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

May 16, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HARTT INQUIRY

CROWN LAND SALES

TEACHERS’ STRIKE

TOURISM

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

CHAIN STORE DISCOUNTS

HOSPITAL BUDGETS

MAPLE PARK PLAN

LAP SEAM BOILER INSPECTION

REFLECTORIZED LICENCE PLATES

BRONTE PROVINCIAL PARK

FARMING DATA BANK

LOCKOUT OF TEACHERS

PULP AND PAPER MILLS

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING BOARD

TEACHERS’ STRIKE

OHTB STAFF LIST

HARWICH LANDFILL SITE

WASTE DISPOSAL

JUVENILE COURT SYSTEM

OHTB STAFF LIST

PETITIONS

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD ANNUAL REPORT

TEACHERS’ STRIKE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

HIGHWAY TBAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HARTT INQUIRY

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House on some conclusions reached by the government as a result of the interim report and recommendations of the Royal Commission on Northern Development.

The ministries involved with this document have now had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Justice Hartt to clarify details of his recommendations. In addition, I have met with Mr. Justice Hartt to discuss the implications of certain recommendations and the direction and role he foresees for the commission in the future. We have also had the benefit of direct communications with representatives of Treaty 8 and Treaty 9 Indians, in which they express strong support for the work of Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt and the recommendations in his report.

As a result of these activities and with a view to moving forward with the commission’s studies of that part of the province lying north of the 50th parallel, it is timely to indicate our commitment to specific recommendations and the overall goals of the commission. It is the government’s view that this study can play an important role in the creative development of the north, consistent with the goals and ambitions of the people of northern Ontario and with the need to strike an appropriate balance between environmental concerns and a pattern of economic development of benefit to the entire province.

A central theme of the report is the necessity of addressing the disadvantaged position of native people. Thus, the government has no difficulty in supporting Mr. Justice Hartt’s outline of the tasks he sees the commission dealing with in the next stage of this study, which will sharpen the focus of the commission’s future activities.

First is the review and assessment of the West Patricia planning process by the commission, with the Ministry of Natural Resources’ proposals as the focal point of the review. Second is the commission’s input into the environmental assessment process surrounding the development of lignite deposits by Onakawana Development Limited. Third, I support the concept that northern residents should be more directly involved in the decision-making process of government. Whether this can best be achieved by a task force or by other mechanisms is a topic which the commission might wish to pursue further.

Now I would like to deal with those recommendations which relate to the future of northern Indian communities. The government would like to reaffirm its commitment to the recommendations by the commission for a tripartite process to be directed by a committee composed of ministerial level representatives of the federal and provincial governments and representatives of the chiefs of Ontario. As I noted in my previous statements, this process is under way and a tripartite council has already been set up.

With Mr. Justice Hartt, we see the need through this mechanism to explore on a broad scale, matters of concern to Indians, including the development of economic self-reliance and self-government in local matters. The government considers it of paramount importance that the three parties to this tripartite council give urgent attention to the necessity of determining such basic matters as jurisdiction and delivery of service. A tripartite working group is being set up to deal with these matters.

We believe that without closer collaboration, clarification of roles and responsibilities and reduction of interagency and intergovernmental duplication and conflict, no ultimate solution to the problems of native peoples is likely to develop.

In recent discussions with Mr. Justice Hartt, he has advised that in the resolution of some issues the tripartite process could be strengthened by the appointment of independent chairmen acceptable to all parties. These chairmen would be directed to mediate issues referred by the parties and to report to the tripartite ministerial council. We welcome and accept this elaboration of the original recommendation.

We accept Mr. Justice Hartt’s recommendation that the special problems of Whitedog and Grassy Narrows should be addressed by a task force working within the tripartite process. Last week the chiefs of these reserves presented their views and proposal to initiate this process at a meeting with senior government representatives.

Ontario will lend full support to this effort to implement social and economic development to rehabilitate these Indian communities. We agree to the appointment of an independent chairman for this particular task. In addition, factfinders have been appointed by the bands. We understand that this recommendation has the full support of the chiefs of Ontario. Indicative of Ontario’s willingness to assist in this area is the recently announced program to provide additional employment opportunities to residents of these two communities, access to mechanical wild rice harvesting equipment and production of plant food from a commercial fishing operation.

Careful consideration has been given to the recommendation that wild rice be set aside for a period of five years for the development of an economic base for the Indian people in northwestern Ontario. During this period, no new licences would be issued to non-Indians. Mr. Justice Hartt has explained that his recommendation is based on the premise that present markets are limited and future markets are uncertain. He believes that any expansion of wild rice production by non-Indian producers could jeopardize the Indians’ chance of success in developing wild rice as a viable industry. These premises require future testing.

In considering this recommendation we are aware of the concerns of non-Indians, non-status Indians and the Metis who have strongly indicated their wish to have greater access to wild rice harvesting areas.

Ontario has already agreed to deal with this complex and sensitive issue through the tripartite process, and the tripartite working group on wild rice is now being established. In order to support this approach and in the interest of arriving as quickly as possible at solutions satisfactory to all parties, Ontario puts forward the following five-year program:

1. In accordance with current policy, only Indian bands will be licensed to harvest wild rice in the Kenora and Dryden district for the coming 1978 season --

Mr. Foulds: It should be for five years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: 2. Outside the Kenora and Dryden district all 1977 licences will he renewed for 1978 and annually thereafter;

3. Effective immediately Ontario will extend its efforts to assist Indian licensees to develop appropriate technology and to increase utilization of the available crop with the primary objective of establishing an economic base for the involved Indian communities;

4. The tripartite working group on wild rice should give the highest priority to the determination of current and future markets for Ontario wild rice. The first report should be no later than January of 1979 --

Mr. McClellan: Is Leo on that? Are you on that, Leo?

Hon. Mr. Davis: 5. No additional licences will be issued to non-Indians during the next five years unless it can be demonstrated to the tripartite working group that market potential for Ontario wild rice is sufficient to support an increased share of production by non-Indians without jeopardizing our efforts to establish wild rice production as a viable economic base for the Indian people;

6. In keeping with the spirit of the Hartt Commission that all northerners should be involved in the determination of northern issues, we propose the tripartite working group on wild rice be expanded to include representation of the Ontario Wild Rice Producers Association and the Ontario Metis and Non-Status Indian Association.

CROWN LAND SALES

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on March 2, I informed the members that we would be permitting the sale of crown land for private recreational use and would shortly be working out the details. I am pleased to inform the Legislature today of the details of our revised cottage-lot program.

Essentially cottage lots, except remote cottage lots, will be made available for sale at market value in areas of the province where detailed lake plans have been completed by my ministry. To be eligible to purchase or lease a crown cottage lot during the first year following registration of a subdivision an applicant must be resident in Ontario either as a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant.

During the second year after registration other Canadian citizens or landed immigrants living outside the province, along with the residents of Ontario, are eligible to purchase or lease any cottage lots that remain ungranted in that subdivision. After the second year, non-Canadians become eligible to lease -- and I want to stress, for the benefit of those of my colleagues concerned about this point -- that in the case of non-Canadians we are only talking about leasing lots that remain ungranted to the third year.

Applicants must be at least 18 years of age.

Within two years of purchase, a cottage of at least 600 square feet and valued at no less than $7,500 must be constructed on the lot. Unqualified title will be given on completion of the improvements.

Present holders of cottage lot leases, other than holders of remote lots, will be given the option of purchasing their lots. Conversion to sale from lease will be at the appraised market value of the land at the time of conversion, based on a comparable unimproved lot.

Successful applicants for lots as they become available will be selected by either public auction, tender or draw in the 27 administrative districts of the Ministry of Natural Resources north of the French and Mattawa Rivers.

Understandably, Mr. Speaker, we have been deluged with requests for information since my earlier announcement. May I suggest to the members that, should they receive requests for information, they direct their constituents to the ministry’s district manager in the area of northern Ontario in which the interest has been expressed.

[2:15]

TEACHERS’ STRIKE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, members of the House will recall that last week I made a statement here about the Renfrew County Board of Education and its secondary school teachers dispute. I said I was sending both parties a telegram indicating what the position of the government was concerning their dispute.

I am happy to announce to the House that a resolution to that dispute has been arrived at and is awaiting ratification by both parties. We hope that within a few days the schools will be open in that jurisdiction.

TOURISM

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, on a brief point of privilege: I have a copy of a wire story filed by Canadian Press -- probably filed yesterday -- as a result of the comments made in the Legislature on a question asked of me by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) concerning a market study of a possible year-round tourist resort in northeastern Ontario.

The story is basically correct except for the last line which suggests that I had indicated that the government would be spending several millions of dollars on this project. It has at no time been suggested that the government would be spending money in this area, other than to participate in the study. Any investment made would be made by private developers who are interested in seeing if this area can be developed to provide that type of facility. But no commitment of any kind has been made, nor has there been any discussion of government spending in that particular area.

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: I am referring back now to the so-called audit report which the minister gave us some weeks ago. In his absence we have not been able to question him about that, and then other topics took precedence.

Since the matter that was tabled is only an interim audit, according to its own title, and is for the period covering June 1, 1976 to March 31, 1977, will the minister now table the final audit covering this period and any other audits and background papers developed by his ministry of the UTDC’s ICTS program? Specifically, will he table the minutes of the post audit review meeting? These minutes are mentioned here -- I quote from the bottom of page two: “Details of all items are recorded in the minutes of the post-audit review meeting.” Will he table those minutes so that we can make some sense of the document that he has given us?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to get all that information tabled for the honourable member in the next few days.

Mr. S. Smith: I appreciate that. By way of supplementary: Considering that the August 31, 1977 development and review agreement between the ministry and the UTDC concerning the ICTS program provides for extensive program and financial auditing of this undertaking -- I believe the ministry has already spent about $164,000 to monitor the UTDC program, among other things, last year -- would he be willing to share the non-proprietary information that he has received -- the progress reports and so on -- from the UTDC and from his own officials on site?

In other words the ministry spent about $164,000 monitoring and auditing the thing. Some of it is proprietary and we realize the minister can’t table that. Would he table the rest of it for us?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will ask what material is available of the type the honourable leader is asking for and get it for him as quickly as I possibly can -- anything that can be tabled without being damaging to the research and development project. I have no doubt I will.

CHAIN STORE DISCOUNTS

Mr. S. Smith: My question is of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I emphasize “and Food” so we get just a little past the producers.

