Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FARM MACHINERY

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the farmers of Ontario invest about $300 million in machinery every year. When this much money is at stake, it is essential the farmers have a reliable supply of new machinery, a dependable supply of repair parts and first-class repair service.

The government has been working with the farm representatives and with the people from the farm machinery industry to develop a program which will ensure that farmers get the kind of service they need. The program will be administered by the Ontario Farm Machinery Board, which has members representing farmers, manufacturers, dealers, wholesalers and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

The program centres on a certification program. Certification of distributors and dealers will be granted by the farm machinery board in accordance with standards which the board is in the process of implementing. Certified companies will offer a new equipment warranty which will meet or exceed the minimum standards set by the board. They will also guarantee to provide repairs and replacement parts in a reasonable time. They will also provide sales agreements with standardized conditions of sale.

Those provisions are crucial. When a farmer spends $70,000 or $80,000 for a piece of equipment that turns out to be faulty, he must be able to get some satisfaction from the dealer, distributor, or manufacturer of that equipment. When it comes to repairs, a farmer cannot wait; if his machinery is out of operation for a week due to breakdown, he can miss the crucial schedule for planting or harvesting and thousands of dollars can go down the drain. Delays are more than just a costly nuisance to farmers; they can be disastrous.

To undertake this program, the Ontario Farm Machinery Board has been enlarged and its responsibilities have been augmented. As well as developing standards and administering the certification program, the board will distribute educational information on farm machinery. It will also conduct special surveys and investigations and it will mediate disputes between purchasers and suppliers.

I might say we have found the farm machinery industry most willing to co-operate with us in this program. I believe it will work smoothly once it gets going. I am sure farmers and the industry will find it extremely beneficial to their business dealings.

CAS FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton), I would like to inform the House about a major reform of the funding of the children’s aid societies that is being introduced in 1980 and 1981. This new approach is being presented by the Minister of Community and Social Services to all children’s aid societies and municipalities at four regional meetings today and tomorrow in London, Sudbury, Toronto and Kingston, thus the reason for my making this statement on his behalf.

The government has been consciously and deliberately moving dollars from the residential portion of children’s services into community-based programs such as prevention and foster care. The success of these initiatives, however, has been hampered by the current method of funding societies. This method provides societies a disincentive for using nonresidential services and rewards societies for making use of purchased residential care.

The present practice of attempting to control society expenditures on a line-by-line basis results in lengthy delays in the budget approval process. This practice, combined with the current use of funding, places the government, the societies and municipalities in a state of uncertainty about the total cost of society services.

The new approach to funding, which avoids the extremes of no controls on the one hand and massive red tape on the other hand, is called the services approach. In very broad terms, the provincial government will define the types of services it wishes to purchase -- prevention, residential care and so on. It will then set aside specific amounts of funding for each one of the services desired and seek to establish consistency in the rates paid to agencies for similar services. The services approach is aimed at minimal government interference in internal agency operations once these services and their costs have been agreed upon.

For children’s aid societies, this new approach to funding means that the budget allocation will be made clear earlier than currently happens. The government’s goal is to finalize budgets as early as possible in the new year. Second, unless there are exceptional circumstances, societies will be expected to operate within their budgets, which are intended to cover their full costs. In return, societies will be permitted a great deal more flexibility in how they manage their resources within their total budgets. For example, societies may reduce the total amount spent on expensive residential care and apply these savings to services in the community.

Third, from 1981-82 the government will begin to allocate all new funds to societies in a manner that reflects the numbers of children in the areas they serve. The allocation of these funds will also be adjusted to reflect social, economic and geographical differences among areas. Both municipalities and societies will be consulted during the coming year on the factors to be applied. In the interim year, 1980, the allocation of new moneys will be based on a fixed percentage increase over the 1979 approved society budgets.

Fourth, a substantial reduction will be made by mid-1980 in the total amount of reporting and form-filling required of societies.

Fifth, the ministry will provide both societies and municipalities with regular statistical information and analyses that will assist them to monitor the performance of children’s aid societies with respect to their own goals and the performance of other societies.

Finally, and perhaps most important of all, the services approach will strengthen the role and authority of the boards of directors of societies in the direction and development of their agencies.

For municipalities the services approach also means positive changes. Firstly, it will more firmly establish municipalities in their role as cofunding partners. Knowing more clearly and earlier the nature and size of the allocations made to societies and having access to the same financial data and analyses provided to the societies, municipalities will be able to participate more effectively in the budget review and approval process. Second, municipalities will know early in their own fiscal year what the total cost of their society’s budget is likely to be.

The new approach does not affect, of course, the present 80-20 cost-sharing formula for the funding of societies, which we are currently addressing with the special committee on children’s services established through the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee.

It is not possible to outline today the exact amount of funding individual societies will receive for the 1980 budget year. To determine the base figure from which the 1980 budgets are to be calculated it will be necessary to estimate the amount of any 1979 supplementary budgets, subject to later verification. Otherwise, our goal of early notification of the full 1980 budgets would not be met.

The full amount set aside in the provincial budget this year to cover special projects of children’s aid societies will become part of the societies’ base budgets for 1980. I am pleased to be able to announce that the increase to societies in funding for 1980 will be a further eight per cent added to this base. A one-time expenditure of $120,000 will also be made among eight agencies which are at the bottom in terms of salaries, to place them in a more appropriate starting position as the new approach takes effect.

The new approach to funding children’s aid societies introduces a new management relationship among the provincial government, societies and municipalities that stresses service to children and families, greater accountability of societies and their boards and greater local autonomy and flexibility. It is the hope of the government that it will be well received by both societies and municipalities since it is clearer, simpler, fairer and more equitable, and should reduce budget review and processing costs. The children of Ontario should be better served because of it.

The introduction of the services approach to funding of children’s aid societies is part of a broader plan to phase in this approach for the funding of all children’s services programs within the Ministry of Community and Social Services, A full discussion of the problems of children’s services funding and the overall strategy to address these problems in the 1950s will be included in a policy paper which will be released by the minister in December. A summary of the contents is being released today and copies will be placed in all members’ mail boxes.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, Last week during my absence, my colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle) --

Mr. Speaker: Order. A copy of that statement has yet to be transmitted to the opposition. The honourable minister may proceed.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m sorry about that, Mr. Speaker. Because of all that, I’ll have to start over again, because I don’t want my train of thought to be interrupted. Last week during my absence, my colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, advised this House of the status of the proposed federal legislation for the regulation of the transportation of dangerous goods. Briefly to refresh the members on the subject, let me say that since 1976 the transportation of dangerous goods secretariat of Transport Canada has been in existence. Its efforts were undertaken at the request and continuous co-operation of both industry and the provincial ministries concerned with ensuring the uniform -- and I stress uniform -- application of dangerous goods regulations across the entire country, as well as the interchange of such freight between any and all modes of transportation.

The proposed system would regulate the packaging and container standards, labelling, storage and transportation of dangerous goods; prescribe documentation requirements for the movement of such goods; provide emergency information, procedures and authority regarding dangerous goods transportation incidents; and prescribe penalties and liabilities for the contravention of the proposed regulatory provisions.

As members of this House should now be aware, the draft federal Act was introduced in Parliament in May 1978 as Bill C-53 and was reintroduced in November 1978 as Bill C-17. However, it died on the federal Order Paper at dissolution this past spring.

For our part, the Ontario government passed the enabling legislation; that is, we amended the Highway Traffic Act to accommodate the adoption of any federal code by reference two years ago. In fact, third reading of that bill was given on November 8, 1977.

On my return, I was advised by my people that the new federal Minister of Transport, the Honourable Don Mazankowski, introduced Bill C-25 -- which is the new bill to replace the previous two I mentioned -- on Monday of this week.

The provincial secretary also advised the members of the existence of three elements critical to the full implementation of this proposed federal system of regulation.

[2:15]

First, the act and code of regulations are being developed as separate and distinct instruments to permit the provinces to implement the code in co-operation with federal administrative procedures. Second, by virtue of our constitution the act and code intervene in a most difficult area of overlapping jurisdictions. Third, the federal, provincial and municipal governments will need, individually and jointly, to make a large number of arrangements concerning the administration, enforcement and funding of the system.

There are members here today who are pressing for rapid decisions in this matter, and in the afterlight of what happened in Mississauga, all members should. But I can tell them it has been an ongoing matter of prime concern with me over the past few years. For example, on four successive occasions while at the Canadian Conference of Motor Transport Administrators, I and my provincial counterparts and senior staff members have pushed and prodded for action, formulating and passing resolutions calling on the federal government to act with dispatch. I cannot enumerate the number of telephone and face-to-face conversations I had with Mr. Mazankowski’s predecessor, Otto Lang, on this same subject.

As the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development candidly pointed out, the act and code intervene in a broad area of overlapping jurisdictions. Just the same, when one considers the amount of goods, including hazardous and dangerous commodities, crossing Ontario borders, one can understand why I have strongly supported complementary Ontario legislation to any federal act and why I so vigorously urged Ottawa to move on Bills 53 and 17 and now on Bill 25.

As late as yesterday afternoon, a senior official of Transport Canada, representing his minister, met with my deputy minister, with the deputy minister of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Deputy Solicitor General, as well as a senior law officer from the city of Mississauga. The latter, naturally, attended on behalf of Her Worship, Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, to discuss draft terms of reference for the inquiry to be called by the federal minister to look into the transportation of hazardous goods by rail.

Following that meeting, I had the opportunity to talk yesterday afternoon with Mr. Mazankowski. Recognizing there will be an inquiry, I urged him to move on the federal legislation as soon as possible. I did so because I believe such legislation is essential for Ontario, especially when one considers the amount of hazardous goods transported almost daily within the provincial borders.

I also pointed out that should the upcoming inquiry reveal any deficiencies in the present federal legislation, then these could be corrected by subsequent amendments. I can tell the members of this House that Mr. Mazankowski himself expressed his very keen desire to get the new legislation passed before the federal House rises for the Christmas recess. For our part, as soon as the federal legislation is in place and the three volumes are available to my people in the ministry, I shall process and adopt all appropriate provisions for swift application in Ontario.

At this point, I would like again to underline the need for uniformity in the processing and adoption of the federal legislation in all 10 Canadian provinces and the territories, for uniformity is essential to safety from near-disasters such as occurred in Mississauga, instead of all jurisdictions dashing off in different directions. Recognizing, however, that there could be possible problems affecting the prompt passage of the federal legislation, despite Mr. Mazankowski’s optimism, I’ve asked MTC staff to accelerate any selective, interim regulations which could be implemented quickly as a stop-gap measure. I did that, despite my conviction any unilateral action by any province in this field is contrary to the common Canada-wide good.

Finally, while I believe I have answered any and all queries directed at my colleague, the provincial Secretary for Resources Development, there is one last matter which I should address, namely, the charge by the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) that unregulated carriers are carrying dangerous goods on Ontario highways, notwithstanding Bill 89. Simply stated, the member should not confuse economic regulations under the Public Commercial Vehicles Act with safety regulations which apply across the board to all carriers, whether private or for hire.

HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement concerning important matters having to do with human rights.

Ontario was the first jurisdiction in Canada to enact a comprehensive code on human rights some 17 years ago. Revisions have been made from time to time in our human rights legislation, sometimes by way of amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code and sometimes by means of separate legislation -- for example, Bill 122 introduced last session by my colleague, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), dealing with discriminatory business practices.

In mid-1977, my predecessor received a report on a broad range of human rights issues from the Ontario Human Rights Commission following an extensive review by the commission of the existing human rights code and consideration of a number of submissions made at the public hearings throughout the province. While the report of the commission was, as I have said, a comprehensive one, it did identify two major areas to which the government gives special priority at this time. I refer to the need to protect handicapped persons against discrimination and, equally important, the need to take positive and meaningful measures to further protect the rights of the visible minorities in this province and, in particular, to further promote and encourage improved race relations.

Later this afternoon, I shall be introducing a bill entitled An Act to Protect the Rights of Handicapped Persons. As the honourable members may know, 1981 has been designated the International Year for Disabled Persons. I am sure many jurisdictions will be taking positive action to promote the integration of disabled persons into all activities of society. The bill I wish to introduce today is in keeping with this objective and is, I believe, a significant move towards what I am sure is our common objective: namely, to ensure that disabled people have the fullest opportunity to utilize their talents and realize their potential in all walks of life.

In the last few years there has been increasing awareness of the difficulties handicapped people face in trying to exercise basic rights which the non-handicapped have taken for granted. Regrettably, discrimination against the handicapped does occur. Sometimes it is deliberate and invidious, but more frequently, perhaps, it is a result of the erroneous view that the handicapped need to be segregated in order to protect them from themselves and the rest of society. Whatever the motivation, I am sure all members agree that discrimination against the handicapped is unwarranted and cannot be tolerated.

The handicapped persons’ rights bill has two main purposes: first, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of handicap in relation to employment, accommodation and the provision of services and facilities; second, to establish an office of the handicapped to provide information and to co-ordinate policies and programs designed to benefit and assist handicapped persons.

There are four provisions of the bill which are of particular significance:

1. Protection from discrimination is extended to the physically disabled, the developmentally disabled and to those who have had a past history of mental illness.

2. Complaints of discrimination are to be dealt with by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which will have the power to appoint boards of inquiry to adjudicate claims and make appropriate remedial orders.

3. Provisions have been made concerning the relationship of the new act to other acts of the Legislature, with provisions for primacy for the new act where appropriate.

4. The act establishes an office for the handicapped, responsible to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), to provide information on available services and co-ordinate policies and programs relating to handicapped persons.

The second initiative to which I wish to refer today is the designation of a member of the human rights commission as this province’s race relations commissioner. As recent events have shown, we cannot be complacent about the imperative to treat visible minorities, who form such an important part of our social fabric, with fairness and equity.

In my view it is not good enough simply to prohibit discrimination and to react only to complaints. We must increasingly move out into the community, to our schools, to places of employment, to volunteer organizations, to trade unions, to our churches, and indeed to every sector and institution in our society, with an active educational and preventive program, aimed at eradicating all forms of racial bias and discrimination.

