a lot of costs involved. If they take lawyers, they have been winning. Those who have not had lawyers sometimes have lost. Therefore, that means farmers on both sides are going to have to take expensive lawyers and add to the whole cost of the fence. I think a tribunal would be better on all counts.

I have to say, however, even after the explanation of the member for Northumberland, I am somewhat surprised that there is no minimum in the resolution with regard to what either land owner would have to pay, because if it is a provincial tribunal, and particularly if it is a tribunal composed of Conservative members appointed by the government, there is a danger of the same thing happening under that tribunal.

I would like to see something in legislation that would not permit all the costs to be awarded to one farmer. I would like to see that right in the legislation. I regret the honourable member does not have that in the resolution.

Those of us who are familiar with the resolutions and the policies of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture know it has taken a stand on this. It says no land owner should pay less than one third. Let me put it another way: No land owner should pay more than two thirds of the costs of the line fence. That is the policy of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and it is one I support.

I am also sorry that the member did not bring in his proposal in the form of a bill amending the act so we would not be passing something that is going to be totally ignored by the government. Let us bring in a bill and vote on it. He should call for a vote of his own members. Let us get it passed today. Why should we just pass a resolution of platitudes?

Having said that, because this is better than what we have at present and one cannot vote against the principle of it, I will support the resolution before us.

Mr. McLean: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of the bill -- the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has me talking about a bill, but it is a resolution introduced by my friend the member for Northumberland. The issue of line fences has been quite familiar to me from the time I have been running a dairy operation.

On the topic of line fences, I want to point out that about two years ago there was a decision in the Orillia small claims court on an appeal of a fence-viewer's award. As a result of that appeal, the judge ordered one of the property owners to pay the full cost of maintaining and replacing the entire length of fence.

At the time, the reaction was not as strong as has come out of Grey and Bruce counties, but that was largely due to the fact that one property owner had a dairy operation and the other property owner was not farming at all. In cases like this, there is no public objection to one property owner paying more for the line fence than his neighbour, but I doubt whether this legislation intended to allow such uneven awards.

I was not a member when the act was last amended, but it is important to look at the debate in 1979. As my colleague the member for Northumberland indicated, the recent decisions in small claims courts largely do not reflect the intent of the act passed by this Legislature in 1979. At that time, the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) pointed out that cash crop farmers and some feedlot and dairy operations did not need fencing but that overall the 50:50 principle was supported.

Given the wording of the current act, the court rulings are proper; but a quick look at the debates that took place in May and June of 1979 will show clearly what this House intended. On second reading of the bill, the parliamentary assistant, the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg), summarized the changes from the act then in force. He said:

"Firstly, a line fence will no longer be mandatory in every case but only when one adjoining owner wants one, in which case he may construct a fence on the boundary line. I would stress that if one owner wants a fence and the other does not, there shall be a fence."

As added proof of this assembly's intention, during the committee stage of the bill it was decided to remove the clause allowing fence-viewers to award the entire cost of the fence to one property owner.

Section 7 of the act allows viewers to award what they consider to be appropriate. At the committee stage as well, the member for Welland-Thorold moved a number of amendments that were accepted and are now part of the current act. The main thrust of some of his amendments was to establish more firmly the 50:50 split.

Throughout the debate, one point seemed to be accepted by most members. They could see situations where one neighbour could be expected to pay more than half. One example was of a cash crop farmer whose neighbour suddenly acquired livestock. While it was felt the livestock owner should perhaps pay more, nobody expected him to pay the whole cost. That is why some of the small claims court decisions have come as such a surprise.

Another problem arises when the entire cost of the fence has been covered by one owner. If a livestock owner has been required to pay 100 per cent and the cash crop owner pays nothing, we have to ask what happens if the cash crop farmer changes his operation to deal in livestock. If uneven awards continue to be given, there must be a way in which the livestock owner can recover part of his cost if his neighbour's land-use changes.

Before I go on, it would be helpful to look at the Orillia small claims court decision, because it makes valid points about the act. In that case the farmer had a dairy herd and the neighbour was not farming. In his decision, the judge made a few observations about the act that are worth repeating.

First, he made a short point about the relevance of the act in modern times: "Certainly, under certain circumstances, the Line Fences Act is a good statute and is a great help, but it obviously has its origin in a society which was chiefly rural and in agricultural use."

He then stated that one of the parties is obviously not involved in farming and continued: "The Line Fences Act does not address itself quite clearly to this situation. It tends to treat matters as if all fences were strictly for the division of agricultural use."

4:30 p.m.

In his judgement, he stated: "I make it a finding that the fence-viewers could have and should have made an award other than a 50:50 split of the fence, which is quite properly good custom and makes good sense between neighbours, should they both require the fence."

He went on to say: "I find all the evidence points to the fact that the Pelletts did not need a fence nor were they in any way involved in agriculture. This relieves them of any obligation under the Line Fences Act to provide a fence."

Finally, he said: "My own comment is that I am sorry the Line Fences Act is not clear on this basis. I believe the fence-viewers thought they were doing the right thing. None the less, I will have to set aside their award, and Mr. Davy can build whatever fence he wishes, but he is under no obligation from this decision to build any fence. It is his cattle he is concerned about, and he has the obligation to contain his cattle.

"I make one comment that the act obviously makes very good sense for active farmers to share the cost of the fence."

I believe the one thing we must do is clarify the act in this regard. I believe fences have other uses than just containing livestock, and many farmers will agree with me. Fences can keep out people as well as cattle, and all property owners benefit by having their property boundaries marked by a fence. We see a lot of fences in towns and cities, but no judge can make the argument that the fences are there to keep out cattle.

In making awards, and even on appeal, I feel the act should require the fence-viewers and the appeal body to consider all the various benefits that result from having a fence mark a boundary.

An independent appeals process has a great deal going for it. Whether it is a number of people or a single individual, the appeals body should be much better qualified to judge what benefits each property owner would receive from a line fence.

In

summary, I believe the act has worked well and the changes required are minimal. However, I do believe the change proposed by my colleague the member for Northumberland is a good one and deserves support.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak on resolution 24, brought in by the member for Northumberland.

As the former reeve of a municipality, as a regional councillor and as a farmer, I am pretty well informed on the need for fences for efficient farming. Fences make a farm look much neater. In the past 10 years, the tradition has been to clean out the old fence bottoms and fences because cattle are being maintained in feedlots, and the need for fences has not been that great. However, I believe the tradition is changing again now with the advent of more beef cattle and more cow-calf herds.

While the Line Fences Act was redesigned in 1978, the basic principle was to have a simple way of dealing with providing for fences between neighbours and farms. When it was revised, because farmers were going to large cash crop areas and feedlot management, perhaps the emphasis was not put on the right places.

Going back, they had a simple rule. Two farmers went to the centre of the line fence and faced each ot