Can the minister comment on the

article which was in the newspapers saying that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has revealed there is no illegality in the two per cent discounting practice of Loblaws? Is he able to confirm that

article and explain why it is in the press rather than announced in the House? And can he table the opinion on which that is based?

Hon. W. Newman: First and foremost, I was going to rise on a point of personal privilege today because it said that I said the same thing. I believe it’s a CP story which is not correct. The news media said they had been talking to the Attorney General and verbally he had indicated to them that there was nothing illegal.

Mr. Foulds: They are falling apart.

Mr. Renwick: That’s not worth anything.

Hon. W. Newman: I said that he would be making a full statement on the matter in the House. I have been in touch with his office. I don’t think he will make question period today, but I am very optimistic that he will be making a statement on the matter very shortly. As I indicated in the House before, he will be making a full statement on it.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, will the minister do his best to get the legal opinion tabled? Since my questions of last week and before that concerning Intersave, has the minister bothered to call Loblaws or to have someone in his ministry call Loblaws to find out why they would engage in this apparently strange practice of paying invoices at a full price and then having a kickback returned by the supplier to some wholly-owned subsidiary corporation with which the supplier has nothing else to do? Has he asked Loblaws why they do that and has he satisfied himself as to what their motivation is in this regard?

Hon. W. Newman: Intersave is a subsidiary of the Loblaw company which is a subsidiary of the Weston chain. Their people have been talking to our people about it and at this point in time they are convinced what they are doing are bookkeeping entries. As the member knows, the producer, as I have said many times in this House before, is not affected. The consumer knows what he is paying for his final price.

Ms. Gigantes: Too much.

Mr. MacDonald: He is paying more.

Hon. W. Newman: We have checked out Intersave, yes.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary and pursuing this matter that has been raised on numerous occasions, whether or not the Attorney General determines that this was an illegal action, and in view of the fact that the minister has stated he disapproves of this action very thoroughly, what action has he taken or will he take to see that the farmers are reimbursed this two per cent discount which was deducted or which they had to pay back to Loblaws and the other chain companies?

Hon. W. Newman: I did not say that. I hope the member will check Hansard out a little more carefully and see what I did say. If there was a two per cent discount, it was by the broker or the dealer and it was not reflected upon the producer. All of our marketing boards in the province of Ontario are involved in price setting, which excludes them from the Combines Investigation Act under our Farm Products Marketing Act and under our Ontario Milk Commission legislation. They are excluded. As far as the producers are concerned, they know what they are getting paid by negotiated price, formula pricing or in some cases a two-price system and a blended return.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I am still trying to find out from the minister if he can explain whether he has satisfied himself in his own mind about this. Can he explain why a company would wish to do business in this apparently odd way? Instead of simply negotiating a price, however low or high it may be, and paying that price, why would they deliberately pay more than the price which has allegedly according to the minister been agreed upon, although he just said the producer knows the price? He didn’t say he agreed to it.

In any event, why would they pay more than that price and then demand a rebate or a kickback to some subsidiary corporation? Is that not an unusual business practice? Can the minister explain to us why they would engage in that particular odd form of business practice?

Hon. W. Newman: Various companies do business in different ways.

Mr. Warner: The old free enterprise system really works well.

Hon. W. Newman: They are entitled to normal negotiations. If the member wanted to go out and buy a new car, he might go to several dealers to try to get the best deal he can.

Mr. Breithaupt: And send three per cent back and forth?

Hon. W. Newman: Or I as a farmer may want to go out and buy fertilizer for my farm in bulk.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Those members don’t have to -- they have all they need.

Hon. W. Newman: Or buy it from the member.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: Then deliberately overpay and have them send the difference to my brother?

Hon. W. Newman: If the member will listen to what I was going to say about fertilizer.

Mr. Ruston: That isn’t what you always call it.

Hon. W. Newman: Those of you in the House who are farmers will understand what I’m talking about.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: You bet your boots.

Hon. W. Newman: I will go out and get a discount if I buy my fertilizer early. It may be that down the road the price of fertilizer may be reduced and because of that I get a rebate back from the company I’m dealing with when I buy my fertilizer. I go out to make the best deal possible and buy as much as I can at one time to get the best deal possible. Really, that’s good business practice as far as I’m concerned.

Mr. S. Smith: Rebates have nothing to do with the price going down.

Hon. W. Newman: Oh, yes, we’re talking about the situation. Another matter was raised, and I’m sure the member is going to bring it up so I’ll bring it up myself.

Mr. Breithaupt: How honourable of you.

Mr. Kerrio: After you saw the question.

Hon. W. Newman: It’s pertaining to this. The member asked me about this yesterday. There were certain allegations made in a speech by Mr. Peter Hannam, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I have read it over very carefully. I find there are no specific instances of it. Our cabinet has met and the member’s caucus met just recently with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and that matter was not brought up before cabinet.

We’re looking for specifics. I’m quite prepared to make a full statement on this matter on Thursday of this week, so that the members will have all the facts before them and they will fully understand it.

HOSPITAL BUDGETS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I want to pose to the Minister of Health arising out of the Ontario Hospital Association’s statement of principles on hospital reimbursement which was issued today.

Is the minister aware of the feeling among hospital administrators which was reflected to the OHA when it canvassed their opinions on the way in which the ministry was dealing with the hospitals? Can he comment on the decision of the hospitals where they state that if funds are inadequate they will either cease availability of services to their communities, reduce quality of care, or limit the quantity of elective services to be provided?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the survey which was done covered less than 10 per cent of hospital administrators in the province. It was a rather selective list.

Mr. di Santo: So what?

Mr. Breaugh: Another Jackson. Are you going to do another Jackson number on us?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I’m not. I’m just commenting on the portion of the Globe and Mail

article this morning that made certain comments about some of my staff in the Ministry of Health. I would consider those comments to fall into a rather questionable category. I think this Mr. Lynch of the OHA should resign.

Mr. Warner: We think you should resign.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I had delivered to me just an hour ago, a letter from the executive director of the Ontario Hospital Association indicating that they had today approved a statement of six principles of reimbursement, which will form the body of discussions between myself and senior representatives of the ministry with the president, senior staff and members of the board of the Ontario Hospital Association. As far as the other comments are concerned, I think, frankly, they should be taken rather lightly.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that the comments I quoted to him just now in the House were not just the comments of 10 per cent of the hospital administrators across the province? I might say he is casting some doubts on the credibility of the hospital association which I find rather difficult to take when he makes that kind of comment.

Is he aware that this is, in fact, a statement of policy which has now been adopted by the Ontario Hospital Association’s board meeting today, and when they talk about reducing elective services, what they are suggesting is that the ministry issue guidelines as to which elective services will not be provided? Can the minister say what kind of elective services will be cut back, or what kind of services will be reduced, or where quality of care will be undercut as a result of the hospital association’s statement of principles in relation with the ministry?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Unlike the honourable member opposite, I do not formulate the ministry policy within an hour of receiving a document. This arrived on my desk only an hour ago. It will form the basis of discussions between the ministry and the OHA.

It’s rather interesting that the honourable member tries to portray himself as a defender of the OHA. I’ve never known him to do that before. It’s rather interesting.

I’m certainly not trying to attack the OHA. There is a very good relationship between myself, the ministry and the OHA.

Mr. Rotenberg: The minister is flexible.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It is getting to the member for Ottawa Centre.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It’s a very open one. Where we disagree, it’s an honest disagreement, but we are able to work out a great many of the problems facing the health care system.

I think what this reflects -- without commenting in any way as to the viability or otherwise of any one of the six points -- what is reflected is the recognition on both parts -- the ministry and the OHA -- that the healthcare system is in transition --

Mr. Swart: Out of transition.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that we’re going to have to continue the de-emphasis on the institutional sector, and that there are going to have to be adjustments all over the province in what we have known as the traditional form of institutional care. This is not something that is new in our discussions. This document is new and, hopefully, it will assist all of us in formulating even more policies to deal with the transition of the system in the years ahead.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary.

Mr. Laughren: What is the Liberal position?

Mr. S. Smith: Could the minister comment on the final point, and that’s the document which he was sent -- I assume it’s the same one that I have seen -- in which they say that if there is not enough money to cover their costs, that hospitals have, as one of their options, the option of curtailing the availability of services to individuals? What does the association mean by that, in the minister’s view, and how does the minister react to that particular option?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It’s not clear, Mr. Speaker. Again, this is why there is going to be further discussion. I’m not sure whether they’re talking about reducing the number of beds in areas of the province which are over-bedded, or whether they’re talking about reducing certain services in any given range. It’s quite unclear at this point and, since it arrived only an hour ago, I’m not going to make any assumptions about it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: One final supplementary from the member for Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to pursue the matter of the relationship between the OHA and the ministry which seems to have deteriorated rather badly, according to the Globe and Mail reports this morning; and the minister’s comments this afternoon aren’t going to help things a lot either.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member would hope that.

Mr. Breaugh: Don’t impute my motives. I certainly wouldn’t hope that. I would hope that they would work it out.

Mr. McClellan: The minister wants the guy to resign.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the member place his question?

Mr. Breaugh: If the Speaker can control the interjections, I can place the question.

The remarkable thing is that in the final option -- and I want to know whether the minister agrees with this or not -- has he really cut it to the bone, because this is the first instance where he is not talking about reducing duplication or providing alternative sources of servicing? The three alternatives put forward in the sixth recommendation by the OHA talks, for the first time, about a reduction in services available. Is that acceptable to his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What we have tried to emphasize to the hospitals, particularly this year when we sent out the budget letters in February, is that there are certain areas where we do not find it acceptable to reduce service, one being chronic, another being psychiatric services, and a third being outpatient services.

We recognize -- and this is really what was called for by the OHA when I met with them at their convention in November -- that it can’t be a matter of the government just leaving it to the hospitals to take responsibility for this because we’re in this together, and there are going to have to be adjustments in the system right across the province. I mentioned one example, in certain areas which are over-bedded, there will undoubtedly have to be some beds closed in the years ahead and duplications eliminated, and that sort of thing. I don’t think it has to come to eliminating services, it’s a question of how you provide the services in a most economical and most reasonable fashion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre with his second question.

MAPLE PARK PLAN

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Premier, which arises out of the fact that we understand that the cabinet will be considering the appeal of the OMB decision related to the amusement park in Maple, the theme park in Maple.