As you are aware, this government has committed itself to combat racism. To this end, the human rights commission was given this responsibility. Accordingly, the human rights commission some time ago established a race relations committee and that committee has been working in that area for some time.

To further support this proactive role, a special race relations division will be established within the commission, working under the direction of a new race relations commissioner. I am pleased today to announce the appointment of Dr. Bhausaheb Ubale, who is sitting in the visitors’ gallery and who becomes the race relations commissioner of this province, effective December 1, 1979. Since his appointment to the human rights commission 18 months ago, Dr. Ubale has played a major role in the area of race relations.

As a further indication of the government’s commitment in this area, I would like to announce that a cabinet committee on race relations is being established. It will be chaired by the Attorney General, and composed of the ministers of Labour, Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz), Education (Miss Stephenson), and the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry).

While the government has been reviewing the recommendations set forth in the Life Together report, the Ontario Human Rights Commission continues to vigorously enforce the provisions of the existing Ontario Human Rights Code. This has been amply demonstrated by the increasing number of boards of inquiry that have been appointed, particularly during the last year, under the code. The success of these boards of inquiry and the decisions handed down by them will have far-reaching implications in promoting harmonious relations among the various segments of our society. Moreover, I am pleased to state that the human rights commission has already made certain changes in administrative procedures within the commission to ensure that the complainants and the respondents receive written reasons for decisions and that appeal from these decisions will be entertained to ensure natural justice.

There are, of course, other aspects of the commission’s report which are not addressed in the initiatives I am announcing today. I can assure honourable members that while I have dealt with two of what the government has considered to be the most important themes in the commission’s report, we shall continue to study the other recommendations of the report with great care, with a view to proposing further initiatives in due course.

COPIES OF STATEMENTS

Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a legitimate point of privilege. If it is not, I would ask for the Speaker’s direction in this matter.

We have now had three statements that have taken nearly 30 minutes, and in my judgement, each of the three has been important. We’ve been over this before.

Copies of each of the statements, as the rules provide, have been provided to the leaders of the opposition parties and to the opposition critics; again, private members have not had the opportunity to follow important and somewhat detailed statements,

I don’t know what the line of questioning will be when oral questions begin; a reasonable man might guess that some of the questions may be directed to points raised in the statements. Again, I would ask the Speaker where we fit into this. We may very well get those copies in the mail; we may very well see those things in the press, but I think there has to be a better way to give all of us an opportunity to question these important matters.

Mr. Speaker: While there is no provision in the standing orders for circulating those ministerial statements in advance to government back-benchers, I think it is an excellent point. It’s one well taken. Perhaps the government House leader could prevail upon his cabinet colleagues to circulate a sufficient number to allay any apprehension the honourable member has just expressed.

I think it is an excellent point.

Mr. McCaffrey: It wasn’t just for government back-benchers. We have managed to get this information when we need it. I’m talking about private members in the chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Since I’ve never had a complaint from over here, I have presumed they were all happy.

Mr. Foulds: On behalf of the back-benchers in our caucus, I would certainly like to support the previous speaker.

[2:30]

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order dealing with Hansard of October 16, 1979, and a comment made that day by the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) in regard to the Royal Ontario Museum. The minister indicated in reply to questions: “I am planning to make a statement next week which will deal not only with the expansion program but also with our operating grant to the Royal Ontario Museum. I think once we make that statement those questions that have just been raised will be answered.”

The minister was kind enough to phone me and say he wouldn’t be able to do it within a week. It’s now over a month. In two weeks, as I understand the schedule, certain of the galleries in the Royal Ontario Museum -- particularly the mineralogy and geology galleries and others -- will be closed down and will be completely inaccessible to the public for a number of years, as I understand it, if this minister does not take some action to ensure that these galleries are available to the people of Ontario.

In view of the $11 million extra that the province was about to put in its operating grant, I wonder if the minister has a statement today so that he can assure us that on December 3 these galleries will not be lost to the people of the province for the next 18 months to two years.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member has indicated, I did telephone him to say some of the information I wanted to encompass in a statement like that was not yet available. It is now available. I cannot make the statement today -- it isn’t ready -- but I also felt in the meantime I had answered, in a letter I addressed to him as chairman of the public accounts committee, some of the questions he had raised.

I am sorry if there has been this delay, but I really felt I could best serve this House and the public at large if I waited until I had all the facts before I made my statement. I am not trying to dodge the subject at all, believe me.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BROWNDALE FRAUD

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health.

In view of yesterday’s decision by Mr. Justice Holland to sentence John Brown to three years for his $975,000 fraud against the government of Ontario, and in view of the fact that the judge expressed the view that any repayment of that amount of money would have to come by separate civil action, does the minister intend to begin such an action on the civil level to recover the money of which the province was defrauded -- close to $1 million? Will the minister be taking a civil action to recover that money?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will be discussing that with my colleagues, especially the Minister of Community and Social Services, under whom children’s mental health programs now come.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since the Ministry of Health was represented by counsel at the proceedings, if I understand it correctly; and since counsel appears to have asked that such compensation be part of the sentence; and in view of the fact that request was already made but denied by the judge on the basis that it ought to be a civil matter, why is there any hesitation at all on the part of the minister in assuring this House some effort will be made via the civil courts to recover the money the people of Ontario have been defrauded of?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it is standard practice in my ministry, wherever possible, to recover sums owing to the ministry. In this particular case, inasmuch as the program was transferred two and a half years ago, before beginning any action I will want to consult with my colleague who is now responsible for the children’s mental health programs in general and that one in particular, funded through his ministry, because anything we do is potentially bound to have some impact on the present and current viability of any operations.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary: While the minister is doing that, will he also ascertain for the House why the government and the civil servants who were responsible did not pass any cabinet order okaying the budget of Browndale, and why no authority was ever given and no contract arrived at for up to three years, I believe, for the funds that were handed over to Browndale from time to time in that three-year period?

Will he also undertake to tell the House why some of the funds that were given to Browndale were given as operating grants and were spent on capital things, such as the houses in the United States and in Europe and the vast real-estate empire Mr. Brown built up?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice on behalf of the ministry in the generic sense, inasmuch as all the records and all the associated staff are no longer in my ministry. They are reporting to and responsible to another ministry.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, can the minister then explain to this House what instructions were given to the counsel appearing on behalf of the Minister of Health? Why was he there and what was the purpose of it, in view of this rather iffy situation as it is expressed today?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the Leader of the Opposition I will report back and will include --

Mrs. Campbell: You don’t know?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the ministry was involved at the time -- and that of course is the reason for the involvement -- through the crown law office.

Mr. Speaker: A new question, the honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Is the Solicitor General able to assure this House that his much-vaunted and extensively prominent bill with regard to civilian review of police complaints in Metropolitan Toronto will be brought before the House this session, as was originally indicated to the press and to the members of this Legislature? Can he give us the assurance that before we rise that bill will be before us for debate?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I was speaking to my House leader; he was indicating to me that he had been discussing this very issue with the House leaders of the other parties as recently as yesterday. I want to indicate to all the members of the Legislature that these are not problems we are not prepared to share with all of the parties.

When the Leader of the Opposition speaks of the “much-vaunted” legislation I am not quite sure what he means by that, but it is clear that the legislation has been requested by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Metro police commission.

The delay in producing this legislation, which I hope will be introduced and which I expect to have introduced before the House rises, is that it is absolutely essential, Mr. Speaker, that this be legislation that police authorities, both the rank and file and the senior officers, responding reasonably, feel they can live with. I have to say that, understandably enough, police associations that represent the majority of police officers and the senior officers, police chiefs and senior officers and their governing authorities have different views with respect to some important aspects of this legislation.

We have been attempting to reconcile these differences before we introduce the bill, because I am satisfied that if we don’t have legislation both these vital components of any police department feel they can live with, then the people of this province are not going to be well served. We have been making every effort to reconcile those differences. We expect this will happen and that the legislation will indeed be introduced before the House rises.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, and accepting and understanding that any bill that deals with a review procedure of this kind should enjoy at least the active involvement of the police in the drafting of the bill -- accepting that, does the minister not concede that in the first place he has had about five years of discussion on this matter to start to get the opinions of police forces? Does he not concede as well that he assured the public in Toronto and in Ontario that he would be moving very swiftly in this session, so we would have a bill on the books -- not just something to be introduced but on the books -- and what has been the delay between the time he made the promise and now? He surely could have had discussions between then and now.

I remember when a previous Solicitor General tried to introduce a bill dealing with police, he was removed from his position. Does the Solicitor General not feel he might be in for the same fate if he goes ahead with the promise he made to the people?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would have hoped the Leader of the Opposition was really interested in seriously addressing the fundamental issues involved. We have not only consulted with the police authorities, both the police association and police governing authorities and senior officers, but we’ve consulted citizens’ groups and many others who have some interest in this legislation. As a matter of fact, since we announced in September our intention of introducing this legislation, this process has been carried out by senior officials of my ministry on a continuous basis.

With regard to the history of legislation, I can only talk about what I attempted to do during my year as Solicitor General. I don’t think the House is really interested in my reviewing the past five years or whatever history is related to this type of legislation, other than to say --

Mr. Cassidy: It is your government; don’t disown your colleagues.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Not at all. Mr. Speaker, if the opposition wishes, I can do this. It’s going to take me a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I can take them right through the history of this legislation if they want to do it.

First of all, when Mr. Justice Morand reported --

Mr. Renwick: Let’s do it in committee. Let’s do it in the estimates.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t expect the two opposition parties to be able to even agree on the time of day.

Mr. Speaker, I’m really in a quandary. Here, I’m invited by the leader of the official opposition to give a history of this legislation, but then the New Democratic Party, which of course always has a short, simplistic answer to every issue, wants me to abbreviate my response. It is obvious that I should simply resolve the issue by saying the estimates of the Attorney General are presently in progress. I’m prepared to discuss with the opposition critics in some detail the history of this legislation, because it does touch the responsibility of the Attorney General.

They’ve been talking about the role of the Minister of Transportation and Communications for the last few days. I’m quite prepared to discuss this legislation as well. Just let me reiterate that we are trying to produce legislation that’s going to work. We’ve worked very hard at this legislation and we intend to have this legislation introduced this session.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: While I appreciate the conflict of interest which the Solicitor General has in respect to his role as Attorney General, thus explaining the fence-sitting he’s been doing for this long period of time, and knowing this issue goes back at least nine years and we’ve had two pieces of legislation --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Warner: -- will the Attorney General explain why he cannot tell us definitely today that the legislation will be introduced prior to Christmas?

Second, has he rejected out of hand the resolution I placed on the Order Paper just a couple of weeks ago which fully outlines a workable type of procedure for Metropolitan Toronto and presumably for other municipalities which are interested?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have nothing further to add to my previous answers that would be relevant to this issue.

Mr. S. Smith: Just so the record will show it, did I understand the Attorney General to say the legislation will be introduced this session and its passage will be permitted contingent simply upon its acceptance by the opposition parties? Is that what he has said, that as long as we are co-operative the matter will be passed this session? Is that an undertaking from the Attorney General?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I repeat what I have said before: I will make every possible effort to introduce the legislation. I expect that it will be introduced, yes; if the legislation is accepted in the form in which it is introduced, then I’d like to see it passed, yes. But I can’t guarantee I am going to support the passage of legislation that may be changed in certain fundamental principles. I think we’ll just have to wait and see.

I assure the Leader of the Opposition that I will make every possible effort to introduce this legislation. I do intend to introduce it; I just can’t be precise about the date.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism about a classic case of how the government is failing to use government purchasing as a lever to support domestic industry here in this country.

Can the minister explain how it came about that when the regional municipality of Peel sought proposals for a major portion of its waste recovery plant this summer, at least three interested Canadian companies did not bid on this demonstration project? If the government is committed to using procurement as a means to encourage Canadian technology and Canadian industry, can the minister explain why it was prepared to commit $10 million, plus a piece of Ontario’s own land, on the strength of one bid from a huge foreign corporation -- the Grumman Corporation of New York?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The leader of the third party is asking me why the regional municipality of Peel did not exercise a preferential purchasing policy in its purchasing decision. If his request is that I investigate and call Peel and ask them the circumstances, I’d be happy to do that.

I am as interested in using government procurement constructively in this country every bit as much as is the leader of the third party. Perhaps he would write or call me about matters like this so that I might have the information for him with regard to a decision made by a municipality in this province. When he raises such matters in the House I would then have all the information at hand in order to answer the question for him and provide some constructive information for both of us at that time.

If I had heard his question correctly, he is apparently asking me why three Canadian firms did not bid on the project. I would hardly be in a position to tell him the reasons why three firms chose not to bid. However, if he will give me the details, I’d be happy to contact those firms and ask them. Perhaps he has asked them and might be interested in relaying that information to me.

Finally, I might conclude by saying I am still waiting for some of the information he said he would have earlier when he told me there were some prospective purchasers of Eldorado Nuclear and asked if I would investigate the rumours. I asked him to give me the source of those rumours and the names of the prospective purchasers, which were the fundamental basis behind his question in the House. If that’s the tactic, I only ask him to be kind enough to have followed up three weeks later with the basis upon which he asked that question.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: I appreciate that the minister is asking me to do the job his staff should be doing on his behalf. I also hear him say quite clearly that even though $10 million in provincial funding is being put into the waste recovery plant in the regional municipality of Peel, that amount of provincial money isn’t important enough for him to be concerned about whether the procurement goes to Canadian companies or to American companies.

Could the minister explain why the government would not have taken an aggressive leadership role in helping these three Canadian companies to bid jointly on the waste recovery project or in setting up a joint venture with those Canadian companies in order to develop the Canadian technology in this important area of future development of an industry which will soon be spread across the country?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to permit the leader of the third party to suggest that I didn’t consider it was important enough to see if we couldn’t get them to implement a preferential purchasing policy when the region -- with or without our money -- is making a purchase. I specifically said I am interested in seeing exactly that sort of thing happens and that municipalities, boards of education and everyone else begin to adopt appropriate procurement policies.