In view of the fact that satisfactory answers have still not been provided to the concerns raised about that theme park and, in particular, that it will reduce traffic on Highway 400 to a stop-and-go situation where there will be almost complete congestion within a few years; in view of the loss of farm land involved; and in view of the effect on sewage and water systems in that area -- the central York servicing area -- will the Premier make a commitment that there will be an environmental assessment on this particular project, in which all of those concerns may be looked at and in which the value of public investment that may be required can be related to the dollars per job created, if the government feels that the project should go ahead?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there’s any point in misleading the honourable member --

Mr. Breaugh: Otherwise you would do it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that the government will be considering an environmental assessment. There has been a decision by the Ontario Municipal Board; there is an appeal before cabinet and cabinet will deal with it. I really can’t help the member much more than that at this moment.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the Premier comment then on the suggestions that have been made by planners within the government who have suggested that the cost of resolving some of the problems which are related to transportation in particular could amount to more than $100 million -- or more than $400,000 per fulltime job that will be created at that theme park? Is that the way in which the government intends to carry out the protection of the environment and is that an adequate and affordable means of creating employment in the province?

Mr. Wildman: Another Minaki.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member with a supplementary question asks whether this is another Minaki. His party ran into a lot of grief with its position on Minaki.

An hon. member: It wasn’t a supplementary. It was a comment.

Mr. Warner: They just took away your liquor licence.

Mr. Breaugh: It was funny.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I, personally, have not, as some of the members opposite and others have, prejudged what the decision of cabinet will be because that is not my way of treating appeals before cabinet. I have learned a little in my experience that there are planners who can present points of view that on occasion are in rather direct conflict. As I recall some of the history of this project, it does have the support of the local municipality and there are some members opposite who on occasion do suggest that the local municipality should have some say. It seems to have passed their scrutiny.

Mr. McClellan: Why are you so down on environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Davis: While I know people can belittle a project of this nature, I can tell the honourable member from some limited experience that debates of this nature were held when Disneyland, or whatever it is in the state of Florida, was being located. If the honourable member doesn’t think that that is something of an economic asset to that community -- his former leader I think has even been there; I confess to having been there -- it is a great economic plus.

Mr. Foulds: That is Disney World.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think we can afford the luxury in this province of automatically saying no to a project of this nature.

Mr. Warner: There is no swamp in Maple.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If there is an environmental problem, it would lie, in my view, in an area that can be solved in terms of the provision of services. As to the suggestion that it will require $100 million; as a non-planner, a non-expert, one who knows very little about what might be involved, I would hazard a guess that this figure is totally out of line. I can recall a debate in this House -- the member for York South and others will recall it, and I happened to be opposed to it at the time -- Sherway centre, or whatever it is out at the junction of Highway 27 and the Queen Elizabeth Way. I remember it well.

Mr. Nixon: That was a great power struggle in cabinet. That was decided behind closed doors. Bud Gregory was calling the shots and he wasn’t even a member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The planners there were predicting -- and this goes back 10 years -- that the traffic tie-up at the junction of 27 and the Queen Elizabeth Way would be horrendous. I drive by there twice a day -- probably more than almost any member of this House -- and those predictions 10 years later have not come to fruition.

Mr. Cassidy: After the expenditure of $60 million.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will make a prediction for the honourable member and I am not, as I say, prejudging this --

Mr. McClellan: Sure, $60 million later, it is fine.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I expect I will read in the Globe and Mail tomorrow by the noted columnist, who has already taken something of a position on this issue, that I have made up my mind; but I haven’t. However, I would like to see it in this province -- I make no bones about it. I think it will be a great addition to the economy and the tourist attractions located in Ontario. My guess is that if it is approved some of the dire predictions of the members opposite will never materialize. However, I have not made up my mind.

Mr. Deans: Thank heavens you haven’t made up your mind.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Premier has indicated that he believes the figures which have been put forward are subject to dispute, would the Premier at least undertake, before arriving at a decision in this matter, to ascertain whether or not those figures are correct? The Premier has said he believes in local autonomy, to which I am dedicated. However, I believe that if there are expenditures by the province relating to a project we have a responsibility. Would the Premier at least undertake to ascertain the accuracy of those prognostications --

Mr. McClellan: Before you make up your mind.

Mrs. Campbell: -- and share them with this House before coming to a decision?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I find the question intriguing and I am delighted to hear from the member for St. George once again reassert her total commitment to local autonomy, which is sometimes contradictory coming from the party opposite. But, anyway, I accept her statement --

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say from the party, I don’t say you personally. Don’t take it so personally, Margaret.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really can’t undertake to the honourable member to come back here to this House with my assessment of the prognosis of certain planners.

Mr. McClellan: You have already made your decision.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Firstly, as I define the word prognosis, it could be an estimate, a guesstimate, an idea, a judgement. I cannot come back here with figures that are necessarily going to support or destroy or alter what some people have suggested.

Mr. McClellan: You have already made the decision.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Really, what you are asking me to do is become a planner overnight. I cannot do that for you, so I can’t make that sort of commitment.

Mrs. Campbell: But you will be basing your decision on something.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The only commitment I can give to the members of this House --

Mr. S. Smith: You’ve got to make a decision based on something. Why don’t you share it with us?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition we will make a decision based on the best judgement of the collective wisdom of those men and women who share the responsibilities of serving on the Executive Council of this province as we have done so ably on these matters before over so many periods of time.

Mr. S. Smith: And the cost; you are ignoring the cost as usual.

Mr. Peterson: Will you show us your dice?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you in favour of it or against it?

Mr. Conway: Give John White a call.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary to the Premier regarding the theme park: Does he recall the regional planning branch recommended against an exemption for this project from the land transfer tax amounting in value to $146,950 on the grounds that it was not a suitable location for the development? If there is this kind of money riding on the exemption, is it not a reason for having the most thorough environmental inquiry as to the reasons the regional planning branch made that recommendation against the exemption?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted to see some members opposite are taking the regional planning branch not only seriously but are in support of what is a point of view.

Mr. Cassidy: You killed it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t participate in the discussion here the other day, but I listened attentively and I have read it since. Certainly the party opposite can have no position on this issue at all because the regional planning branch was somewhat involved in the development of the Niagara Escarpment proposal which most members across the House have rejected as being an environmental concern to the public of this province.

Mr. Swart: What about all your members?

Mr. Warner: Tell your cabinet ministers.

Mr. McClellan: What about McCague?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s just an aside.

Mr. Kerrio: What are you talking about, Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We’re talking about a deferral; we’re talking about a possible deferral. We’re talking about the location of something that will be in the interests of the economy and the people of this province. I am not going to get into a debate as to whether the regional planning people are right in their assessment or wrong. One thing I hope members opposite are beginning to understand, the planners from our standpoint in government are there to advise us. When it comes to making a decision it will be made by the elected people in this Legislature, and that’s just what we will do --

Mr. S. Smith: Will you find out what the cost is?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I don’t know what the decision will be.

Mr. Germa: Oh, no.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m delighted to see there’s such an interest.

LAP SEAM BOILER INSPECTION

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Considering the fact that all of the clubs and associations operating steam shows in the province of Ontario rely on the use of steam traction engines for their demonstrations and displays, has the minister given consideration to my request and to the request of other members on both sides of this House to extend the current inspection procedure for another year for lap seam boilers in order that the owners of these traction engines may apply for funding from Wintario to x-ray the boilers to ensure the safety of the general public?

[2:45]

Mr. Bradley: I’m glad you asked that question.

Mr. Kerrio: We are going to see if there is a Tory inside.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have taken this up with our ministry and we have continuing concern with regard to these devices. However, it’s clear that the time has come to draw the bottom line on the situation. With that in mind, we’ve arranged to permit their use this coming year, subject to the ordinary tests being conducted, on the understanding that this is the last year of the extension and on the understanding that applications are going to be made for Wintario grants to fund the required x-ray tests.

As well, I should put members of those associations on notice that we are considering an amendment to the regulations to the Boiler and Pressure Vessels Act to permit registered associations and clubs to be responsible for the safety of the boilers owned and operated by their members. That is, in view of the situation, we’re asking the clubs to take some responsibility for the continuing safety of those devices.

In the interim, we will permit a one-year extension, subject to the ordinary hydrostatic tests being conducted and on the understanding that the x-rays will have to be conducted this year or there will be no further extension.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Supplementary: In view of the fact that x-rays have been done and have shown no defects on many of the boilers, would the minister not consider hydrostatic cold water tests one and a half times the pressure of the normal operating pressure an adequate safety test as far as these particular boilers are concerned?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. Obviously, our mandate is the protection of the public and admittedly we want to be extra careful lest one of these machines, by virtue of the operator’s negligence or by virtue of some problem in the machines themselves, blows up and explodes at a county fair, for example.

Mr. Wildman: Have you ever been to a county fair?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On balance, we are opting, admittedly, to follow the extra safe route. At the conclusion perhaps of the whole series of x-rays, which I hope would be conducted over the coming year, then it might be time to look at what the x-rays have shown and make some assessment with regard to the effectiveness of the hydrostatic and other tests the member has referred to.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: Is the minister saying that even after the conclusion of those x-ray tests there will still not necessarily be any certification of these boilers and that these owners may go through this process of x-raying to find it all for naught at the end?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. What we are saying is that we’re requiring the x-ray tests and that at the conclusion of those tests we will then be able to assess the results and say that the x-rays will not be required for a period of years, whatever that might be. Until we have those results we couldn’t make that judgement. I can give a quite easy assurance that we aren’t going to require x-rays to be done every year, for example. Until we’ve had the whole set, we don’t want to make a definitive judgement as to how many years would be permitted.

Mr. Conway: Give him an OHIP number.

REFLECTORIZED LICENCE PLATES

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. As the minister in a formal statement before the Legislature on Friday, November 19, 1976, expressed his recognition of the safety factor with reflectorized licence plates, is he prepared at this time to tell us just exactly when he intends to implement the program that was supposed to have started in 1977?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We’re still planning on proceeding with the implementation of a program of reflectorized licence plates. I can’t give the honourable member a specific date at this moment as to when they will be available. They’ll be phased in gradually. One of the problems with the program is the added cost factor in our very restrained budget at this time.

BRONTE PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Natural Resources: Could the minister inform the House whether or not he is aware of rather serious allegations concerning Bronte Provincial Park and the management and possible misuse of public funds at the park? Is there an investigation currently under way? Are the auditors checking the financial affairs of the park and its management at this time?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The answer to the first part, Mr. Speaker, is, yes, I’m aware of the allegations. We received anonymous letters, as I assume the honourable member and other members did. Although I would have rather had letters signed by people whose names were available for cross-checking, these letters were the basis for certain investigations in the park. I understand that staff changes are contemplated and either have been done or will be done.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: In view of the fact that some of the allegations were in fair detail, when will we know the results and will any prosecutions result?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member has made an assumption that all the allegations were accurate.