With regard to the latter part of the member’s question, if his information is -- and I would like to hear it -- that they have approached this government and asked for our assistance in putting together a bid, in doing research and development and in creating a consortium in order to bid on that project, then I will also investigate that and explain to him the reason behind the government’s decision. I could be wrong, because of course he hasn’t told me the details in advance so that I could investigate, but I suspect those companies did not approach us for that kind of assistance. If they have, I will find out the circumstances behind that approach.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: I do draw the minister’s attention to the fact that this question was raised briefly in the House back on November 1, and clearly the minister’s officials haven’t responded to that.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Cassidy: My question, Mr. Speaker, is this: Is the minister not aware in his responsibilities as Minister of Industry and Tourism that last fall Grumman Ecosystems Corporation entered into an agreement with Reed Paper to capture the solid waste recovery market in Canada and that their first project is the Peel plant?

Given the fact that the government and Peel have already dealt a severe blow to Canadian companies that might get into this area on the ground floor, will the minister now make a commitment actively to promote a consortium of Canadian companies to develop this capability, rather than just simply waiting until somebody comes knocking on his door? Is there not a role for leadership from the Ontario government to ensure Canadian companies do play a role in this area of technology?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I must say to the leader of the third party that this government, all of my field staff and all of the staff here at Queen’s Park are taking quite a leadership role in encouraging industries for the first time to consider entering into and forming consortia. If he wants to pick one particular sector and suggest they did not respond to the general invitation that is out there, then I have to say to the leader of the third party what he’s suggesting is this government go out and find instances in which a firm or a group of firms, not Canadian-owned, is bidding on some projects and going into an industry, and that we should, as a government, put out resources, collect firms and become partners in order to compete with those private-sector investors.

I have to say to him that that is an historic position of his party -- there is nothing new about that -- to have government put in money to form consortia or whatever to compete against private-sector initiative in creating jobs. That simply isn’t our view of the world. It’s not our view of the way capitalism ought to operate in this country.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development about the Niagara Escarpment. It is particularly appropriate since the proposal plan for the Niagara Escarpment was being released in Collingwood just a few minutes ago.

Since the Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague), told people at the Grey-Bruce Progressive Conservative annual meeting a few days ago he could foresee the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act being rescinded once the Niagara Escarpment plan has been adopted, can the provincial secretary tell this House exactly what plans the government has concerning that important piece of legislation? Secondly, what plans does the government have to ensure future development along the escarpment conforms both to the plan and also to the principle of the creation of a continuous natural environment along the escarpment?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I will be making a statement tomorrow. As the leader of the third party mentioned, the commission released the report today. Copies of my statement will be sent to members who are interested. The determination as to the future plans of the commission has not yet been made.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the proposed plan recommends that a ministry be designated to monitor and keep an eye on the implementation of the plans, could the minister tell the House whether the government intends to abolish the Niagara Escarpment commission or is that still to be decided? Could he assure the House that the ministry that monitors the implementation of the plan will be a ministry that is dedicated to protecting the environment, such as the Ministry of the Environment, and not a ministry that is dedicated to raping the environment, such as the Ministry of Natural Resources or the Ministry of Housing?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows full well this government has on numerous occasions indicated the Niagara Escarpment area would be preserved. It is a unique area, so the honourable member should have no fear; that area will be preserved.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Could I ask if the minister is aware the general government policy is set out in the act at the present time by such statements as: “The purpose of this act is to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment; to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment; to ensure the objectives; to ensure that all new development is compatible with the purpose of this act, expressed in section 2; to provide for public access,” and seven additional objectives?

If the act is rescinded it will destroy the whole principle of preservation and, in fact, be a liquidation of the policy your government has stated. Is that what the minister wants to do, and if not, will he give the commitment that he will attempt only to amend the act and will leave intact the stated purposes and the objectives of the act?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: As I indicated earlier, the members will be receiving a copy. A meeting has been set for next Tuesday. I believe the honourable member has received, and if he has not, he will be receiving an invitation to attend this meeting and all these matters will be fully discussed.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order? There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Foulds: The point of order is with regard to the statement the minister just --

Mr. Speaker: He has taken it as notice. He will have a statement tomorrow, and members will be able to question him further in detail. There is really nothing out of order in question period -- unless it is the Speaker, and that is permissible.

Mr. Foulds: Can I try a point of privilege?

Mr. Speaker: You can try.

Mr. Foulds: Is it not the privilege of a member of this Legislature to receive a policy statement by the government simultaneously, at least, with the statement being made in Collingwood? There is ample precedent for this government making --

Mr. Speaker: No, that is not a privilege of any member of this House.

Mr. Foulds: A point of protest, then.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health concerning our Kitchener-Waterloo ambulance strike. Is the minister aware that an offer of an increase in pay was rejected by the employees because it was contingent on the approval of the ministry to provide the necessary funds to cover the increase? If so, can the minister publicly state today that sufficient funds will be provided so that condition can be removed from the proposed settlement offer, with the hope that the parties can then quickly resolve their remaining differences and settle the strike?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I answered that question on Tuesday -- I think it was from this member’s colleague, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney). I made the point that obviously we don’t cover -- and I don’t think he would want us to say that whatever settlement comes along we will cover penny for penny, nickel for nickel; but I can give the member the assurance that we have in all other circumstances ensured any review of the budget as a result of any settlement would provide for the maintenance of an acceptable, satisfactory level of ambulance services. I think that is about as far as I can go in that regard.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: Would the minister convey those assurances to the parties involved, with the hope that even that involvement of his good offices in this matter possibly would be helpful in getting this strike completed?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am obviously as anxious as the honourable member to see that happen. It is my understanding the parties were made aware of that position a long time ago, but I will assure myself again that they are aware of it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: I am wondering how the minister can make that kind of statement when, quoting from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, “The company has so far resisted arbitration because it says it doesn’t know if the Ministry of Health will provide extra funds in the event a higher than expected wage rate is awarded through arbitration.”

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In any of the negotiations respecting any aspect of the health-care system we do not and never have adopted the position we cover any arbitrated settlement penny for penny. What we do is receive the submission from the hospital, health unit, ambulance service, as to the effect of it. What they submit is required to maintain what we would mutually agree is an acceptable level of service. If that’s the case, then we cover it.

I cannot and will not give the kind of assurance that will cover no matter what, because I think that would obviously throw the whole negotiation and arbitration process into a cocked hat.

Mr. Sweeney: Since there is now a precise offer on the table -- I mean there’s no question about what it is -- why can’t the minister, as my colleague from Kitchener has suggested, simply tell them, “Look, we can or we cannot meet that offer”?

We are not asking the minister, as he suggested to me a couple of days ago, to write a blank cheque; we appreciate that comment. But we now have a specific figure. Can the minister say yes or no, and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t think we do have an exact figure in terms of the total impact, but if the parties were to arrive at an agreement and submit it then we would cost it out very quickly and get back to them very quickly, just as we’ve done in other localities.

HANDICAPPED PERSONS’ RIGHTS

Mr. Mackenzie: A question of the Minister of Labour: Can he explain to the House why, with his statement in the House today, he has done exactly what we are trying to prevent? Why has the minister discriminated against and segregated the handicapped in Ontario by isolating them with a separate bill dealing in the moment with only two of the issues instead of comprehensive changes to the human rights code, in view of the comprehensive nature of the review?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With the greatest respect to the member, I think he does a disservice to the important nature of the legislation introduced today. It shows clear and precise conviction and dedication over the issue of the rights of handicapped.

I would ask him, before he pursues this line of thought, to read the bill and read that it goes beyond even the areas discussed in Life Together. Therefore, it is in the view of this government and in my view a very progressive piece of legislation, as are the other thrusts that are mentioned today as our priorities at this time.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary to the minister: Is the minister then prepared to assure the House that what is in that bill is not locked in and does not prohibit amendments to other bills or regulations -- the Workmen’s Compensation Board, for example -- and can we be assured it doesn’t lock out any right of a worker to appeal discrimination on the basis of, say, a knee injury if he’s an injured workman?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that refers to disabilities. There’s no suggestion that it in any way hinders the rights of anyone with a disability from bringing a complaint.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: Can the minister assure us that in bringing in the bill over the handicapped and disabled in this way, rather than as an all-inclusive amendment to the Ontario Human Rights Code, the question on employment forms, “Have you ever received WCB benefits?” can now no longer be asked?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I haven’t given specific thought to that question but certainly it was my intention all along that this bill would prevent that very sort of problem. If that’s not so, then let’s deal with it.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue: In view of the fact that there are a number of properties in the city of North York, particularly oil company properties, which have some of their land in so-called agricultural use and by doing this, they are costing the taxpayers of North York some $300,000 -- I’m wondering if the minister is aware of this and if he is --

Interjections.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, can I have order?

I am wondering if the minister is aware of this situation. If so, could he indicate to the House whether what these property owners are doing is totally in accordance with the Assessment Act, or whether there is any discretion on the part of the ministry or the assessors so this situation could be changed?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I am aware of this problem. It is not one that is restricted to North York by any means. I have had complaints from the city of Mississauga and other municipalities, not only about people who happen to own oil companies but also people who have land for development purposes.

The land is leased to farmers who are using it for agricultural purposes. Under the Assessment Act, if land is being used for agricultural purposes it must be assessed as farm land. Certainly, my assessors are within the act, as it is now written.

I have had my senior staff check into this matter and it is being discussed to see if there is any solution to it. There are many problems inherent in this particular matter. The question of defining a farmer and a farm alone is one of the major problems. It has been under discussion in many committees in this Legislature for a long time and we still do not have what we consider to be a proper definition.

This matter is under close scrutiny by the ministry. The other part of the problem is, the direction of this government has been to make the most use of the available farm land in the province. This, of course, does permit that to take place.

Mr. Rotenberg: Supplementary: Recognizing, as the minister has indicated, the need to preserve what I will call legitimate agricultural land in the province, would the minister undertake to look into what seems to be an inequity, in that land which is really not agricultural is being used for that purpose, apparently to avoid taxation? Also, would the minister look into the possibility of some changes in the rules or legislation to correct this apparent inequity?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: As I indicated in my first reply, we are looking into the matter. However, I don’t think I would like to categorize it as a tax evasion by anyone. The law is there; they are within the law. Our assessors visit each one of these properties every year to see if it is being used for agricultural purposes or not. As long as the act exists as it is, it is certainly not a tax evasion. It may be a loophole, but it certainly is not an evasion. An evasion is a little different thing.

We are looking at it. I cannot assure the member there’s an easy solution to the problem.

Mr. Epp: Since the minister has admitted it is obviously a loophole of which these companies are able to take advantage within the law, I would like to ask him why he is so reluctant to make a commitment to this Legislature and to the people that he will plug that loophole post haste. I would think he has a responsibility to the people of Ontario to plug that loophole as quickly as possible. Why is he so reluctant? Why does he have to consult?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Whether or not I am reluctant is a matter of opinion. I have already indicated I would look into the matter. I am not about to make a decision on a matter as important as this at the beck and call of the member for Waterloo North. I am prepared to look into it; I have made the commitment and I am not hedging on it.

VANDALISM

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would like to respond to a question asked on November 15 by the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy).

The honourable member asked for an update on the newest Ontario Housing Corporation building for senior citizens being constructed in Thunder Bay on the Red River Road. This tower was scheduled to be turned over to the corporation later this month, but because of the severe damage caused by vandals it will likely not become part of our property and assets until May of next year.

The damage to this building occurred as a result of vandals turning on the fire hoses on the top floor of the building. They remained on overnight, causing severe damage to the main structure of the building and necessitating the replacement of the electrical wiring, floors, Gyproc and doors in the building. The estimated cost of repairs is something close to $500,000. The building is still the responsibility of the developer and I assure this House there is no problem with the insurance company, on behalf of the contractor, looking after the repairs to the structure.

I will keep the member advised of the progress of this structure.

CHEESE PRODUCTION

Mr. O’Neil: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food concerning the cheese industry in the province.

Can the minister tell us what he and his government are presently doing to obtain an increased milk quota from Ottawa so that the cheddar cheese industry in Ontario will be able to remain viable and also be able to fill markets that are available for their products?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the honourable member, in the last fiscal year the dairy farmers in Ontario only filled a little over 95 per cent of their industrial milk quota. On top of this, the National Dairy Council of Canada increased Ontario’s portion by some three per cent. If we apply what farmers supplied last year to this year’s quota it would take last year’s deliveries back to 92.5 per cent or 93 per cent. This year there is quota for the farmers to increase their production of industrial milk by a little better than seven per cent.

When we get into the different price ranges for the different levels of milk, the farmers were afraid of overproduction -- I don’t think I need go into that and the effects it has on the farm economy. In order to encourage the farmers to produce up to their quota, the government has assured the Ontario Milk Marketing Board it will put in $6.2 million. That would have to be my answer to the honourable member.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: Could the minister tell us whether or not there will be larger increases this year than what he is talking about now? In other words, is the minister planning to try to get some more milk quota from Ottawa so they can produce beyond that increase of seven or eight per cent?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I am worried about the other side of it. As I suggested, our farmers only produced 95 per cent of quota last year.

Mr. S. Smith: Why?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: They were afraid of overproducing.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: That is right. There is no argument. They were afraid to go over their quota. Last year was one year they could have produced up to the 100 per cent.

If the honourable members care to look back, we all know there were farmers who only received about $2.80 a hundredweight in the year previous because of their overproduction. Our farmers were afraid of doing that again, so we as a province have agreed to put in the $6.2 million -- which will remove that worry of the farmers -- to let them produce up to the quota.