Ms. Gigantes: Are you firing innocent people?

Mr. Deans: No. He asked, will any prosecutions result? If they were inaccurate, the answer is no.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I don’t know that they were accurate; in fact, I suspect there were some extensions of fact in them. I understand that disciplinary measures are all that was contemplated rather than any measures before the courts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Revenue has a reply to a question asked previously.

FARMING DATA BANK

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 12, the member for Huron-Middlesex asked me a question concerning my ministry’s assessment division data bank on farm properties.

As I have said, this data bank is definitely not being scuttled. However, a new assessment data system is in the process of being created which merges this data bank with the standard assessment system. As I am sure many members are aware, the standard assessment system is the basis for producing assessment rolls, voters’ lists and school support lists for the use of the municipalities and school boards.

The new merged system will be more efficient than running two systems independently. As a result, there will be some reduction in file size through the removal of duplicated data and data of only uncertain usefulness.

The honourable member referred to data received by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in September 1977 and expressed his concern that this service would be discontinued. I would like to say that it has always been our intention to include these data in the new merged system, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will have access to the data on the same basis as it has in prior years. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture and Food wrote me last week requesting this information again.

So, quite the contrary to the member’s suggestion, there will be better service than ever before and the substantial interest of the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the honourable member opposite will be well served.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: Has the branch of the ministry that is responsible for this data bank processing been reduced in size or is it still carrying out this very important function with the same number of people?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: To my knowledge, there has been no reduction in staff in that particular area. It’s just within the assessment division. There will be a reduction in staff in the field operations branch of the assessment division but not in the area where this information is being produced.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are a number of members carrying on private conversations and it’s very difficult to hear the questions and answers.

LOCKOUT OF TEACHERS

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. Recognizing that the Wentworth County Board of Education teachers’ dispute has deteriorated to the point now that the board has found it necessary to obtain court orders to effect search and seizure in the homes of the teachers to obtain the marks and exam papers, would the minister not agree that this particular situation has reached the point where a negotiated settlement between the two parties is virtually impossible?

Mr. Laughren: What are you suggesting, Eric?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it may or may not be impossible for them to reach a negotiated settlement but, as I indicated in the House last week and in my statement concerning the Renfrew matter, which, incidentally, I sent also to the Wentworth board and its secondary school teachers, there are in Bill 100 provisions that allow for other resolutions of the matter. They’re laid out there. If both sides can’t negotiate a settlement or a new contract, under the terms of Bill 100 they can proceed to arbitration or final offer selection.

Therefore, they can bring the dispute to some kind of resolution on their own volition. I suggest to the parties that is perhaps the avenue they should follow if they can’t negotiate a settlement.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree that the complete reticence on the part of the board to involve itself in the avenues he refers to has caused an impasse in these negotiations and has placed the education of the children and the students in the county in total jeopardy at this point in time?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m not in a position to say whether certain actions on either side have made negotiations impossible or have affected the outcome, or indeed that the students’ program is in jeopardy at this time. I have no word from the Education Relations Commission in the form of any communication that the students’ program is in jeopardy or could be in jeopardy because of the dispute that’s going on in that area.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Given that much of what was said by my colleague is true; that the board simply refuses to negotiate any further and puts obstacles in the way of any sensible proposals being put to it, has the minister given consideration to personally involving himself in this dispute and inviting the Wentworth board and its representatives to come into Queen’s Park and sit down and explain why it is they refuse to use any of the avenues provided for them in the education bill, why it is that they refuse to negotiate, and how in the name of heaven they expect to reach a settlement if they won’t take advantage of any of the proposals that are available to be used.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think that all the members of this House recall that when we passed Bill 100 we set up a body called the Education Relations Commission to carry out that very function.

Mr. Deans: I understand that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There are on the commission, and on its staff, people who are much more skilled in this particular endeavour than I am.

Mr. Deans: But you are the minister.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are the member.

Mr. Deans: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I suggest they are the people who can perform the service the member has asked for and they are doing that. If they’re not doing it at this minute, they stand ready to do it when they think the appropriate time has come.

Mr. Deans: That board is impossible, and the minister knows it.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary: May I ask the minister at what point he would regard the school year to be in jeopardy?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can’t answer that question. That question doesn’t have an answer that could be a definitive one that I could answer, or that even my friend could answer.

PULP AND PAPER MILLS

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources with regard to a comment he made this afternoon during the course of his press conference at 1:30, when he released the ministry discussion paper, The Ontario Pulp and Paper Industry -- Status and Outlook. He indicated in response to a press question that he thought the mills were not in bad shape -- he used the word “optimistic” -- but he did indicate that there might be one or two or three mills that would be shut down in the province. Could he indicate to us which mills those might be, if he has the information?

Does he not think it would be worthwhile communicating that to the workers involved so that the rationalization of the work force can take place smoothly?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It isn’t as if I had two or three specific names of mills that in the future would not be economically viable operations and could say this town or that mill or this mill. I was asked did I think they would all be updated. The answer was “I suspect not,” because there may be two or three mills in the province that will be phased out with time rather than renovated, simply because two or three are getting older and the investment in them might not be justified. These, however, could be places or locations where a totally new mill may be put in place and, therefore, we haven’t reached a point where a closure and loss of employment are automatic.

[3:00]

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Could the minister share with the House any data he has not yet revealed to the public on which he bases this suspicion or assumption; and can he assure us that he, along with the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Rhodes) and the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), will work to replace those facilities, where it is proven viable, in order to maintain jobs in that industry?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The whole purpose of today’s presentation was simply to give members and other people in the province an idea of the state of the industry, as the member knows. I came away encouraged by the state of the industry, although most of the discussion, naturally, centered on its problem. That is normal, as far as I can see.

I can’t give out the data on specific mills because a precondition of the release of the information by companies to our consultants was that the specific corporate data would be kept confidential since it was the kind of thing we normally would not have access to, and since it was also the kind of information which would give competitors a real edge if that information were available. So we promised that data on specific mills would not be released in the future.

We can talk about the generalities and we will, I’m sure, be working with my colleagues in other ministries to see that marginal mills are helped in any way within my authority and their authority.

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING BOARD

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Food has an answer to a question previously asked.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question from the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) that I table the minutes of the Farm Products Marketing Board, may I remind members that I instructed the board in February of 1977 to be more open with its decisions.

I specifically instructed the board to open its appeal hearings to the public. Notice of these meetings on issues of public concern are now given to the press gallery and I understand several reporters have attended these hearings. Minutes of the decisions of these hearings are available for public review at the board office.

However, Mr Speaker, I will not offer to table the minutes of the regular board meeting where the business of the Farm Products Marketing Board is conducted. Some of this business of the board recorded in these minutes concerns the licensing of private companies, dealers and processors who handle some of Ontario’s 44 farm products. The minutes record the review of ratios indicating the financial worth of these private companies. This data is presented with an application for licence as confidential information supplied by the company.

The board minutes also record meetings of the 21 commodity boards to discuss proposed policies and marketing strategies. Public disclosure, resulting in knowledge of these developing programs by international competitors would place the commodity boards at a real disadvantage in marketing the growers’ commodities; surely the member from Kitchener cannot want this.

Moreover, all of the minutes of the 21 commodity boards are held by the Farm Products Marketing Board. I cannot offer to table these minutes. They are minutes of producer-elected boards and are private and confidential. The local marketing boards are required by law to report minutes to the Farm Products Marketing Board. This allows the board to supervise the commodity board, as required by the act.

If you want these minutes you must ask the commodity boards. I cannot offer you the minutes of these commodity boards. I repeat that the issues before the Farm Products Marketing Board -- I might also add here and of the Ontario Milk Commission -- are discussed in public meetings. The decisions and minutes of these meetings are already open and available at the board office.

Mr. S. Smith: Since the minister himself feels that he is unable to table the minutes from the year 1977, can he give this House a personal guarantee that at no time during the year 1977 -- and I speak specifically of July, but the question is asked generally -- was any reference made at the Farm Products Marketing Board to the possible existence of the discounting or kickback or rebate practice that has been referred to in this House?

Can he, in fact, guarantee that he has examined the minutes personally, has spoken to the chairman of the Farm Products Marketing Board; and can he guarantee to this House that there was not reference made as far back as July of 1977 to the discounting or rebate practice?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. S. Smith: Yes or no?

Hon. W. Newman: I haven’t read all the minutes of the Farm Products Marketing Board.

Mr. S. Smith: You can speak to the chairman.

Hon. W. Newman: As of July 1977, I was aware of the Greenhouse Vegetable Producers’ Marketing Board problems.

Mr. Makarchuk: Careful or we will have to x-ray you.

Hon. W. Newman: And if that is what you are talking about then make it clear, because you didn’t the other day. You did not make that clear the other day. If that’s what you’re talking about, tell us.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege; or as a supplementary, as you may prefer, Mr. Speaker: The matter has nothing to do with the fact that there was a dispute involving the greenhouse marketing board and whatever else was going on. The matter has to do with whether during that meeting there was raised with the chairman of the board the existence on the part of retail chains of a discounting or rebate or kickback practice. That is the question, and that is what we wanted the minutes for. Will the minister guarantee that no such reference was made? That is what I am asking him to do.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I will check the minutes, but I can also tell the member that as of July, 1977, I know that the Greenhouse Vegetable Producers’ Marketing Board were having problems at that board level.

Mr. Mancini: You are muddying the waters.

Hon. W. Newman: The Leader of the Opposition’s member from that area can fill him in on it.

Mr. S. Smith: That is not the issue.

Hon. W. Newman: In July 1977 I was aware of that situation. What is the Leader of the Opposition talking about then?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: I hate to drag this on; I’m terribly sorry, Mr. Speaker. The question is whether at the meeting where that whole business the minister is talking about with the greenhouse growers was taken up, there was also reference made to the fact that certain retail chains in Ontario demand a discount or a rebate practice of the kind we were talking about, that is the question. As far back as 1977, did the chairman of the Farm Marketing Board have some inkling that these things did exist? Did he at least have that reported to him?

Hon. W. Newman: At the Greenhouse Vegetable Producers’ Marketing Board we were drawn into it, in July, 1977. There was talk of discounts then, yes. I referred to that in answer to one of the member’s questions the other day. As for any other dealings or discounts with other groups, I am not aware of any. I will check that out.

Mr. MacDonald: Why didn’t you say that in the first place?

Hon. W. Newman: I did say it, if members would only listen.

TEACHERS’ STRIKE

Mr. Mancini: I have a question of the Minister of Education. In view of the fact that the Essex County Board of Education has now publicly guaranteed that the current strike in Essex county will have no effect on the student credit acquisition, and in view of the fact that this has now been challenged by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, could the minister explain if the Essex County Board of Education has the authority to reduce the requirements for the granting of a secondary school credit? Has the Minister of Education authorized the Essex County Board of Education to grant credits on the basis of this reduced amount of time and work?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The answer to both those questions is no.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: Can the minister give any kind of guarantee that the strike now going on in Essex county will not jeopardize the school year of the students involved?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give that guarantee. I think that is dependent on a number of factors. I would suggest that all those concerned in Essex county should put that particular proposition directly and clearly to the board and the teachers in Essex county, and indicate that they would like some answer from them on it.

In so far as the board is concerned, the board has no authority to lessen the requirements for the granting of a credit. In most cases where there has been a work stoppage, after the schools have reopened there has been a program undertaken by the principals and teachers in the schools, co-operating with the board, to catch up the missed work. To all intents and purposes, this fulfils the requirements of the credit. That would have to take place in Essex at some particular time.

Mrs. Campbell: What year?

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary to the minister: Since the teachers in Essex county do not wish to go to arbitration or final offer selection, would the minister then send the letter he sent to the other boards to the teachers in Essex county and ask them, because in the Essex county case the board has offered to go to final offer or arbitration?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am sure the teachers in Essex county are well aware of what we have said and done in the other disputes, both Renfrew and Wentworth. They have a very good network of communications and I am sure they know. But if it would be of any assistance I will be glad to send the same information to the people in Essex county as I did to the other areas.

OHTB STAFF LIST

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications concerning the possibility of preferential treatment being given to certain lawyers before the Highway Transport Board. Would the minister clarify the apparent contradiction between his answer in this House yesterday to my question and his letter of April 27?

In his letter of April 27 he indicated that the names and telephone numbers of two lawyers that appeared on the transport board staff list did so because some receptionist who no longer works for the board typed the list out for personal use and added the two solicitors’ names. The minister’s reply yesterday indicated that the staff list I received was only the first page of a list and that the other lawyers appeared on the second list; in other words, what is his official excuse?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I can’t see any conflict --

Mr. Pope: There isn’t any.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- in what the honourable member has read at all. If the honourable member has any charges to make against any member of the board or against any solicitor, I wish he would make them.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary: Can the minister tell us when he intends, if ever, to table the information I asked for in this House on April 20 -- in particular the date of each application that has been received by the transport board and the date on which each of these applications has been assigned? Or does he intend to go on acting as an apologist for the shoddy and capricious way in which the transport board is handling its matters?

Mr. Warner: Resign. Why don’t you just resign? You can’t handle that board.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr. Snow: I have no need or no intention to be an apologist for the chairman of the board or any member of the board. They are very honourable and noble gentlemen and ladies who have acted very well on behalf of this province for a great many years, and have done an excellent job. The information the honourable member asked for I believe is being assembled. I believe it will take some considerable amount of research and time to get it.

HARWICH LANDFILL SITE

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that a dormant landfill licence has been reactivated and has been transferred from its former owner, and that this was done without the benefit of a public hearing by which the residents of Harwich township and the Harwich township council could have been apprised of the studies that were done to prove the safety of this site, would the minister tell this House, and especially tell the Harwich township council, what studies have been carried on?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, although I believe I saw a letter on that subject I am not aware of it. I can get an answer for the honourable member on Thursday.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of the Environment is aware that yesterday he said he did not know where the liquid industrial waste now going into the Beare Road landfill site would go after June 30, 1978, when the landfill site is to be closed to liquid industrial waste.

In view of the fact that the Metro Toronto works committee, in a report dated May 2, said that to date the provincial municipal task force studying this problem had found that only 55 per cent of the waste can be redirected to acceptable alternative disposal facilities, I would like to ask the minister what responsibility he is taking for the satisfactory disposition of the other 45 per cent of this liquid industrial waste. There are only six weeks to go before the site is closed. Or is he proposing to let it be dumped into ravines, lakes, and sewers?

[3:15]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Into Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms. Bryden: I would also like to ask what response is he making to the recommendation of the Metro council that the province assume responsibility for acquiring liquid industrial waste disposal sites, as recommended by the Robarts commission?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be receiving a report from the people in my ministry who are on that task force in co-operation with Metro. We’ll deal with the matter at that time.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary. Can the minister give us a report within the week as to what his plans are?

Hon. Mr. McCague: In due course.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: Is the minister trying to tell us today that he really doesn’t have any concern with that June 30 deadline; that he is possibly going to ignore and not solve the problem of the disposal of liquid waste?

Some hon. members: Resign. Resign.

Mr. Cassidy: Which way are you going to vote on this one?

Mr. McClellan: This isn’t the escarpment.

Hon. Mr. McCague: That is not so at all. I’m just trying to get you people over there to leave politics out of this issue and let us all work together to solve it.

Mr. McClellan: You are a disgrace. You’re even worse than George Kerr.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Warner: Save our suds.

Mr. Lewis: Play politics on the escarpment but not in Scarborough.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: There is a deep well in Beaches-Woodbine.

JUVENILE COURT SYSTEM

Mr. Bradley: I would like to ask the Attorney General if he feels the juvenile court system in the province of Ontario -- and specific references have been made to the city of Toronto -- is operating as he would like it to, when several Toronto school board spokesmen, according to a Globe and Mail article, have said in interviews that over-compassionate judges have turned the juvenile court experience into a farce and a fraud for children --

Mr. Wildman: Oh, we don’t want compassionate judges, do we?

Mr. Bradley: -- and have rendered meaningless the threat of charges?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I certainly don’t agree with those statements, Mr. Speaker. I think we have an outstanding family and juvenile court bench in Toronto and elsewhere in this province. A number of concerned citizens are worried about the appropriateness of the juvenile court, for example, dealing with truancy matters. This is an issue that is not going to be easily resolved. There are many very wise commentators who seriously question whether or not the juvenile court is the place to deal with that problem.

For these spokesmen to make such blanket statements as were reported, at least, in the Globe and Mail, is in my view simply not justified by the facts.

OHTB STAFF LIST

Hon. Mr. Snow: Further to the question of the member for Etobicoke at the time he asked for the information, I asked if he would put the question on the order paper so we could obtain the information. The question has not yet appeared.

Ms. Gigantes: Read it in Hansard.

Mr. Philip: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question was very clear. I asked for precisely these items and the minister could easily have given us this.

Ms. Gigantes: Right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: The minister can read Hansard the same way as anyone else.

PETITIONS

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD ANNUAL REPORT

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, pursuant to provisional order number seven of the Legislative Assembly:

“We, the undersigned members of the assembly, hereby petition that the annual report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, tabled October 17, 1977, be referred to the standing committee on resources development for such consideration and report as the committee may determine.

“It is our presumption that such consideration will proceed forthwith. What we want is a time-table debate during which we can question witnesses under oath and find out whether an inquiry of a public nature is required into the discounting practice which we have been discussing.”

Mr. Nixon: Very sensible.

Mr. Havrot: Hogwash.

Interjections.

Mr. Havrot: When will you grow up?

TEACHERS’ STRIKE

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have approximately 7,000 signatures -- I know the minister may verify it in time -- from voters, taxpayers and, most important, students from my constituency who are concerned that the provision of education has been denied to their children. They are asking for direct intervention by the minister.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES ACT

Mr. Roy moved first reading of Bill 89,

An Act respecting French Language Services in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I may make a brief statement, this bill places the duty on the government of Ontario to provide, as a right, public services in the French language to the citizens of Ontario, subject to certain conditions in the bill. The bill also establishes the offices of a French-language coordinator and the Language Service Board to aid in improving the availability of French-language services in Ontario.

Basically, this bill establishes a statutory framework for French-language services in Ontario. It is not a bill to bilingualize the province or to force French on anyone. Basically, it’s a reasonable and practical method to satisfy the legitimate demands of Franco-Ontarians in this province.

Mr. Samis: This is a second-reading speech, Albert.

Mr. Warner: Are we moving to second reading?

Mr. Roy: It is our intention to present the bill in both languages in the Legislature; and despite our best efforts and the best efforts of the translation services here at Queen’s Park, it became obvious that the translation of this legislation was not adequate, and in fact, the bill points out clearly the necessity for having such services in Ontario.

Mr. Samis: Discours.

D’après moi, M. l’Orateur, c’est une façon légitime, pratique et raisonnable de la part du Parti Libéral et chef Libéral, c’est d’appeler une structure législative pour enfin satisfaire les revendications des Franco-Ontariens.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, despite the best efforts of my colleagues to my left, the problem is not that there wasn’t a right. There’s nothing, as I think the Legislative Clerk will tell us, to stop us presenting a bill in both languages. The problem, basically, was in the translation. We, in reviewing the translation of the bill, were not satisfied with the translation. I don’t want to be overly critical of anyone, but I think it does point out the need for legislative translation services. This is not the fault of the Legislature but of the apparatus. I hope that, by accepting this type of legislation, we will have the apparatus working to satisfy what is a legitimate request.

Mr. Lewis: Just as a matter of interest on the point of order, I would like to add to what the member has just said. I thought perhaps it was an accident or an idiosyncrasy but I had occasion some months ago to have a major document translated by the translation service here. With the best will in the world, it had to be redone. I think there is some need to provide more money and more support for the translation services in Queen’s Park. Maybe the introduction of this bill does reinforce that truth.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the point of order and the comments and I am sure it will be taken into consideration.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answer to question 45 and the interim answer to question 48 standing on the notice paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 22,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe the member for Riverdale was in full flight previously.

Mr. Nixon: With the second position of the NDP.

Mr. Deans: Why don’t you flap your wings and get back into flight?

Mr. Renwick: I don’t know whether or not I would characterize the posture I was in at the adjournment two weeks ago on May 2, when this debate was adjourned on a matter which is of immense concern to me. I think because of the lapse of time it will be necessary for me, at least in some

summary way, to recap what I had to say at that time.

I did want to speak really to all of the members of the House who could possibly have the time to listen or those who may at some point read what I have to say because I am calling for support from other members of each of the caucuses in the House in order to defeat the provision in Bill 22,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, which provides for permissive authority for the Minister of Transportation and Communications to require that photographs be included and imprinted upon the driver’s licence of persons who are authorized to drive in the province.