What I am concerned about, as the Minister of Agriculture and Food, is that we do have this quota allocation. If the farmers don’t produce up to it and the farmers of Quebec, for instance, produce 100 per cent of their quota, the national dairy council is put in a very difficult situation. I have conveyed this to the milk marketing board. I have conveyed it to the farm organizations. In Belleville yesterday I conveyed to the farmers there what the situation really is. No doubt the member has had it conveyed to him. If we don’t come up to our quota, the national dairy council has to get that milk from somewhere. I have done everything I know to encourage our farmers to produce up to the 100 per cent.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: The minister didn’t refer to what he had done in Ottawa. Can I ask him if he has made representation to the federal minister and what representation he has made?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I spoke for half an hour on the phone to the federal minister as recently as an hour and a half ago.

Mr. Samis: Are you any wiser?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Much wiser.

If the honourable member was in our position and had access to the Minister of Agriculture for Canada, I assure him he would be much wiser, yes; but there has been continuous dialogue.

[3:15]

CHLORINE LEAKS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General.

In view of the four chlorine leaks that have occurred in pulp and paper mills in northwestern Ontario in the last month -- specifically at Marathon, Red Rock, Great Lakes in Thunder Bay, and most recently at Terrace Bay on Tuesday last -- can the minister explain why the company on whose property the leak occurs appears to have the sole discretion to decide whether or not the leak is serious enough to notify the police chief and the responsible authorities?

In particular, can the Solicitor General explain why Kimberly-Clark of Canada Limited failed to notify police chief Bill Zrolack when a chlorine leak occurred at the Terrace Bay mill at 11 a.m. last Tuesday, particularly as the wind was blowing from the north directly over the town at the time?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not aware of the circumstances of that particular occurrence. I will inquire into it and report back to the honourable member.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in his investigation can the Solicitor General inquire into two matters: First, should not the notification be mandatory? Second, will he determine why it is that the police chief, who has the emergency plan and is the key contact person in the community, found out only accidentally, because an OPP officer stationed a mile away at a service station detected the leak and notified his superiors, who in turn notified the town police chief?

Can the minister also find out why Kimberly-Clark, contrary to the emergency plan, placed a tractor across the road that gave egress from the mill and if an evacuation of the mill had been necessary this would have in fact obstructed the evacuation of the mill?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am very strongly of the view that if there is an accident or occurrence of the nature and character described by the honourable member and if there is any likelihood of any risk of emission that is going to affect the health of the citizens of that community, the police chief should be advised. I will certainly inquire into why he was not advised, if that is in fact correct, and I am sure that is the belief held by the honourable member.

BEVERAGE SUPPLIES

Mr. C. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Considering the amount of imported foreign beverage in the form of coffee that is used throughout the Legislature at the different committees, et cetera, would the minister use his good offices and persuasive ability to inform those people who do the ordering and serving that possibly a beverage such as milk or apple juice would better help our farmers and help the position put forward by the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil)?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I believe this ordering comes under Mr. Speaker’s office, so I will consider that message conveyed to you, sir.

FOREIGN PURCHASES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr. Riddell: I have a question for the Minster of Agriculture and Food.

What kind of response did he receive from the clerks of the townships pertaining to foreign investment in farm land here in Ontario; what did the response indicate; and how much weight is the minister going to put on that kind of information, considering there is no way the clerks would know the source of funding of these lands if they happened to be purchased by some local resident or some local corporation?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have had an excellent response from the clerks of this province. I sent out inquiry notes to approximately 500 municipal clerks, As of yesterday morning, I had responses from 300 of those 500, or 60 per cent of the clerks.

My staff estimates we have about 16 million acres of agricultural land in Ontario. The clerks I have heard from represent municipalities containing 10.4 million acres or approximately two thirds of the land. While we have only received word from 60 per cent of the clerks, the area represents 66 per cent of what we estimate is the total agricultural land. From the 66 per cent response, I find there are about 76,000 acres of land owned by people residing outside of Canada; or approximately three quarters of one per cent shown in the response.

In going into this more deeply, I have phoned some of the clerks and I have visited some of the municipalities where there seems to be a high ratio. I had a response from one of the municipalities.

Mr. Wildman: Algoma.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- Algoma, where 14 per cent of the land was owned by people residing outside Canada.

Let me take that one a step further. In that particular case, they didn’t report any farmers, but they did report 14 per cent outside ownership; so it really wasn’t agricultural land, but that is in that 0.75 per cent. With respect to any of those I have inquired of, I find that of this foreign ownership, about two thirds consists of people residing in the United States; and about one third, or one quarter of one per cent of people residing in central Europe.

I would have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that sample is very light, maybe one in 25 in cases where I have phoned the clerk. That is the report as of yesterday morning.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: Since there is enough concern about this matter in Ontario, which led me to introduce a private member’s bill last session to have all those foreign owners disclose the land they had purchased and which led the minister’s own colleague, the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), to introduce a similar bill this session, stating when he introduced it, apparently, that the government is not doing enough, will the minister take a look at both private members’ bills and come to some decision as to whether or not he thinks he should bring in a bill of his own to find out exactly how much of this land has passed into foreign ownership? Doesn’t the minister think that would be the route to go, rather than playing around with all these unreliable sources as he is doing at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I don’t consider the municipal clerks to be an unreliable source. I have a very high respect for the municipal clerks of this province. I think that statement is unfair. Yes, I will take a look at the two private bills.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. As the minister had promised to respond by October to the strong local desire to see the creation of a French-language school board in Ottawa-Carleton, is she now prepared to make that response and also to inform us what decision she plans to meet the needs of 1,500 French-language high-school students of the Carleton board?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The answers to the questions, Mr. Speaker, are no and no. I am hopeful in the not-too-distant future I will be able to make that response to the school boards in the Ottawa-Carleton region.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: Could we ask the minister at least to give her endorsation to the creation today of the Conseil francophone de planification scolaire d’Ottawa-Carleton as a local organization which will take the transitional step towards the formation of a French-language school board for Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the francophone trustees in the Ottawa-Carleton region are providing a model, which I think might be useful to all public bodies in that area, a model of cooperative effort in support of their particular concerns. I am I certainly pleased to support it in that light.

MISSISSAUGA TRAIN FIRE

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) has been in and out of the House several times.

He is not here now. On November 15 the member for Windsor-Sandwich raised a question concerning the possible formation of chlorinated hydrocarbons during the recent fire in Mississauga. I can assure the honourable member that officers of my ministry were aware of the possibility and the TAGA 3000 was used to great effect at this time.

The only chlorinated organic compound which was found in measurable concentrations was chloro-aceto-phenone, which is what is called a lachrymator. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have been there and had the experience of feeling it in my eyes, as has the Attorney General, You don’t have to worry about knowing when it is present; you can sure feel it. It does make the eyes water. The material is formed by the action of sunlight on a dilute gaseous mixture of styrene and chlorine and in this instance was formed in very low concentrations. The maximum level detected was approximately 20 parts per billion, but one certainly could feel it very readily.

Samples of mud and water taken at the crash site were also analysed and the sample showed trace quantities of chlorinated styrene compounds. However, these latter compounds were apparently in too low a concentration in the air to be detected by our TAGA unit which, as the members probably know, measures in parts per trillion.

Regular tests were also made for hydrochloric acid and phosgene in the air, but again no measurable quantities were detected by the TAGA.

Finally, I would like to lay to rest any fears that PCBs might have been formed during the train crash and subsequent fire. I can confirm that it would not have been possible, since there were no biphenols at the site to react with the chlorine and form PCBs.

I have another answer to another question from the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio); I could do it today or tomorrow.

Mr. Bounsall: A supplementary to the minister’s answer: Were air samples taken right from the very start of the combustion with the chlorine mixing with it and were those samples run though gas chromatographs to detect the whole range of chlorinated hydrocarbons that were likely to be formed? Was this done right at the beginning and were the air samples subjected to the proper qualitative and quantitative analyses?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: In order to be completely fair on this matter, if the member is asking me if it was done within the first day, the answer is yes. If he is asking me if it was done within the first five minutes, the answer is no. We were on the scene with our instruments and TAGA 3000 was operating in the first day. We had other less sensitive equipment there within hours. We had TAGA 3000 there on the first day.

TRANSIT SERVICE

Mr. Stong: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In answer to my question on the Order Paper concerning public transportation, the minister reaffirmed his commitment to provide and encourage public transportation and he recognized the need to tailor services to public acceptance and demand.

In the light of that reaffirmation, when will the minister give effect to the undertaking he gave to me in that same answer to “ensure that interregional services are maintained in the most effective and efficient manner”? When will he re-establish the GO bus services eliminated when the route on Bayview Avenue was turned over by Toronto Transit Operating Authority to the town of Markham?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, we would be more than happy to have TATOA reinstitute the CO bus service as quickly as we can possibly implement it, but as a lawyer the member should know I am told we happen to have a legal agreement with the town of Markham which pressured us to remove the service from that particular route.

[3:30]

We also had agreement from the town of Richmond Hill, which has now written to me and told me they are rescinding that concurrence to that change in service, for which I don’t blame them because the town of Markham has not lived up to expectations, as I am told, to provide an adequate bus service on Bayview Avenue.

It is my belief that the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority service should be reimplemented by the joint study on inter-regional and municipal transit services in that particular area.

But at this moment, at the request of the town of Markham we removed that service. We would like to reimplement it but we are not going to do it until I am satisfied we are not leaving ourselves open to legal action by the town of Markham.

Mr. Stong: Supplementary: Why would the minister allow TATOA, which is a branch of his government, to run away and contradict the policy of his ministry and enter into an agreement such as they did without being first aware of all of the facts -- mainly that Markham could not provide the service that TATOA and the GO bus had been providing?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am not sure that is a correct statement. I won’t accuse the member of inadvertently misleading the House, Mr. Speaker, but I just don’t think that is a correct statement. How could we be aware that Markham could not? Because if Markham wished, they could supply the service that is required --

Mr. Stong: A little bit of study by TATOA would solve the problem. TATOA didn’t even look at it,

Hon. Mr. Snow: TATOA did not recommend -- with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is now, by way of his interjections, inadvertently if not intentionally misleading the House.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Because he is saying that TATOA did not look at it. TATOA looked at this very carefully. A joint study was carried out and the removal of the service from Bayview Avenue was not as recommended by TATOA but was the wish of the town of Markham, which happened to operate the local transit service in that community.

If the local transit services in the municipalities of the region of York could develop a better communication between themselves to operate a more efficient municipal transit service, there would not be this problem.

Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.

REPORT

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee has considered two points of order raised in the House on October 11, 1979. The point of issue was the mechanism by which answers could be provided to written questions when the House was recessed.

Standing order 33(d) permits the tabling of documents by ministries simply by depositing them with the Clerk of the House on any day. The committee therefore recommends that answers to written questions should be tabled with the Clerk as soon as they are ready, whether or not the House is in session.

The second point arose on November 9, 1979, and concerns ministers answering questions which were asked at an earlier date.

On occasion, answers to such questions are given when the member who asked the question is not in the House. The committee believes that this problem can be resolved without recourse to a change in the standing orders. The committee recommends that except in unusual circumstances, ministers should refrain from answering a previously asked question until the member who asked it is present in the House.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the recommendations of the seventh report of the select committee on the Ombudsman be referred to the committee of the whole House for consideration.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

HANDICAPPED PERSONS’ RIGHTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved first reading of Bill 188, An Act to Provide for the Rights of Handicapped Persons.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 336 and 337 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

WINDSOR-QUEBEC RAIL SERVICE

Mr. Ashe moved resolution 37:

That in the opinion of the House the government should urge the federal government of Canada to upgrade the Windsor-Quebec rail corridor to accommodate an electric, LRC (light, rapid, comfortable) train service.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I would hope to have about five minutes for some closing discussion and some closing statistics later on in the debate.

Improving the transportation system in this country is one of the most difficult and important tasks we as Canadians are forced to contend with. We are faced with the unique problem of having to move a relatively small population great distances. Our cold climate, compounded with geological roadblocks of mountains, tundra and extensive wetlands, are enough to tax the resources of any country. Add to this a relatively small population and large distances and the economics of transportation become a seeming quagmire, almost unsolvable.

As with most problems, resorting to one solution is usually a great mistake. Solving these unique transportation difficulties will not be an easy task. Its success will depend on a broad mix of transportation modes, picking the most acceptable mode of intercity travel for a particular situation regardless of past traditions and past habits. Although the distance between Montreal and Toronto may be similar to the distance between Edmonton and Fort McMurray, we must realize the climate and population differences may well dictate the implementation of an entirely different solution.

One part of this passenger transportation puzzle is going to be based on rail service. For reasons I will outline a little later, an improved electrified rail line in the Quebec-to-Windsor corridor appears to be an excellent solution to the transport problem in this specific area.

First I want to make it very clear that this rail line is not the system that now exists. Our present passenger rail service has improved somewhat after the advent of Via Rail, but rail lines are a long way from where they should be. The reason for this is the long, sad legacy of neglect from successive Canadian governments, a legacy which is costing the Canadian taxpayer dearly.

Let us take a moment to look at some recent rail history in Canada. The most recent definitive study of transportation in Canada was the MacPherson royal commission on transportation in 1961. Despite the age of this report some of the recommendations are still valid today, although they have never been acted upon. The operating deficit of Canadian passenger train services in 1958 was estimated at $78 million. The MacPherson commission study emphasized the change from a monopolistic approach to a new, more competitive transportation environment in Canada, an environment in which the road and air modes played an increasingly significant role. In the passenger sector, this spelled the end for the railway, which could no longer compete with the auto, the bus and the airplane.

If the MacPherson commission judged traditional passenger rail service obsolete in 1961, one can well imagine the shape it is in now. By and large there has been little or no change. As affluence increased and car ownership became universal, roads were continually improved and superhighways were built. Fuel costs stayed relatively low and, as a result, local and intermediate-range traffic became virtually monopolized by the automobile and, where traffic was large enough, by the bus; all at the expense of the railway.

What did these other forms of transportation offer? The average speed of cars and buses reached 60 to 70 miles per hour and intercity jet travel developed rapidly. The other transportation means offered flexibility, high frequency of service, comfort and privacy; even the limited comfort of the bus was well compensated for by a lower fare.

For pleasure and family travel, the car became extensively used, even for the longest transcontinental trips. The long-haul market was taken over by the airplane because of its high performance and speed, comfort and economy. The transcontinental trains indeed all but vanished.

The decay of train travel reached new heights in the 1970s. It became impossible to depend on the regularity of trains. In 1972, on the Montreal-Toronto prime passenger run, only 72 per cent of the trains arrived on time, “on time” meaning with less than a six-minute delay.

During the winter months only half of the trains were on time and this figure plummeted to a miserable 24 per cent in February. During that month only one train arrived on time, and delays of up to three and four hours were not uncommon.

Even this sad record could not rival that of the transcontinental trains. During the worst two-week winter period, two trains never reached their destinations at all and others were delayed by as much as 50 hours.

It becomes easy to understand the reason for the decline in rail travel when these figures are kept in mind and put into proper perspective.

The frequency in the scheduling of trains to and from key cities became atrocious. In 1973, on the Montreal-Ottawa run there were a total of seven direct trains, as compared to 18 express-bus runs and 17 air flights. No trains were scheduled to leave after 6 p.m. from either city. On the Montreal-Toronto run there were only two nonstop trains daily, compared to 38 flights and seven bus runs. There was little or no convenience in travel by train.

More important than punctuality and convenience was the incredible decline in equipment quality and comfort. Even if the price was comparable to other forms of travel and even if trains were as dependable, if the comfort factor was low it would put a very big dent in the business. In fact, this is exactly what happened.

Reports that appear in the daily press tell repeatedly of malfunctioning air conditioning and toilets, of poor food, of poor service and of maintenance deficiencies and a general lack of cleanliness. Except for 25 10-year-old trains and the two turbos -- which have had trouble in themselves -- the average age of passenger rolling stock in Canada is over 27 years. This average is taken from over 1,100 cars, so I think it is a significant figure on which to draw an average.

Breakdowns of equipment are frequent. Dirty, 60-year-old coaches and even baggage cars are known to have been used to carry passengers. Shortages of equipment often occur. There is even an absence of government-enforced standards of service quality for passenger rail in Canada. The entire passenger rail service became obsolete.

The maintenance of these obsolete train services has cost the Canadian taxpayer dearly. Since 1967, passenger rail has been maintained in Canada through government order and subsidy to the tune of 80 per cent of audited losses. Subsidy payments have risen from $66 million in 1971 to just under $200 million in 1977. The forecast subsidy payment for 1980 will pass the $300 million mark.

These figures are staggering and become even more meaningful when subsidies are expressed in terms of revenue per passenger mile. The rail subsidy per passenger mile is about four times larger than the air subsidy and eight times larger than the car subsidy.

It is obvious that some kind of government subsidy must be given to the passenger rail service. With few exceptions, passenger rail is subsidized by governments all over the world, but on examination of these subsidies it was discovered that the losses per passenger mile were highest in Canada by a factor of eight, compared with Japan, and about three, compared with West Germany.

The Canadian taxpayer pays more for the support of the railways than any of his western counterparts and what does he get for his money? He gets the most obsolete and poorest quality transportation system of a rail nature in the western world.

You may ask, Mr. Speaker, what has this vast amount of money been spent on? I will tell you where that money has been spent. It has been spent on the maintenance of the most obsolete train equipment in the world. Between 1971 and 1977, over $1 billion of public money was spent on the maintenance of passenger rail in Canada.

I admit the situation is not good, but that does not mean we should sit back and do nothing. Admittedly, there are pitfalls in pursuing some sort of passenger rail service. There are also great benefits. If nothing else, the Canadian government has seen the need for consolidating all passenger rail service in this country. Via Rail Canada Incorporated was set up in 1977 to do just that. It has been designed to integrate passenger operations into one corporate structure which will be totally dedicated to the rail passenger.

[3:45]

The job before Via Rail is a formidable one. It is faced with upgrading stations and onboard services, introducing a better system of reservations, making arrangements for convenient intermodal transfers and connections, refurbishing old equipment and acquiring new trains. Some progress has been made but not enough to reduce the losses significantly.

One important innovation is close to implementation, fortunately. A new computer reservation system which will automate ticketing goes into service next March. Developed by Air Canada, it will keep track of all seats and services available from Via, eliminating the long delays now encountered in mailing a reservation or even reaching a clerk on clogged telephone lines.

Via was charged with the responsibility of reducing the government’s costs for rail passenger operations, increasing rail patronage under a single management and eliminating the duplication of services that existed under CN and CP Rail. To complete this task, it purchased the passenger rolling stock of both railways. This spring it will begin testing four diesel rail cars it has refurbished with modern interiors, improved aerodynamics and more powerful engines before going ahead with the remaining two it acquired from the traditional carriers. A selective refurbishing program is also under way in coaches and sleeping cars. This new equipment will provide some much-needed improvement in this area.

The key to a viable passenger train service is high speed. It seems that Via is moving in the right direction in other areas. An improved reservation system means improved customer access. New cars will mean more comfort. One organization should eliminate duplication of services. But none of these improvements will be worth anything unless Via can put into service high-speed trains through high-density areas.

To attain those high speeds, the government of Canada is going to be forced to make a substantial commitment of capital. Without this capital, there can be no improvement of passenger roadbeds. If there is no improvement in the roadbeds and signalling, Via schedules will not be significantly shortened and Via Rail’s competitive position cannot possibly be improved. Via has $90 million invested in 22 LRC locomotives and 50 coaches. This new rolling stock is designed to operate at 120 miles per hour, but if the roadbeds are not improved then the stock will be unable to reach its designed speed capability and that $90 million will be literally down the drain.

It is very important that we learn from others. A key lesson to be learned is provided by the National Passenger Corporation in the United States, commonly called Amtrak. As in the case of Via Rail, the purpose of Amtrak was to consolidate and nationalize passenger rail service to arrest the climb of deficits and make passenger rail eventually pay its own way. It is now conceded these objectives are further away than ever and, in fact, they’re not attainable by present means.

Amtrak was established in 1971 and by 1977 had accumulated an operating deficit of $1.8 billion. The subsidy in the 1978 fiscal year reached $779 million or about 200 per cent of total revenue. The US Department of Transport has estimated that Amtrak will need over $12 billion in subsidies through 1989 or more than $1 billion per year. Why then pursue a similar operation in Canada with this record? The answer is simple.

Despite a higher density of population in the United States, the American public would not use an outdated rail service. In 1979, 91 per cent of all routes were operated at average scheduled speeds of below 55 miles per hour. A system which relies on an average scheduled speed of 47 miles per hour on many long-distance trains cannot possibly compete with newer and faster modes of transportation. About 90 per cent of the route mileage is made up of runs in excess of 500 miles and these runs are just not proving feasible.

These mounting deficits will likely induce further cuts until passenger rail operations are limited to short-haul runs at high speed in densely populated regions. One area already planned is the Boston-Washington corridor. This is the domain in which modern rail is indeed truly competitive. Unless the course now chartered for passenger rail in Canada is drastically changed, Via Rail can be expected to duplicate Amtrak’s expensive experience.

That is not to say Via Rail will definitely follow Amtrak’s not-so-bright guiding light. Via Rail must have the necessary capital needed to upgrade the roadbed so that competitive travel time can be achieved. Via is on the way to improving other facets of train travel, but it must not ignore the factor that will make or break passenger rail in Canada. Via Rail must have better control of its costs if it is to priorize its needs and respond accordingly, and that is not at present the case.

Via does not control two thirds of its costs. This portion of money consists of moneys paid to the operating railways. They include payments for roadbed usage, maintenance, traffic control, ownership cost of facilities, the share of two superintendents’ costs and so on. If they do not gain control of this spending, then turning Via Rail into a moneymaking proposition is going to be just like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

One vice-president of Via Rail, Mr. R. Bechamp, has asked a rather poignant question: “Would any of you invest in a bankrupt company which had no control over two thirds of its costs, had no authority to monitor productivity and no means of amputating money-losing sectors of its business?” Mr. Speaker, if there are any members present or who will be present later who would make such an investment, then perhaps we can do business.

Another large benefit of this resolution would be the utilization of one of this province’s greatest resources, a resource we have in great abundance. I am, of course, referring to electricity. Ontario has no main-line electric railroad today. Coal, and then diesel power, completely displaced the electric railroad, which at one time was one of Ontario Hydro’s first major loads.

Many railroads are again looking at electrification because of rising fuel costs, a desire to limit their dependence on a single fuel and the need to increase the freight capacity of certain lines. A major study is at present under way by the Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport, Queen’s University, sponsored by the railway advisory committee of the Railway Association of Canada, to assess the potential and problems of electrification. A major problem is the high capital cost for the overhead power supply and, of course, a new signalling system.

The electric train represents a moving load of approximately 20 megawatts. For the line from Toronto to Montreal the peak load is estimated to be in the range of 80 to 120 megawatts, a relatively insignificant demand on the Ontario Hydro system. The construction of a major electrified line of 300 to 400 miles is probably years away from completion. The expansion of railroad electrification in Ontario will be slow, of course, because of the high capital cost.

Another drawback is the lack of high-density long-haul lines to justify electrification. However, one such area does exist: the Quebec-Windsor rail corridor. The Science Council of Canada has made an important recommendation in a paper entitled, Canada as a Conserver Society. It has listed under a heading of “Things To Do Immediately,” the following:

“Intercity buses average over 110 passenger-miles per gallon and computer trains can achieve better than 120 passenger-miles per gallon. However, present intercity trains average only 25 because of low utilization. In view of the fact that air travel is one third to one quarter as energy efficient as rail travel, railways in the high-density Windsor to Quebec City corridor should be upgraded.

“Electrification, too, has potential. Where the capital costs can be justified and where electricity comes from hydro or nuclear plants, electrified trains are more energy efficient than their diesel counterparts. Electrification would save liquid fuel and could lead to better utilization and lower costs.”

That report was written in September 1972, over two years ago. I am saddened that a member of this House has to bring a resolution of this type into the Legislature at this time. The government of Canada should have been moving in this direction years ago; but the fact remains that nothing has been done. The only way the passenger rail system in Canada can be saved, in my view, is by moving towards an electrified light railcar line in high-density areas, such as the Quebec-Windsor corridor.

I hope this resolution, with all-party support, will push the federal government at least to move in this direction.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has one minute remaining. Does he wish to reserve that?

Mr. Ashe: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: If the honourable member looks around the House and finds enthusiasm, or lack of it, in support of the resolution, he may just envisage to what extent this resolution, even if approved by the House, is going to impact on the government of Canada. I say that not with any disrespect to the honourable member who has just spoken; I happen to have been working with the member for Durham West in the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs for many months and I have learned to have a good deal of respect for his judgement. I can only assume he couldn’t think of anything better for the private members’ hour and so trotted out this matter, which is clearly a federal responsibility.

Frankly, I wish the line could be electrified. But I also wish that in this debate, which we set aside Thursday afternoon, week after week, we could talk about something more compelling, of more interest and importance to our colleagues in the Legislature.

We have a good deal of legislation that we perhaps should be dealing with. I don’t want to downgrade the member personally, because I believe the criticism applies to private members’ hour generally more often than not.

A good example of the other side is that my colleague the member for Kitchener is bringing in a substantial amendment to a provincial act which is going to be supported by the government, we hope, because it’s so reasonable. In fact, we’re going to improve legislation; we’re going to improve the quality of life here.

To the resolution at hand: I say immediately that in many respects it’s out of order and irrelevant to us. We would like to have electrified rail lines, but I don’t think anything we can do here, unless we’re prepared to build them ourselves, is going to have any impact.

I would suggest that we do have a rail line of our own. As a matter of fact, we have more than one. We could talk about the Ontario Northland. The government of Ontario transportation system, GO Transit, is really operated through funds provided by this Legislature. While I don’t think it’s time for it to be electrified, I would like to see the resolution apply to something over which our dollars might have some impact and it could very well be directed to that.

I was interested to hear the Premier (Mr. Davis), in some sort of response or interjection the other day, indicate that in the back of his mind was the possibility of electrifying the GO network. I think that’s an excellent idea. The only thing is, he responded that way when the argument was put that we have too much electricity presently available in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker is aware that our peak load at the present time is about 16,500 megawatts and with the plants now established we can turn out over 23,000 megawatts. With a 25 cent cushion we have about 4,000 megawatts surplus, which is approximately twice the output of the world-famous Pickering power plant.

I mention Pickering because the honourable member for Durham West lives in its shadow. He tells us that repeatedly. And he says he’s not worrying about it, although frankly when we see him in action sometimes we’re a little bit worried about it.

But the concept of electrification of rail lines should not be in terms of using up our surplus electricity. The honourable member has indicated it would take less than 100 megawatts to electrify the line, an insignificant, practically irrelevant amount when compared with the oversupply of electricity of which Ontario Hydro is presently capable.

Just as a footnote: naturally we’re bringing more electric plants on stream from month to month and it is expected within the next 18 months the oversupply will not be 4,000 megawatts but 6,000 megawatts. We build this with money borrowed in New York at an average of what -- 10 per cent when we’re lucky? The money we’re buying now is coming to us at a much higher percentage indeed.

While those mammoths of technology sit there with the dust settling on their wheels like some kind of strange temples to Conservatism, we’re paying interest to the money moguls in New York whether we’re using them or not.

The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) often says the province of Ontario doesn’t borrow money directly and that’s true. But our agency Ontario Hydro does, and if anything ever goes wrong with our credit rating it will be laid at their feet and no one else’s as long as we don’t borrow ourselves.

The honourable member even mentioned the famous radial lines. When the former member for Brant, my immediate predecessor, first was elected this was a major issue. The then chairman of Hydro, Adam Beck, had been a member of the Legislature at one time, and even formed a Hydro Party. The honourable member should think of that. Couldn’t he really get his muscles into that one?

He had a concept of putting these electrically-operated streetcars radiating from the hub of Toronto into many of the growth centres, including Paris, Ontario. We even had a radial in Paris. You could go all the way to Brantford. You could even go to Port Dover, which was another arm of the radial.