It was interesting at the point of the adjournment that a number of the members expressed interest in what I had to say at that time. I am sorry that the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner) is not here as he came across and said he was very interested in the arguments that I was putting and the anxiety and fear which were implicit in the arguments that I was putting that in some way or other this was a significant and severe encroachment, disguised as an incidental amendment to the Highway Traffic Act, which we were imposing on the relationships between individuals and the state which are sometimes referred to as civil liberties.

The member for Peterborough said to me: “But do you know of any instance where the police have wrongfully stopped someone?” Rather than to get into a minutia of discussions about that, I said I believed I did, but I didn’t believe that there would be any point in getting into an argument about the situations in which the police may or may not have used this power in a way which was not intended by the assembly.

I do want to say that we have to put to rest the kind of argument implicit in the remarks of the member for Peterborough, and I say this most kindly. There is a theory abroad with respect to the kinds of laws we pass of a punitive nature respecting citizens that somehow or other implies if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from the police.

Therefore, the theory is that we can give the police an unlicensed power to interfere with the individual liberty of the subject because the police are an agent of ours to enforce the law and, if we are not doing anything wrong, we should be quite happy to be stopped by the police and to establish for their satisfaction that we are about our lawful occasions and that we are not doing anything which is wrong. That is a total perversion, in my view, of the theory in a democratic society of the relation between the individual and the state.

[3:30]

Another of my colleagues, the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young), came to me and said, “Well, the trouble with you, Jim” -- and he said it kindly, as only a United Church minister could say it; he really wanted to share with me that I was much too logical in my presentation about my concern. I want to answer that. I am logical because I am concerned. I am trying to translate into articulate reasons the extent and degree of the concern and anxiety which I have, if we inadvertently, at this time in the assembly, pass the bill containing this provision. The other provisions of the bill, I have no problem with.

But this particular bill is of such significance to me that I want, with all of the logic at my command, to put before the assembly in an articulate way the rational arguments which support and express the anxiety and concern which I have about the bill.

I want to summarize quite briefly -- because you will recall that I made half a dozen points in trying to establish what I wanted to put before the assembly -- and then I want to move on in the arguments that I will put, in the hope that I can persuade other members to join with me in defeating this particular provision, or at least join me in saying that if it is to be decided by this assembly that if I am driving an automobile in Ontario and the police stop me without any cause or reason for the purposes of identification then I want that matter debated as a matter of principle in the assembly because of its importance and not introduced by way of an incidental amendment to the Highway Traffic Act, regardless of the precursory reports which have led to some specious arguments being made that it is of validity.

In the course of my remarks, I made, first of all, a specific disclaimer: I am not concerned about the exercise of police power, either under the Criminal Code or any of the other statutes of Canada or of the province of Ontario, or under the Highway Traffic Act, where the intrusion of the police, the initiative the police take, is based upon a reasonable and probable cause to believe, or have reasonable or probable cause to see, that an offence is taking place; or have reason to suspect that a person has committed an offence. Those traditional protective clauses, which are the trigger of legitimate police action, are not my concern. I understand them, I appreciate them, and I respect them.

What I was talking about were the provisions that appear in sections 14 and 17 of the Highway Traffic Act, with respect to the requirement that without any reason a police officer can require you to produce your driver's licence; with respect to

section 55 of the Highway Traffic Act which permits a police officer, without any reason, to stop your vehicle and to examine it on the theory that it may or may not be an unsafe vehicle; and the provision in the motor vehicle accident claims fund, tucked away in that statute, which provides that a police officer may, without any sense of concern or anxiety about it, simply stop your vehicle and require you to produce evidence either of your insurance or that you are covered under the motor vehicle accident claims fund.

I make the disclaimer again so that I will not be misunderstood. I have no problem if the words “reasonable and probable cause” or “have reason to suspect,” or some such protective words which are the basis for the initiation of police action are introduced in the bill. I am concerned about the bald statement that a police officer may, because you are in an automobile as the driver, stop that vehicle for the purposes which I have indicated.

I then went on to express my view that because of the extent of the numbers of drivers in Ontario, what we are for practical purposes authorizing the Minister of Transportation and Communications to do is to require an identification document or what is commonly known as an ID card.

I pointed out that the argument will be made that everybody now has to carry a licence to drive so what does it matter if the picture is on the card? I tried to make the very fundamental distinction that what distinguishes an ID card in the universal, accepted sense of that term is the appearance on an identification document of either a photograph or fingerprint or both. I therefore say to the minister that what you are doing here is, for practical purposes, introducing an almost universal form of ID card.

I pointed out at that time, by reference to the first report of the select committee on automobile insurance, where the statistical information is available, and by reference to an updated set of figures which I received from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, that we are talking about requiring 85 per cent or better of the male persons in Ontario over the age of 16 to carry that kind of an ID card. It would also require, as I understand it, something over 55 per cent of the female persons over the age of 16 now in Ontario to carry such a document.

Parenthetically I may say that our studies indicated that the great increase in registered drivers will be as a result of more and more women becoming qualified to drive. It will not be very long in this province before the overall percentage of persons over the age of 16 that would be required to have an ID card would be raised from the present average of 70 per cent to perhaps 80 or 85 per cent as more and more women become qualified to drive.

I find that a very significant intrusion upon the individual’s relationship with the state. He owes his allegiance to the state and his protection, but this is because of the rights of the individual and not because of the rights of the state. The kind of theory which is implicit in what the minister inadvertently has lent himself to support is a theory of civil society to which I do not subscribe.

Whether one believes in Thomas Hobbes and his Leviathan -- that life is poor, solitary, nasty, brutish and short without civil society -- some people think that’s a law firm down on Bay Street -- or whether or not one believes in the theory of civil government put out by John Locke; or whether one believes in the theory of the civil state put out by Jean Jacques Rousseau, or whether one believes in the motivations that led to the Declaration of Independence and the

preamble to the constitution of the United States, whether one believes in any one of those theories, each and every one of the traditional freedoms that we value in our society -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly -- relate to the fundamental relationship of the self-identity and dignity of the individual in relation to that society, howsoever constructed.

The moment we permit the intrusion by the state to require that identification we commit, in my judgement, a psychological error of vast proportion. It is not very long before the time will come when the individual sense of personal identity on the one hand will be so related to the possession on his person of the document with his photograph that if you take the document of identification away from him, you destroy the identity of the individual.

Some people may say that this is an idiosyncrasy of Jim Renwick or it’s a matter of conscience of Jim Renwick. It is not. The member for Riverdale is interested in one thing and one thing only -- attracting support amongst the members of the assembly to defeat this particular provision of the bill.

It does seem to me that those of us who have had any experience, either by reading, living, moving or through friends and relations, cannot deny the truth of the proposition that to the extent that a person is required to carry a document with his picture or fingerprints, or picture and fingerprints, you make a substitution for the document of identification for the person who is being identified -- and I know the minister is only asking for the photograph at the present time.

Mr. Nixon: It’s not universally required.

Mr. Renwick: I’m saying to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, and I hope he will listen to me, this will, in fact, mean --

Mr. Nixon: I am listening to you.

Mr. Renwick: -- 85 per cent of the men over age 16 --

Mr. Nixon: And 55 per cent of the females -- a growing number, but not universal. Only those people who want to drive a car.

Mr. Renwick: All right, it’s not universal. It’s only those people who want to drive a car, and, of course, it’s a negligible percentage of the population.

I agree with the member. If I can’t persuade him on that argument, I don’t think I can bring another argument to bear. The fact of the matter is that it will mean that substantially all of the population of the province, in any real sense of that term, will in fact have an identification card.

Mr. Nixon: They don’t have to carry it.

Mr. Renwick: Let me make one further argument. Everyone knows that at the present time the extension of credit through a document of identification is some kind of right within the society in which we live. If you go into any store at any time now, to produce evidence you’re generally asked for two things: one, the particular credit card and another document of identification.

Mr. Nixon: No.

Mr. Renwick: For practical purposes, when you are applying for credit in a store or in any place of business, you are likely to be viewed with suspicion if you cannot produce your driver’s licence.

Mr. Nixon: Just to cash a personal cheque. If you have a credit card you don’t have to back it up with a licence.

Mr. Renwick: Not when I go to my own bank.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Will the member for Riverdale ignore the interjections, and speak to the chair, please.

Mr. Renwick: I would like to speak to the chair, but I would like very much to have the member’s support. I find it difficult to believe that a Liberal of his tradition would not see the merit and the validity of the arguments which I am putting.

It is true that I can go to my bank and I can cash a cheque. It is true, because of the extension of credit and if they’re foolhardy enough to do it, I can perhaps go to any branch of my own bank and cash a cheque. But if you go into a store, even an honest man with the honest appearance of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would be required to produce not only a credit card and a driver’s licence in order --

Mr. Nixon: Only to cash a cheque, not to make a purchase.

Mr. Renwick: No, for merchandise purchases in metropolitan Toronto that is becoming the custom at the present time.

Mr. Nixon: I’ve never had it happen. I guess I am more honest looking.

Mr. Renwick: All right, I don’t want to belabour the argument into a personal view.

Mr. Nixon: The argument is very thin.

Mr. Renwick: I very seldom have been able to persuade that particular member, but if this means that the Liberal caucus is going to support this, then I regret it.

Mr. Nixon: What is the NDP caucus going to do? They have indicated that they are against you on this.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, I understand that, but that doesn’t make them right or me right. It’s a question of what the assembly will do about a matter which is of significant importance to the individual liberty of the subject in this state.

Mr. Nixon: It is. But your arguments are usually much better than this.

Mr. Renwick: May I make a couple of more arguments in respect to what we were doing. The member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) and I, over a number of years have been concerned about the North Americanization, if I may say so, of the police forces in the province of Ontario. We’ve made the argument time and time again because we are, and have been, concerned about the duality of the role of the police. The police, generally speaking, adhere to the tradition which we have in this country which comes from the United Kingdom. They are members of the same society, clothed with authority in that society for the purpose of protecting the individual citizen.

[3:45]

But in addition to that, they have become by the nature of their organization instruments by which the power of the state as such is enforced against the individual. One of the strange things which has happened as a result of the invention of the automobile, regardless of the benefits which we have derived from that particular instrument, has been to indicate that in some way it has created problems of such magnitude that we can now be considering at this time intruding upon that basic relationship between the individual and the society in which he lives.