[4:00]

The government of the day in 1919 felt it was not a practical application and it did not proceed. Frankly, I think the government’s judgement was very good.

I travel on a portion of the line the honourable member was talking about, from Brantford to Toronto, operated by Via Rail and it is excellent service. Certainly it could be made more frequent, faster, with newer cars and cleaner and then it would be fine; but it is world-class service in my view. The timetable is convenient, at least for me, and I suppose for other people who come down to Toronto to do business and go home in the evening. At $12 return, the rates are not bad and people who are fortunate, such as we, can send that to representatives of the Treasurer who will give me the money back. I am not so sure it is more convenient than driving in in a car, but that’s another matter.

Mr. Samis: You don’t get a speeding ticket, Bob.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, thank you for those interjections. I haven’t had a speeding ticket since last February, responding to all the concern that is being expressed. At that time I hope to be down to five points, in case anybody is worried. All I need is to get to February with a clean bill of health.

I am very much concerned that the honourable member is talking about the LRC facility -- light, rapid, comfortable. I don’t know about the light part, but if it’s rapid and comfortable that’s fine. These so-called Budd cars are light, rapid and comfortable. They may be made, or parts of them are made, in Kitchener -- I am told by the member for Kitchener that is not so -- but the thing that’s wrong with them ties in with what the honourable member said about high speed: they have to sound their horn too often. In such a little car one is right there where the thing is squawking all the time and one thinks, “Anything but this.” It’s very, very noisy. This is something that other people might not notice, I don’t know, but for me this is a serious drawback in the so-called light, single or double-car transportation.

While we’re talking about amending and changing the concepts of transportation and particularly if we’re going to electrify intercity public transportation, I think we should also envisage the availability of electrically-operated means of individual transportation. People who want to use the trains can drive their little electric buggies into the train station and plug them in there -- the same source of supply that runs the train would be available. When they return from their work their little car would be all charged up and they could nip back to RR 1, St. George, or wherever it is they return to.

The concept of using other fuels besides diesel fuel is something that should perhaps be considered in the resolution as well. Certainly alcohol is going to be a principal fuel at the time gasoline gets up to $3.50 or $4 a gallon.

For the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa), who is gracing us with his presence, it has of course the obvious additional advantage that when you are driving to Toronto and you feel the need of any stimulation you can use a long straw and just take the top off the gas tank.

Speed of course is essential. The problem really is that if these LRC trains are going to be averaging high speeds they simply can’t stop at all of the communities such as West Hill or wherever it is the honourable member lives. They might stop at Brantford but would expect the next stop would be Toronto. If these things are going to attain a speed that is going to make it better to use them than automobiles they are certainly going to have to maintain better schedules than they now do.

I was glad the member mentioned the improvement of ticketing procedures. The ones now are pretty antiquated. You go to buy a ticket to Toronto and you get a sheaf of stuff to put in your pocket. The honourable person who sells it to you in the train station takes off the copy and puts one away and crumples the other one and throws it in the waste basket.

There are many things that can be done to improve it. I personally have confidence, even though the honourable member doesn’t seem to, that the elected members of Parliament have this as their responsibility and it is not ours except just as sort of an afternoon discussion.

Mr. Samis: First of all, I want to say that I do share the misgivings of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) about the nature of the resolution and the fact this is essentially a federal prerogative. On the other hand, I do want to say I strongly support the intent of the resolution and the direction of the resolution. However, before I speak to the resolution, I want to dispense with some menial obligations I have.

My colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) has specifically asked that in any upgrading of the Windsor-Montreal rail corridor, the plan should include the installation of a GO Transit station in York East, at Degrassi Street.

Having dispensed with my obligations to my colleague, Mr. Speaker, maybe I can return to the principle of the resolution with a little more enthusiasm.

I have a certain personal interest in the resolution, because I am one of the few members, I guess, who makes regular use of the Windsor-Montreal corridor. I frequently take the train either from Toronto to Cornwall or Toronto to Montreal. I have tried all three modes: the milk run, the Rapido and the Turbo. In fact I will be using that same service within the next 12 hours.

I have also had some experience in other parts of the world to compare our rail service to that of other countries. I had the privilege and pleasure of taking the bullet train in Japan a couple of years ago, and I have been able to compare that with the rather conventional diesel service in the People’s Republic of China. I have also experienced some of the high speed electrical trains in France, some of the conventional diesels in Spain and Mexico, and a high speed train in the United Kingdom. When we hear people talk about the Canadian rail system, especially our friend Professor Lukasiewicz at Carleton University, we have to face the obvious reality that we don’t have an up-to-date modem system; and the reason is that the federal government hasn’t spent enough money to develop a truly modern and competitive passenger rail system as some other countries have. Obviously we are way behind France, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, and even the United States, in our passenger rail service program.

We have another complication. We have a private railway that served the country and shared the burden of passenger rail service, namely Canadian Pacific. If there is any private rail company in this country that has served to sabotage, undermine and ruin passenger rail service in our country, it is the Canadian Pacific Railway. I think we are all extremely familiar with the fact that when they wanted to get out of the passenger business they deliberately downgraded the service, made it inefficient, turned people away from it so they could go before the Canadian Transportation Commission and then suddenly say, “It is not making its way, it is not financially viable. The people aren’t supporting it, therefore we should discontinue it.” It just further served to undermine the whole concept of a passenger rail service. A city like Cambridge today has absolutely no rail service whatsoever on a passenger basis.

On the other hand we have Canadian National, which didn’t go on any deliberate binge to get out of the passenger business, but even so look at their situation. They are so severely strapped for funds they are unable to purchase the necessary new and efficient trains. They are unable to really effectively upgrade their existing rolling stock. They are unable to adequately improve the rail beds to a level necessary for efficient rail transport. That is what they have to cope with.

Also, they have to cope with the policy of those famous and unlamented luminaries of the federal scene, Jean Marchand and Otto Lang. I think we all remember the 1974 election, the famous promise that they would spend, I think half a billion dollars, in the next five years to upgrade our rail system, to buy new trains, to modernize it. That promise, like most of the other promises of that election, was a complete sham.

The CN and Via Rail have had to contend with the idea that international airports are the mode of the future; they are glamorous, they are trendy, and they really are the mode of transport we should be going towards. The result was something called Mirabel, that monument to waste and extravagance that cost somewhere between $1.1 billion and $1.4 billion when you include the cost of land acquisition as well as construction. Look at the Mirabel record since it has been in operation: it has only half the number of projected customers; it costs $32 per capita to handle passengers versus a North American average of $7; it is losing a million dollars a week; it has lost $115 million in the first two years of operation.

Take Pickering, that political abortion. Already it has cost Ontario $278 million to date and it has cost Ottawa $140 million to date. Airports, the great mode of the future: in the past three years they have a deficit of over $1.3 billion. Yet we hear the critics talk about a $250 million subsidy to the railways. That doesn’t include the $4 billion deficit created in 1979 for the cost of building roadways in Canada, which is borne by the taxpayers.

Even with the niggardly amount of money they receive from the federal government, even with a limited advertising budget, even with the deteriorating conditions of the rail bed, Via Rail has managed to increase its passenger usage on the strategic Windsor-to-Quebec corridor by an average of 10 per cent in each of the past three years. It is expected the rate of increase will be even greater for 1979.

In 1978, the increase was 15.8 per cent. That meant 3,876,000 people patronized the trains in that corridor. Even Professor Lukasiewicz, a critic of public rail in Canada, admits that the Windsor-Quebec corridor is a feasible corridor for high-speed rail transport and he would accept that as being a viable alternative to what we have today.

My point is very simple: give the trains a real opportunity to compete and they will prove they can win public acceptance, especially for trips of less than 600 miles, which is a generally accepted norm for maximum rail efficiency.

In terms of energy, we all know trains obviously make sense, especially the LRC model outlined by the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), when compared with other modes of transport. The LRC train with six cars and a capacity of 480 passengers on a seat-per-kilometre basis would consume almost 15 per cent of the energy of a standard intercity bus, less than five per cent of that required by a Dash 7 and less than three per cent of that required by a DC-9, assuming all three were used at capacity.

The labour requirements are less than 20 per cent of those of a standard bus. A 10-car LRC diesel train operating between Toronto and Montreal would operate at a seat-per-kilometre cost 40 per cent below that of a standard bus and 85 per cent below that of a STOL plane. The facts are there.

In terms of operating costs, in terms of energy usage, trains make sense. In terms of jobs, trains make sense. If we upgrade our railways, adopt the LRC and provide 4,000 kilometres of electrified double track between Quebec and Windsor, we would be creating jobs. True, it would cost upward of $4 billion between now and 1990.

Let’s put that in perspective. Air Canada is spending $2 billion right now to upgrade its fleet of aircraft. We are spending $4 billion on highway construction in Canada. In terms of Ontario, a recent government study indicated an expenditure of only $250 million to upgrade the present tracks in the Windsor to Quebec corridor would create 1,200 jobs for each of the next five years. To install a full LRC train system would mean Ontario would get the greatest benefit in terms of thousands of new jobs that would be created here in Ontario. We could manufacture the rolling stock, the rails, rebuild the rail lines and power them with our own electricity.

We would be developing our own technology in our own province. We would be reducing our need for energy imports from the west. We would be giving consumers another reason to reduce their own personal consumption and giving them an alternative to the car. We would finally be catching up with the Americans and narrowing the gap with the ever efficient French, Japanese, British and German rail systems.

LRC is something we need in Canada; it is something extremely well suited to the Windsor-Quebec corridor. It is something that makes energy sense, economic sense, consumer sense, transportation sense and something that is long overdue. On that basis, I am glad to support the resolution.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution brought in by my colleague from Durham West, and our colleague from Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), if he is back in time and has opportunity within the time constraints, is of the same opinion.

This resolution is an important step in upgrading a sadly outdated transportation system and in increasing our utilization of new and available technology. The saving of fuel costs cannot be underestimated in its importance to Ontario’s energy needs. Such a rail system would do just that.

[4:15]

It is my view there is much unused rail capacity that can be upgraded and electrified. The member for Cornwall said he had some misgivings. I don’t share any with the resolution and I think the speaker before him, from the opposition, said the same. The resolution is very simple. Let’s modernize. Let’s come into the 20th century by electrifying some of our rail capacity.

It is somewhat ironical that we have perhaps gone full circle. I too remember the radial lines, the London and Port Stanley. I know of the one that came into Woodstock and Paris, but most important, the radial lines from Guelph to West Toronto which I travelled many times, which was an electrically motivated rail system. At that time I would say the speed accelerated much beyond the normal rail traffic of the day. I can remember going to high school on the Guelph to West Toronto line and we would hit 80 miles an hour on a roadbed that wouldn’t be of the quality you would need today for an electrified system that would travel in excess of 100 miles an hour.

In a way it is too bad that that system was abandoned, because if we had that right of way it would be upgraded and utilized to very good advantage in moving people along that corridor and through Mississauga.

While I am at it, I should make reference to the fact that the provincial government has been and is involved in rail transportation. The GO system is a case in point. It is a great success which is going to be expanded along the CPR line out through Streetsville and to points west. We have the electrified TTC here in Toronto. I look forward to the time -- and I hope it isn’t too long; I would like to see it in the planning stages right away -- when the subway system will be extended into Mississauga, probably along the Dundas highway. There is a density of population there now and a need that I think would be comparable to some areas now served by the subway system. This would help in taking pressure off our vehicular traffic.

The turbo train, which I like to ride -- it was plagued with difficulties -- is indicative of how people will respond to high-speed rail transportation. So all these things come together and electrification would indeed bring about a real thrust forward in the integration and co-ordination of our rail systems.

As mentioned by the sponsor of the resolution, my colleague from Durham West, the state of Canada’s passenger rail system is deplorable. For over the past couple of decades it’s been neglected and forgotten. Present-day technology has far outstripped our outmoded rail systems.

Yet, despite this state of affairs, passenger train service is undergoing a slight revival in the country. The traffic has grown at a rate of between 10 and 12 per cent since 1976 and it is expected to continue into the 1980s. This could well increase, with the rising cost of fuel for individual motorists. I hope that many of these motorists will start switching to trains, but we have to provide that facility and make it attractive to them.

I think it is important we carefully determine the role of rail transportation in our society and attempt to keep it within these parameters. It is pointless to try and push the passenger rail service into a market in which it cannot hope to compete successfully.

I am afraid present federal government policies are moving in that direction -- for example, the improvements made down at the Union Station, where we couldn’t get aid from the former federal government. The province went it alone and upgraded the facilities there. So there has to be a recognition of the potential and the need and a response from governments to fulfil this need.

For local and short- to medium-range trips, the obsolete train cannot compete with the car and the bus except where the traffic volume is sufficiently high. Bus transportation is an obvious successor to what, up to this point, has been obsolete Canadian passenger rail service. Our colleague from Cornwall mentioned other jurisdictions where great numbers of people are moved in this high-speed fashion and we must recognize the potential and respond.

One such area of high population density is the Quebec-Windsor corridor, although population figures for the period 1966 to 1976 show many cities’ populations along this corridor rising dramatically. Quebec City, Montreal and Toronto are the cornerstones of this corridor; they have grown 24 per cent, nine per cent and 22 per cent respectively. More important, the smaller cities which would make or break a high-speed train system have also grown. Hamilton’s population is up 16 per cent; Kitchener’s is up 42 per cent; London, Oshawa and Windsor are all increasing.

This corridor should be considered for the major potential application of modern passenger rail in Canada. It has relatively small intercity distances, the maximum being 335 miles from Montreal to Toronto. A modern 100 to 125 miles per hoar rail service can offer a highly competitive service compared to bus, auto and aeroplane travel. The key to its success will be its ability to attract a steady clientele from this relatively large population.

The private car has an incredible advantage over the train and bus in that it is infinitely more flexible. It can be cheaper than the bus, especially with the movement of a family. A bus doesn’t have the great speed advantage, though, that a train has over a car, so it’s not all that competitive. Air travel has a tremendous advantage over all other means of transport when it comes to servicing larger distances. The trips are faster and comfortable. The area where the aeroplane has problems is in the smaller and middle distances, and that’s where this new updated service would fill a role.

An updated system for the Quebec-Windsor corridor may also produce another, often overlooked, side effect. The diversion of a portion of short-haul traffic from air to fast rail should alleviate to some extent the congestion of Montreal’s Dorval and Mississauga’s -- it says here “Toronto” but I say Mississauga -- international airports. A further reduction would also occur if these airports were provided with direct access by fast through rail to the corridor cities.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) suggested that 125 miles per hour service on an exclusive passenger track is an achievable goal in the Quebec-to-Windsor corridor. The first step would be a package of improvements offering a service of 95 miles per hour and could cost some $250 million rather than the billions that have been mentioned. This would provide opportunities for employment in the short term but this is secondary to the long-term benefits.

Rail improvement would help rail traffic to attain improved speeds, efficiency, customer service, labour productivity and safety. I can fervently support the safety aspect. It would also increase the availability of lower-fare transportation. Another important long-term benefit is that an exclusive track would help eliminate freight interference, thereby speeding up both passenger and freight operations as well as reducing the risk of collision and accidents.

With those few comments, I am very supportive of the resolution brought forward by my colleague. I think the unused rail capacity, as I said at the outset, is there. It’s there to be exploited to the benefit of the transportation industry in co-ordination with other modes of transportation. This is something we should be pressing the federal government to do, and we should get on with this as quickly as is feasible.

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak in support of the resolution put forth by the member for Durham West. However, I would like to suggest at the outset that this member, as all of us, must have many views on how we could improve the government of Ontario by our private members’ bill periods, suggestions for innovative systems or policies that could be undertaken by the province of Ontario. After all, we are supposed to be the body that has some control over that, not the House of Commons. Nevertheless, the question being suggested and supported by the member for Durham West is of such importance to us in Ontario that I am very, very pleased to help.

We ought to be looking at what lies ahead for us in future years. We are coming into a period where oil, and as a result diesel fuel, will become much more expensive and its use will have to be eliminated in many ways. In Ontario we have an abundant supply of electric power. I think we ought to be looking at this form of energy for our main corridor.

I know the resolution refers to this main corridor as running from Windsor to Quebec, but I am speaking from Sarnia to Quebec, of course. We have the Lambton generating station in Sarnia, which is producing electric power from coal, bought and imported from Kentucky and Ohio. The entire output of the Lambton generating station is exported across the river into the state of Michigan, which is fine for our exports and produces good trade relations between the two countries; but I would like to point out that this is one of the places where electrification of a line such as we are talking about could start.

The present facilities provided by Via Rail discourage passengers from using that form of transportation. It is approximately 200 miles from Sarnia to Toronto, which is a very considerable drive back and forth, particularly when weather is bad. We should be encouraged, and indeed want to use the railroad, but the existing railroad bed is not sufficient now to carry a high-speed train. The service is very poor. It is a three and a half hour trip on the train from Sarnia to Union Station in Toronto. The train leaves at 5:30 in the morning and gets in here at nine o’clock in the morning. This seems very shortsighted. We are not going to be able to continue to drive our automobiles back and forth as we have been able to do in the past.

In the two and a half years that I have been in this Legislature, the fares on Great Lakes Airlines from Sarnia to Toronto have gone from $63.70 return to $105.90 return right now, using precious fuel and going up and up every day, and will go up more.

On the line we are talking about from Windsor to Quebec, or from Sarnia to Quebec, we are going right through the hearts of our cities. We don’t have a 20-25 mile trip in from the airport by automobile, using further fuel, to get down into Toronto, into the downtown area.

The common sense of the thing overwhelms me. I don’t know why the federal government isn’t looking into this and putting into effect a crash program building the road beds to the extent they need to be rebuilt, improving the service, rebuilding the rolling stock and so forth.

This resolution refers to LRC -- light, rapid and comfortable; as anybody will tell you, Mr. Speaker, the existing train service is heavy, slow and uncomfortable. It’s such a sensible thing to build a service that is going to take numbers of people in a comfortable and speedy fashion in light of the energy situation we are facing.

[4:30]

In addition to this, the railroad companies and Via Rail, while they have improved their service considerably compared to what it was, have light-years to go before they will be able to encourage more use of the railroads. As I said, the main point of my speaking in this particular discussion is to show how every encouragement should be made to us to use that kind of transportation.

There were electrical lines in Ontario years ago which were abandoned because the automobile came in and took care of the transportation needs of the people of Ontario. That is now changing. We’re not going to be able to use our automobile as we do now. When I drive in from Sarnia to Toronto on Highway 401, I would say that over 50 per cent of the cars that approach or pass me have one passenger in them. Everybody is using his own gasoline to go where he wants to go.

The whole resolution is absolutely essential to our future travel plans in Ontario and throughout Canada. I hope that a resolution of this nature, and the debate that accompanies it, reaches the people in the government of Canada who are responsible for this transportation. It is the only way to go in the 1980s. We are going to find it increasingly more important.

Of course, in addition to electrified-rail, rebuilt road beds, we’re going to have to have better service and a better means of ticketing and reservations. If necessary, we’re going to have to have some kind of food service that is acceptable to the people. On that 5:30 train out of Sarnia in the morning, it sure would be nice to be able to come aboard that train and have a decent cup of coffee and some warm toast. What do you get? Coffee that you’d think is the residue from the manufacturing process at Union Carbide and some cheese sandwiches that you’d think were made by Petrosar. The whole thing is just discouraging for anybody who wants to use the present passenger service.

To sum up, it is absolutely imperative we in Canada go to a light, rapid and comfortable system operated by electricity. It is imperative that the government of Canada gets that message and that it knows we ordinary users of transportation in Ontario know this is the way to go in the 1980s.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Wentworth for up to eight minutes.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome the principle of this bill, applaud its intent, to lament the lack of explanation that’s contained in it -- the how and the definition of the Windsor-Quebec corridor -- and to condemn it as yet another example of the enthusiasm for things they should be doing themselves.

As an aside, I want to mention that there has been some reference by members of this House to the radial railways that once ran in this area. I think that’s an example of the problem of how the government likes to look back at its glorious past and refuses to look forward at how we could be building a better Ontario. The radial railways are being preserved very well by the Halton County Radial Railroad Museum; they are doing an excellent job. I think we should leave that job to them and plan here for the future.

There is one thing in this resolution, though, that hasn’t been drawn out by others that I really do applaud: it indicates a belief on the other side of this House that the federal government should be involving itself in the transportation system in this country.

The rumours I have heard are that the federal government -- the kissing cousins of the member who introduced this resolution -- have been thinking about privatizing Canadian National Railways. I am glad this resolution indicates the member’s opposition to that kind of activity, that we here feel the federal government should be the one to invest in transportation systems.

There is one aspect I have failed to mention. Maybe it is the member’s intent to have the federal government invest all the money in the railroad system and then to privatize it, as we tend to do with every other major industry that is doing so well in public ownership. I hope that is not the intent.

The definition of the corridor has been referred to by some of my colleagues with respect to favoured areas of the province. The Hamilton-Niagara area has been totally ignored by the government in terms of provision of railway transportation service in the GO system. I note that the member who moved this resolution is the only government member here at the present time for this debate, and that is pretty sad. I hope the minister and his government will take a look at the GO system and see whether that could not be expanded to fill some of the need expressed in this resolution.

We could be providing a light, rapid, comfortable rail transportation system, at least in the entire Golden Horseshoe. We could be getting many of the buses presently running on the roads under the auspices of the government of Ontario, and many of the private cars, off the Queen Elizabeth Way, the 402, the Don Valley Parkway and the other expressways in this area if we were to expand the GO Transit service to provide service to Hamilton and Oshawa on a full-time basis to the great area of Welland-Thorold and perhaps also to St. Catharines and Niagara Falls. That could be done and could be done now. In the process, it would mean the purchasing of railway equipment built by Canadians, which would benefit the Canadian people in many ways.

In the few minutes I have I don’t want to dwell too much on the alternatives that exist for public transportation. I want to make a suggestion that the government, if it supports this resolution -- and with the member for Durham West I hope it is supported on all sides of the House -- the government could take some steps in this area that would do a great deal for the country. The government of Ontario could take the initiative in the upgrading of the rail corridor as far as the Quebec border and could negotiate with the government of Quebec to extend that corridor by provincial action into the province of Quebec.

The forging of those strong rail bonds between Ontario and Quebec, in my view, would do a great deal to increase the need we have for understanding between these two great provinces. It would enable people to move more freely between them, avoid the long drive that is necessary to get to Montreal and Quebec City, and encourage cooperation, which is what federalism should be, rather than passing the buck to the federal government to do everything for us and on our behalf.

The initiative really could come from the other side of the House. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk said earlier the resolution refers to something that is clearly a federal responsibility. I reject that. I really believe the initiative could come from the provincial government. It has come in terms of the GO train service. There’s a great deal more that needs to be accomplished, and I don’t mind whether it comes using the train that carries the trade name LRC or whether it comes using the double deck cars and other types of equipment that have been and are being developed by the UTDC. That kind of initiative could indeed carry us forward into an age where public transportation is the predominant mode of travel.

A few years ago, in another capacity, I was involved in a study in which we looked at air transport movements out of Toronto International Airport, the destination of the flights and the need for the expansion of that airport. It became very clear to us that if the flights from Toronto to places in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor were replaced with a train service, as is being suggested in this resolution, the thought of a second Toronto airport, possibly even the thought of expansion of Mount Hope Airport, would never have come about.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Isaacs: This is a great resolution, but it needs more than urging the federal government; it needs some real positive commitment from the government of this province to public transportation.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, what really could come about with the implementation of the thrust of this resolution is high speed, fast-turnaround traffic and a new train service able to divert air and road transport, which I think is one of the things we’re aiming for, with significant savings in gasoline, jet and diesel fuel; high operation and maintenance savings; high technology utilization within the electrical industry in its broadest sense; possible savings in highway maintenance, for example; possibly no need for another Mirabel, as has been mentioned; and, one hopes, the creation of a revitalized artery for Canada’s industrial heartland.

The advantages, I think, speak for themselves. Let me assure the honourable members that the debate as it has taken place this afternoon, along with my covering letter, will be forwarded to the federal government, assuming passage and support by this Legislature.

FAMILY LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved second reading of Bill 159, An Act to amend the Family Law Reform Act, 1918.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, the reintroduction of the Family Law Reform Act took place here on October 17, 1977. The debate of second reading occurred the next day.

The bill had been brought in previously and had had substantial hearings. The bill then returned to the committee stage for many further changes. Much comment was made as the whole package of family law bills went through the stages of public hearings and comments. Articles were written and some 40,000 copies of the proposed legislation went all over Ontario.

It really had taken almost 10 years of effort to get the legislation finally in place.

Most persons would have expected that all of that time and effort would have produced a perfect result. However, that was not the case. There was a particular problem which came to light as the result of a decision made in the family court in Kitchener.

It so happened that the lawyer representing the claimant involved was Mr. James Gothard, with whom I practised law from 1968 until I closed my practice in June of 1975 to devote my full time to my duties in the Legislature. I am no longer involved in private practice and I have no obligation to Mr. Gothard, in any way, to bring forward this bill.

I would certainly not want the Speaker, or any other person in Ontario, to think that I’m trying to have a law changed in order to benefit personally in any way from that change.

The facts of the case were these. A mother of two teenagers had applied to the family court to collect arrears under an order. These arrears had built up to $1,000 or so, based on payments which had been ordered of $50 a week for each child. The judge looked at section 27 of the act and noted that it read as follows, and I quote subsection 1 from the 1978 red volume of the statutes, where the Family Law Reform Act is chapter 2:

“The clerk of the united family court or of a provincial court (family division), upon the request of a person entitled to support under an order for support or maintenance enforceable in Ontario or other persons or agency mentioned in subsection 3 of section 18 and upon the filing of such material as is prescribed by the rules of the court may enforce the order.”

That reference to section 18(3) is as follows: “An application for an order for the support of a defendant who is a spouse or a dependent child of the spouse may be made by, (a) the Ministry of Community and Social Services in the name of the minister; or (b) a municipal corporation including a metropolitan district or regional municipality, but not including an area municipality thereof.”

As a result, the mother had made the application for the enforcement of this order, but the statute only allows two persons to be applicants. The first is “the person entitled to support” and the second is the Ministry of Community and Social Services or a municipal corporation in certain particular circumstances.

The judge ruled that only the children in this case could request that the payments be enforced by the court. In Kitchener, this application is one of about 80 which pass through the family court each month. Certainly a number of these would be involved in this particular problem, as would many right across the province. While teenagers could possibly make the application, what about the infants and small children of five or six years of age who could obviously not apply to have orders enforced on their own behalf?

I immediately sent the newspaper story that appeared in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) on October 3. There accordingly appeared to be four possible approaches which could be taken. The first was to appeal the decision -- this was the route which has been suggested by an information officer in the Attorney General’s office. Then, if the appeal court was to uphold the judge’s decision, an amendment to the act could be considered by the Attorney General’s officials.

In my view this was an alternative, of course, but there would certainly be no appeal in time to have any prospective legislation in this session, which will end in mid-December. Any governmental amendment would have to wait probably until next spring, and in the meanwhile many children would be suffering.

The second approach was to try to use the law of agency, since those under the age of 18 cannot act on their own in family court matters. That suggestion was made after a similar decision was made by a county court judge in Woodstock in late September. There may be a prospect of such actions, and a letter to that effect was sent to the family court judges in Ontario by the chief judge for the consideration and use of those other judges. But the section, as I have said, does not refer to the right to use an agent.

The judge in the Kitchener family court was quoted as saying, “As the rules of our court stand now, I don’t see any provision for the parent to act as an agent for the child. The rules don’t seem to permit anyone else to act for the child.”

Unlike county and supreme courts, the family court division of the provincial court has no particular provision allowing adults to launch proceedings on behalf of children, who are viewed by the court as minors. Therefore that suggestion, if used, could have been easily challenged.