It will require him, at the behest of a police officer, for the substantial periods of time when he is outside his own residence or outside of his own place of business, to produce evidence of his own personal identity.

I do not accept the proposition that because they have had it in Sweden and nobody objects to it, therefore I should be persuaded to accept it. My colleague, the member for Yorkview, and my colleague, the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), have, as I have, spoken to the executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. That association has no specific view on the point which I am making. I had a lengthy and valuable discussion with Alan Borovoy, the executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

So far as I know, the association as such has not taken a position on it, although I think I am fair when I say he personally feels a very real sense of uneasiness about the introduction of this particular requirement.

Mr. Nixon: Don’t you think lack of action is significant?

Mr. Renwick: I would, of course, have liked to have had the expressed support of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the expressed support of the executive director. I do not think for a moment that the lack of that support necessarily takes away, except in numbers, the validity of the argument of which I am making and putting to the assembly. Because I cannot draw to my support an organized group of people, or any other group of people, and have to treat it as an individual matter, it leaves me open to the view that I am expressing, in some exaggerated way, a particular idiosyncratic concern of my own.

I think the arguments which I am endeavouring to put before the assembly should lead any God-fearing, taxpaying member of this assembly and any law abiding citizen of this assembly to be concerned about this immense extension of potential police power through the incidental amendment to the Highway Traffic Act introduced by my friend, the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

I do want to point out to the assembly -- and I know it is difficult for people to understand -- the present position of the citizen. I would quote, if I may, from the Law Society of Upper Canada’s special lectures on arrest and interrogation by the police, published in 1963. The boldface heading of the division of the particular

chapter is “The right to keep quiet.” I quote from that particular lecture: “I come now to whether a citizen has a right to keep quiet when questioned by police. Apart from any question of obstructing the police, about which I will speak later, the legal position is that there is a common-law right to keep silent. A person when questioned need not incriminate himself and the police cannot compel a person to answer. Specifically, a person when questioned need not identify himself.” He goes on: “Although this is a qualified right and a common-law right, in other respects it has been modified by statute.”

Of course, that is exactly what we have done. We have taken the common-law right of the individual citizen to refuse to identify himself to the police when he is about his lawful occasion and we have qualified it in the way in which I have indicated in the three particular sections of the Highway Traffic Act and the other incidental

section in the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund Act.

In addition to that, in the report of the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald Morand on the Royal Commission into Metropolitan Toronto Police Practices, the commissioner comes down on the side of requiring an identification by the citizen to the police in these circumstances.

I quote from page 167 of his report: “I have received various estimates of the number of people driving in Toronto with licences which are not theirs or licences which had been obtained in names other than the proper names of the licensee. These estimates have ranged as high as 30,000. I have been told that many of our worst drivers who have had their licences suspended immediately obtain another in a different name.

“I recommend that on each driver’s licence, there be a picture of the person to whom the licence was issued. This will readily enable the police officer to determine whether the person he has stopped has a proper driver’s licence.

“I anticipate that this recommendation might he objected to, particularly by civil liberties groups. This system has been introduced in other jurisdictions and after the initial period of objection, it was found that the public was entirely satisfied with the procedure. Indeed, many people found that it assisted them in purchasing things by cheque and in the extension of credit.

“Any law is, of course, an infringement on the civil liberty of the citizen. The question of how far the liberty of the citizen should be interfered with by the state is a matter that is constantly under review. The civil liberty of a citizen should not be interfered with except where the larger right of the majority makes it necessary.

“I am satisfied that the death, injury and property damage arising out of unqualified persons driving improperly justify the further encroachment upon the liberty of the citizen of having his photograph attached to his driver’s licence. Indeed, this does not seem to me to be a further encroachment. Each driver is now required to have a driver’s licence, and the adding of a picture to that licence does not, in my view, in any way further restrict his liberty.”

I end the quotation from that report and I want to answer that argument. First of all, I answer it in this way because as a member of this select committee on company law dealing with automobile insurance, to my knowledge as a result of the work of that committee -- and we are about to complete our study of it, and I believe that it has been a relatively exhaustive study -- there is no such evidence to support the extent, nature and degree of the damage caused by unlicensed drivers or drivers driving while under suspension.

Nobody takes away from the fact that there is immense havoc on the highway, but the great bulk of that is by persons who are authorized to drive and who hold actual licences. There is certainly no statistical evidence of any kind indicated in the report of Mr. Justice Morin that would satisfy the test that he sets, namely, the test that the social need overrides the individual right.

I would say that, until such time as there is further direct evidence of that kind of connection, I find it appalling that a commissioner charged in areas with respect to police practices should have come down on the side of the language of utility and convenience; and there is nothing in the language he has used which would indicate any sense of urgency or necessity with respect to his recommendation.

I say that also about these various estimates which he has received of persons who are driving without proper licences. Again, there is no evidence. We all know, we all understand and we all are concerned about the fact that there is a wide area where persons can drive vehicles in Ontario in a way that is unauthorized.

But if we were to implement the great bulk of the recommendations made in our first report, and if we were to recommend the great bulk of the recommendations which will be made in a very short time in our second report, if we were to recommend all of them except this particular recommendation made by my colleague the member for Yorkview and the committee on highway safety, of which he was the chairman, then I would say we would have eliminated to a great extent the whole problem created by persons driving without proper authorization on the highway.

I say to the House very clearly that this requirement will not solve the problem of persons driving with improper authority, because it is used in a blanket way. If it is the intention of the minister to extend the ambit of police authority to spot checking continuously and regularly in the hope that under some sampling system of spot checking that he will be able to find the persons who are driving while under suspension, with no licence, or with improper authority, then I suggest that it is another example of us passing a law which will not cure the problem that is before us.

The problem before us is a real one and I have indicated that if we implement all the recommendations of the one committee on highway safety and the other committee with respect to automobile insurance except this one, we will have gone a long way to improve the social danger and hazard of the automobile on the highway and so reduced its impact that, to talk about requiring this kind of 85 per cent universal requirement of an identification card, we will realize how ridiculous and stupid it would be for this assembly to approve of this section.

My colleague the member for Yorkview will no doubt participate in the debate, but one of the arguments, of course, which is in favour of it is a recommendation of that committee. Again, proceeding to deal with a number of the offences under the Highway Traffic Act, the committee goes on to say, and I quote at page III-6:

“Another reason for the ineffectiveness of the suspension is the apparent ease and frequency with which it can be ignored. Police advised the committee that their task of identifying drivers operating vehicles without a valid licence would be easier if a photograph of the driver were attached to the licence. This would prevent the borrowing of licences. The committee is also aware of the advantages of a photograph on the driver’s licence as a means of identification for other purposes and of its popularity in Europe, many states in the United States and British Columbia. Accordingly, the committee recommends that:

[4:00]

“Recommendation III-2: The government of Ontario should proceed with its previously announced program of having the licensee’s photograph imprinted on the driving licence.”

That again, and I reiterate, is the language of convenience and utility, not the language of urgency or necessity in the light of any pronounced social wrong. I would be the first one to say that on balance, if there comes a conflict between the collective security of the society and the individual’s freedom, one must always redress the balance in favour of the collective security of the society, because without that society we as individuals cannot exist.

The burden of proof on those who would make this kind of change in a fundamental principle of our democratic society requires those persons to produce the evidence on the basis of which that rational conclusion can be drawn. I say to the minister that, from the work of the committee on highway safety, from Commissioner Morand’s report, and from the work of this minister, no rational evidence has been produced other than those of convenience and utility, and because we’re somewhat sloppy about rights in our society these days we don’t really care very much about all of the issues related to civil liberties.

The government has an obligation to produce the kind of evidence which would support the introduction of that particular provision in this bill.

I have gone on at some length to try to deal with the arguments which I believe will be made in favour and to in some way -- in my way, in any event -- rebut those arguments. I have tried to indicate the arguments which I believe express the kinds of concern this assembly should be dealing with in relation to this permissive authority to be granted to the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

I call upon those who feel strongly about the need to have everyone’s picture on his driver’s licence in the province of Ontario to justify their position with a sense of feeling and concern about the social wrong which is being righted by this legislation. In the absence of that kind of expression, I say to the members of the assembly, let’s not be sloppy or lazy about our rights. Let’s understand the implications of what we’re about, and not, in this way, move our society into that kind of authoritarian state which is the direct contradiction of the kind of democratic society we have inherited and which most of us have been brought up to believe in and to cherish.

I call upon all of the members of the assembly, whether they agree with all of my arguments, none of my arguments, some of them or only one or two of them, objectively to assess what they are being asked to do.

They are being asked to say there is a social evil in the province of Ontario -- the people who drive while under suspension or drive in an unauthorized way on the highway -- which will permit the individual liberty of the subject to be seriously affected by requiring him to have a document in his possession which, if he happens to be in or about an automobile, will give the police an absolute right -- not a qualified right, an absolute right -- to stop that person in his car and to require him to produce that identification.

I say the burden is on the government, the burden is on the minister and, more importantly, the burden is on every member of this assembly to take an objective look and to think about the nature of the amendment we’re being asked to approve and whether or not the balance has been shifted in such a way as to require the kind of corrective action which the minister has introduced and which I so heartily and rationally, I hope, and articulately -- to the best of my ability -- stand to uphold.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I know that you, perhaps more than any other member here, would agree with me when I say it’s too bad that the former member for Wilson Heights, Vern Singer, QC, is not here to participate in this debate.

I have heard him either lead or follow the member for Riverdale on this subject, or subjects closely allied with it, since I heard him speak in the Legislature first when I was elected in 1962 and then when the member for Riverdale entered the Legislature in 1964.

The arguments are extremely interesting, and I would just think what a great forum this would be if the government of the day, for some reason that I couldn’t possibly conjure up, said that every citizen or every resident of Ontario had to carry a piece of paper with a number, their name and their picture on it which would then have to be produced to a police officer without reasonable and probable grounds or indication that they were breaking any law. What a debate we would have in here and how strongly I would be supporting the member for Riverdale with every ounce of strength that I would have.

But such is not the case.

It is surely the strangest expansion of imagination for the member to indicate that by the provision of this amendment, which will require a picture on a driver’s licence, we are taking any kind of a step toward a police state. I just reject that. I wouldn’t for a moment say that the member would like such a thing to happen just so that he could oppose it with all of the strength at his command, but this speech and the rallying of his arguments is like going after a grant with a blunderbuss. It simply is not in the bill.

It is a matter that has been put before us not simply by police officers but by people in the community whose interest -- I suppose convenience is one reason -- but whose interests are for the good of the community. The reasons have been put forward that we ought to put forward this amendment and accept it. I don’t feel that it is, in any way, interfering with individual liberties. As a master of fact, I believe just the opposite.

We were told on the select committee on highway safety that at any given moment as many as 60,000 drivers are operating cars on our roads without proper licensing. And, in many instances, these people have had their licences suspended by court action and they continue to drive either without a licence or with a licence that they’ve borrowed from someone else.

If they are stopped, having been involved in an accident, or because there is some indication they are driving while impaired, or breaking any of the regulations of the Highway Traffic Act, then the police officer has no way of knowing, when he is presented with a licence, whether or not it belongs to the person who is driving. As a matter of fact, there would be no probable or reasonable grounds to suspect since it’s got the characteristic colour and it’s usually well-thumbed having been in the wallet for two or three years; the policeman looks at it and assumes he is talking to a licensed driver.

I don’t think that there is any significance at all to the argument that we are moving in on the liberties of the individual, the civil liberties of the individuals in this province.

The honourable member was fair enough to indicate that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association had taken no stand on it and their executive director himself was highly regarded in Ontario and in Canada and elsewhere as being sensitive and -- as far as I’m concerned, and in all instances that I’ve observed -- reasonable in these matters. Apparently even the executive director had to be asked by the honourable member before he even indicated that he, too, shared the objection.

But surely, we might have had a letter from the gentleman referred to by the honourable member if he felt that this should be brought to the attention of the members on behalf of his organization. Certainly, I have never received a communication from that organization which I did not treat with respect and attention. We have not heard from them and I believe there’s a good reason why we haven’t heard from them. It’s because the indication that this being a card-bearing picture of the bearer, in my view, is not any significant intrusion into the liberties of the individual at all.

The honourable member also said that he objected to the powers which he feels are inherent in the Highway Traffic Act, and perhaps through these amendments, that the police now have the power to stop an automobile without reason. I don’t really know what the honourable member is talking about. A police officer does not have the right nor power to stop without some reasonable ground for suspecting that a law is being broken.

The only time that this may happen -- I didn’t think of this myself but it has been brought to my attention -- is during the Christmas season. Then police officers in Metro Toronto and certain other centres have a program to try and catch impaired drivers.

If you happen to be in a lineup, such as the ramp from York Street on to the Gardiner Expressway, any time from maybe 5:30 in the evening until 8 o’clock in the evening in December, you are liable to be pulled over in a long line and an officer in a very polite way will stick his head in the window and converse with you and run what amounts to sort of an amateur breathalyser test.

There might be objection to that but I think under those circumstances there is reasonable and probable grounds since there’s every statistical indication that a substantial percentage of the drivers have probably had a drink at that time. Whether or not they are legally impaired is up to the discretion of the courts.

I may have missed the honourable member’s point, but I don’t know of anything in the Highway Traffic Act that allows a police officer to pull a driver over without some reasonable and probable ground for so doing. Would the honourable member for Riverdale like to help me in that matter?

Mr. Acting Speaker: I am sorry. The honourable member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has the floor.

Mr. Nixon: Right. It may be made clear later because I personally do not believe police officers should have those powers. But it’s part of the fabrication of the case put forward by the honourable member for Riverdale. He says the police can stop you without reason and they can demand your identity papers -- he nicely called it an ID card but we know what he means -- an identity paper, perhaps with a certain accent to the word that is usually the kind of thing you hear in the spy films and that sort of thing.

This is not happening in this jurisdiction. Frankly I have enough confidence not only in the members of the Legislature but, believe it or not, in the government of this province not to suspect that it can happen. Certainly we can be vigilant. By listening to the honourable member’s speech, the many members gathered here today probably have had their sensitivity in this connection improved. But I would say to the honourable member that in my opinion his fears are groundless and exaggerated and I have not been convinced by his argument.

I have been concerned, having been a member of that select committee, that the usefulness of the driver’s licence has been cut down considerably by the lack of adequate identification.

The honourable member went on to say something about credit being based on a driver’s licence. If the honourable member has ever used his licence, it is the number on there, I suppose, that gives him the identity he feels should be intrinsically associated with him as an individual alone. If he has ever tried to cash a cheque, and this has happened to me where you require some identification, they write down that endless number with all the digits and letters. This is surely unnecessary -- there’s got to be code in there that tells somebody something that I don’t know anything about.

They write that down and I suppose it’s that very number which is now carried by 85 per cent of the people in Ontario which is already perhaps the kind of identification that the honourable member more or less morally objects to -- that you are not yourself at all, you are this elaborate configuration of numbers and letters on your driver’s licence. Maybe it’s not much good to your ego when you go in to cash a cheque with a signature that’s very impressive, and they look at it and say, “ I want your driver’s licence and five other sources of identification,” or something like that.

I really think if that’s his objection it has already happened. It really seems to be invalid in this particular debate.

[4:15]

For him to end with the feeling that we are moving towards an authoritarian state in this connection, I feel, once again, is an exaggeration and not worthy of the honourable member. His concepts are excellent and interesting, and perhaps should be put forward in some other context, but they are an exaggeration in connection with this bill. We’ll have a chance to debate it, I am sure, or at least to discuss it in committee, because there are one or two other things that have concerned me.

The member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) has indicated he thinks we are getting much too free and easy with the legal right to use the flashing red light. When a person sees that on the road, it is certainly an indication for ordinary drivers to get out of the way, or be prepared to be directed in traffic. As a matter of fact, even a flashing yellow light is getting to be so generally used that it is sometimes misleading on the highways when traffic is moving at speed such as on some of the major arteries. This is a matter that perhaps the minister can indicate more fully when we are discussing it in committee.

Mr. Philip: I listened with considerable attention to the arguments of the member for Riverdale and I must say that I certainly will be consulting those arguments at some future date if we are challenged with a bill that may bring about a lessening of democracy and civic rights.

However, I find the present arguments which the member makes just haven’t persuaded me. I must admit I am sensitive to the arguments he has made. I always have a certain discomfort whenever I see the government, be it this or any other government, moving in the direction that some might describe as not necessarily an authoritarian manner, but perhaps a more legalistic or processing approach to dealing with people.

A conversation with the Civil Liberties Association did little to ease my apprehension. The comments I received were to the effect that while some discomfort was felt on the issue, it was hardly the issue with which to go to the barricades. The Civil Liberties Association were invited by the chairman of the select committee on highway safety to appear before that committee and to address themselves to that particular issue, the pictures on drivers’ licences. They failed to show up and to present any position on it.

It seems to me that in the light of the excellent record of that association in fighting the most minute attack on civil liberties, the very fact they did not appear is to suggest either the matter was not of sufficient importance or, on the contrary, in this one instance that association was derelict in its duties. I don’t think that it was.

The member for Riverdale has made several mentions of the fact that this form of legislation has been introduced elsewhere. He fails, however, to indicate one example in any concrete way where in any jurisdiction in which this was introduced civil liberties have in fact been eroded. I think if he is going to prove his argument then surely he must show us some jurisdiction in which this particular step acted, if you will, as a domino, if you follow the domino theory, in somehow eroding civil liberties.

If one looks at the recommendations in the report of the select committee on highway safety, just as the report of the committee that I was on, the select committee on the highway transportation of goods, they’re an integral part; each part balances the other. It seems to me that while the member for Riverdale may be able to argue that there are many other things we should do to make our roads safer, in looking at this particular resolution, one has to see that it’s a pivotal kind of resolution.

If you look at the recommendations concerning alcohol abuse in terms of driving, Mr. Speaker, their enforcement poses real problems, particularly the one in reference to the abuse of alcohol by people under the legal drinking age, if there is no specific way of checking that out and enforcing it. Rules are only useful if they can be enforced. What we are facing is the fact that presently the suspension of drivers’ licences is ineffective. Police advised the select committee on highway safety that the task of identifying drivers of vehicles without a valid licence would be easier if a photograph were attached to the licence.

One US study indicates that at any time on any one day there are as many as 30 to 50 per cent of drivers whose licences have been suspended who are still driving either without a licence or with a borrowed licence. The right to drive an automobile is not an intrinsic right nor is it an obligation. Everyone driving without appropriate licence is endangering the safety of those people -- my family and your family -- who are on the roads. That has been the decision made by the judge when he imposed the suspension of a licence. If that were not the case, then the decision to suspend licences would make no sense at all.

A driver’s licence in a society -- and I must concur with the member for Riverdale on this -- is more than just a permit to take charge of a vehicle on the road. It is also the most commonly used method of identification. The Ontario Retail Merchants Association has expressed the opinion that photographs on licences would be of great assistance in reducing the loss through fraudulent cheque cashing.

In conversations I have had with merchants in my own riding, they have expressed their approval of this particular

section of the bill the member for Riverdale is in conflict with. On a personal note, the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) informs me that as a merchant he cashed many fraudulent cheques on many occasions on the strength of a driver’s licence, only to find out that the licence had been stolen and that the cheque would be used for little more than suspenders or one more loss from his revenue.

If the requiring of a photograph on a driver’s licence is necessary for cashing cheques, those people in our society who have fewer connections and who are of lower financial status are those who have the greatest need for that form of identification. It is the poor in our society who often have problems proving who they are and getting mother’s allowance cheques cashed or pay cheques cashed. It is the very constituency that many of us in this party represent and have fought for over the years that will be most disadvantaged, if that simple form of identification is not open to them.

If one looks at the jurisdictions that have pioneered much of the civil rights legislation, invariably many of those are jurisdictions that saw nothing wrong with the picture on driver’s licences. The state of California, which is hardly a police state and which has gone far beyond the wishes of many of us in terms of certain kinds of civil liberties legislation, takes it as a matter of simple expeditious practice to have pictures on drivers’ licences. Sweden and many other European countries that many look towards as being the vanguard of civil liberties legislation have had pictures on drivers’ licences for years.

This

section has also been recommended by the select committee on highway safety, which devoted considerable time to studying this problem. The committee encouraged open discussion of it, and it’s interesting that the chairman informs me that he has not had one complaint from anyone in the province, in the form of either a telephone call or a letter, that objects to this specific recommendation.

What we are facing then is a problem of looking at a specific

section of a bill and asking, is it part of a domino, which, if pulled, will somehow lead to the kind of authoritarian state that some would imagine? I say there is no evidence to support this; it hasn’t happened elsewhere. I will be voting in committee for this

section of the bill and