A third possibility was one which I suggested to the Attorney General in my letter to him of October 3. That was the idea that some instruction as to the wishes of the Legislature might be given to the judge of the family court with the prospect of an amendment being eventually made. The Attorney General had not received this letter by the time I asked the question about this matter two weeks after my original letter to him, but his reply set out the view that this route of instruction was not one he would prefer to follow.

The fourth alternative was to change the law, but with the backlog of legislation already on the Order Paper and with only three more Tuesdays left for legislation, that also seemed an unlikely prospect.

The opportunity to change the law, however, was not only a prerogative of the government; there was the chance of using a private member’s turn to bring in an amendment which could also be accepted by all members and which, hopefully, could be passed by this House. As I had the ballot turn this afternoon, I decided to bring forward the amendment which you see in Bill 159.

I am most pleased with the comments a number of members have made about my proposal, and I was particularly delighted to receive a call from the Attorney General’s office expressing support for my attempt to help a number of children in this province who would benefit from this amendment. I hope the Attorney General or his parliamentary assistant will be able to speak in favour of the bill this afternoon.

A suggestion for an amendment to my bill was made by the counsel for the policy development division of the ministry, Mr. Craig Perkins, who is under the press gallery. He suggested a certain amendment as someone who was the original draftsman of the original family reform bill. The amendment which has been suggested does change a word or two and certainly clarifies the intention of my bill. The amendment will make my suggestions more consistent with the wording and style of the act and, of course, I am most pleased to accept that amendment. It can be put at the committee stage of the bill.

There are not many occasions on which we, as legislators, can actually and directly help specific individuals in our society. I suggest to you, sir, that the passage of the amendment to the Family Law Reform Act which I propose may well be one of those occasions. I would welcome the support of the members of this House, and I hope this bill will not only receive second reading, but that time will be available for it to go through the other stages in the next several weeks. We will have the opportunity to assist a number of children in circumstances where the applications which have been made from time to time, ordinarily by the mother, are now being called into question. I hope that opportunity will be clarified.

I welcome the support I have received and the encouragement from the Attorney General. I hope we will be able to resolve this concern and benefit a number of our citizens.

Mr. Acting Speaker: You have eight minutes left. Do you wish to reserve them?

Mr. Breithaupt: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased indeed to have the opportunity to rise in this House and speak once again, as I tend to do forever, on this bill.

As the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General knows, this has become somewhat of an obsession with me, the intricacies of this bill and the various parts that are still not working. I look forward to the remarks which the next speaker, the parliamentary assistant, will make on this bill, and I agree with the person who presented this bill: I certainly hope what we will hear from the parliamentary assistant is that, with whatever minor amendment is required to achieve exactly the purpose desired, the government will support this on second rending and will have it put to committee for those small positive improvements which the member for Kitchener has mentioned. As a House, I am sure we will deal very speedily with this in committee and have this bill in law before Christmas.

This is certainly a positive amendment. I was very discouraged, when it occurred, to see the way the judges interpreted this section, disallowing the parent of a child for whom support had been ordered by the court from bringing an action forward in the absence of that child doing so, in fact indicating that the parent could not do so. This is what the amendment corrects.

It is a very small, straightforward, very reasonable amendment, which makes it clear to everybody in the province that support payments should be paid. It makes it clear that the clerk of the unified family court or the provincial family court must, upon the request of anyone involved, such as the parent of a dependent child supposedly to receive child support, shall enforce upon their request the order of the court.

I am a little surprised. The one amendment I would make, if it gets to committee, is to change the “may” to “shall.” Then it would be unambiguous that we expect the unified family court or the provincial court, family division, whichever court is involved, shall, upon the request of any one of the three parties outlined in this bill, enforce that court order for support. There are simply far too many persons in our society who have court-ordered support payments on them who simply refuse by a whole host of means to meet and live up to those court-ordered support payments.

We have an interpretation of the present section of the act which makes it very difficult for those court orders to be enforced when the narrow reading of it caused a parent of a dependent child to not be able to go into court and have that order enforced.

We certainly support this amendment. I would prefer the “may” to be “shall,” and we may well consider that as one of the amendments in what should be a very quick committee stage consideration of this bill. I certainly look forward to the parliamentary assistant speaking next and saying to us that members on the government side will accept this private member’s bill, will bring it forward to committee before Christmas and remove this obvious loophole, the obvious anomaly in this section of the act, which would facilitate the collection and payment of the whole support section of this bill.

I am very disappointed in the number of cases across the province where the Ministry of Community and Social Services or the municipal corporations, those people referred to in section 18(3), do not take a hand. In my area when you say to these people that they can themselves go into court and request the support payments be made, they are not doing it. They are saying unequivocally they are going to make the person involved do it.

I would like to see the Ministry of the Attorney General make a survey, if they haven’t done so. It would be interesting to see how many aren’t doing it. Most of them aren’t. I wouldn’t want to see time consumed by the survey; but this government -- maybe the Ministry of Community and Social Services, maybe the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, or both -- should make it very clear to ComSoc itself and those municipal corporations that they are to go into court and help in the collection of those support payments. They are allowed to do so under the legislation, yet it is my perception they are refusing to do so right across this province.

Why are they refusing to do so? Why do they keep hassling the person on mother’s allowance who has a court-ordered support payment from a deserting spouse on behalf of their children? Why do they continue to try to hassle them into court? This amendment will help clear that up. In order to collect support payments when the agencies involved can do it, we need some real action on the part of the officials concerned in this government to say to those agencies, “You go in there and you get it.”

[5:00]

I know of a situation now where the Ministry of Community and Social Services is not using its legal staff. They have dragged their feet over the course of a year and a half in going into a Michigan court to collect over $7,000 from a spouse who is resident in the city of Detroit; they have a lawyer who would do it in Michigan on a percentage basis.

I cannot see why ComSoc is not interested in returning that money. That money would be returned to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Why aren’t they interested in receiving that money into the coffers of the province of Ontario? It is a disgrace. It’s the public’s money they are not collecting, which they could darn well easily collect if they went into that Michigan courtroom after it.

All the officials within the ministries concerned have to take a much more active role in the collection of court-ordered support money across this province. I would ask the parliamentary assistants and the ministers involved to take this point seriously and tell those agencies to get out there and collect the money.

There are other parts of this Family Law Reform Act which have an equal or even higher priority than this, although this is a matter which should be addressed, and addressed very quickly now, so that the intent of this bill is carried forward.

I can point to another couple of problem sections in the bill. It’s because I’m lazy that I have not produced a private member’s bill myself on these problems which should be addressed.

Of course I refer to section 11 of the present Family Law Reform Act, where we did exactly the wrong thing. We abolished the presumption of advancement and allowed the presumption of resulting trust to act both ways. We abolished the wrong presumption. We retained the presumption of resulting trust.

Take the example of a man giving a gift to his wife. That gift is not a gift; she is just holding it in trust for him. If I give my wife an angora sweater for Christmas or any other time, I’ll make sure I get one big enough so I can wear it if there should be a marriage breakup, because it’s mine. All she is doing is holding it in trust for me. That acts both ways, for every gift that transfers between spouses; they are, in fact, just loans to the spouse. That means in the event of a marriage breakup they can be collected back unless I so state at the time of the gift that this is indeed a gift to my wife irrespective of section 11 of the Family Law Reform Act.

We should have abolished the resulting trust presumption and put in place the presumption of advancement operating both ways which says any gift I give to my wife is hers --

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

Mr. Bounsall: -- unless I so state otherwise, and any gift she gives to me is mine, unless she so states otherwise. That surely needs to be redressed and reversed in this Family Law Reform Act.

Mr. Sterling: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome this opportunity to talk again on this matter of importance to all people in our province.

I would like to congratulate the member for Kitchener for bringing forward this particular amendment to the act. I think it is important to note that the ministry has not encountered a great many problems with this act and we have only a few areas where we would like to change a few sections, which we expect to do in the spring. Be that as it may, I understand the feelings of the member for Kitchener, who had this issue brought forward by someone living in his constituency.

When we look at the family act as a whole, and I’d like to talk about it as a whole for a short period of time, we have had very few conflicts or troubles or problems with this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Bounsall: It needs some improvement.

Mr. Sterling: In answer to the member for Windsor-Sandwich in talking about section 11, I would indicate some other very cogent reasoning has to be brought forward in terms of that particular section.

Mr. Bounsall: You never did it in committee and you never did it in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question period expired quite some time ago.

Mr. Sterling: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, this bill has been used as an example for many other provinces. I think Prince Edward Island has virtually copied the bill word for word. British Columbia has also implemented large portions of this piece of legislation, as well as New Brunswick, I believe. Be that as it may, there are minor problems. We recognized when we were sitting in committee on this particular bill that because it was such a wholesale reform of the act we would expect these small problems would arise.

Actually, the fact that those small problems haven’t arisen is really a credit to the process that went on during that whole hearing on that bill, which predated my tenure here in the Legislature. Many representatives from all parts of the province participated in this very important debate.

To review some of the positions that the court has taken on this particular Family Law Act, the Attorney General recently has presented that paper to the justice committee, which is now sitting during his estimates. The courts basically have adhered very strictly to the equal sharing of family assets and have departed from that only in unusual cases. Where the wife has discharged her homemaking functions and has earned income and made financial contributions to the welfare of the family, while the husband did not make any substantial contributions in either area, the wife in some cases has received more than half of the family assets.

Where a husband has liquidated family assets in an attempt to defeat his wife’s claim, the wife has again received more than half the family assets to compensate for the assets disposed of. The fact that property was acquired by gift or inheritance has reduced the share of one spouse but has not resulted in a complete exemption from sharing. In one case, unequalled sharing resulted from the acquisition by one spouse of assets bought before the marriage, which lasted only two and a half years.

In a great majority of cases, however, family assets have been divided equally. Furthermore, there have been several cases where the contributions of the spouse in work or money have received recognition up to the point of half a share in the business operation or farm where the efforts of spouses resembled a joint venture. Likewise, there have been cases where a wife has received a share of business assets for the homemaking services which permitted her husband to devote his undivided attention to his business endeavours.

In support orders, the courts have generally reached decisions based on evaluation of economic factors without regard to matrimonial misconduct. Support orders are now made with an awareness of the obligation of both spouse’s to take measures to become self-supporting. This has resulted in orders that are of a limited duration or that may be reduced over a period of time in some cases.

That brings us to the automatic enforcement provision of the bill and the specific intent of the member for Kitchener’s bill. One of the features of the support provision of this act is the enforcement system contained in the act and in the rules and procedures of family courts across the province. The clerk of the court is empowered to enforce the orders at the request of the person receiving support. When the request is received, the court staff begins monitoring payments under the order and sends out reminders if payments fall behind.

Unfortunately the procedure varies across the 53 family courts in the province. This is due in some cases to the wishes of the family court judges, and in other cases it is due to staffing restraints.

It is interesting to note, though, that in cases where there is automatic telephone follow-up, where there is automatic monitoring of the account, there are significant increases in the collection rate.

At present, of the maintenance orders made, approximately 80 per cent are collected. I will pass along the concern of the member for Windsor-Sandwich to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) in relation to the attitude of those officers in collection of payment.

I think his feeling might be that unless the person who has the order requests such help, then that help should not be given. I don’t argue one way or the other on it because I haven’t had an opportunity to discuss it with him, but I think that might be his attitude. If a debtor is called into court, the judge can decline to enforce an order if he is satisfied the debtor can’t pay. He can make an alternate order if it is necessary and can secure the payment some way.

In some cases a spouse has been able to obtain an order for exclusive possession of the home. This is done when it is in the best interests of the child to provide a permanent shelter that is in the marriage environment.

Such an order results usually in the postponement of the sale of the matrimonial home until the order expires, that usually being the period of time when the children leave the matrimonial home. The cases where an exclusive possession order has been granted involve the need for stability.

Concerning section 27 of the act, there have been two court decisions which state that a parent cannot invoke the automatic enforcement support on behalf of the child; in other words, the child must invoke his own enforcement. One of the problems I have -- and I would hope the member for Kitchener would have an opportunity to answer questions -- is in that case -- I think the children were 15 and 17 years of age -- I couldn’t quite understand --

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

Mr. Sterling: I would like to indicate that we will support it. I would like to indicate that because of the nature of the bill, the fact it is a minor matter, not a matter of general government policy, that I have recommended to the House leader that he put it into committee of the whole House in the ensuing three weeks and that we eventually call it during this session for third and final reading.

Mr. Williams: The fact we don’t have a normal sequence of speakers from the other parties I hope doesn’t indicate a lack of interest in the bill we have before us today. Rather I hope there is unanimous support for the legislation that has been brought before us, to meet a specific situation presented to us by the sponsor of a bill which illustrates very clearly a problem that exists in the existing legislation.

[5:15]

I’m pleased to reinforce the government’s support of this bill by rising to speak today. Like the rest of the members in the Legislature, I am greatly concerned about the quality of life for children in this province. There’s no question but that in this day and age, when there is so much going on in our society, and where the family unit is no longer a total component but involves one-parent situations, this type of setting quite often creates, not only emotional, but financial hardships for the innocent children of these family breakdowns. It is important for us to try to resolve as best we can in legislation some of the problems that have arisen.

All of us, as parents, have the responsibility of raising and providing for the physical and also the spiritual needs of our children. We like to think that, ideally, both parents would always be unavailable to care for and nurture their children in the way they best see fit. Unfortunately, for the reasons I stated a moment ago, this is not the case.

The public attitudes towards the importance of the family unit and the whole social structure of our society have changed dramatically in recent years. The assurance of the continuation of the family unit and the availability of parents to provide care and guidance for their children is no longer assured as much today as it was in previous decades.

The family law legislation obviously recognizes those changes and was the primary reason for which it was brought about, not only to provide greater equity for those who have been in a marriage contract but also for the children who have been born out of that relationship.

In addition to this family law legislation, the Ontario government has instituted other laws and programs designed to protect the rights of children in other areas. My colleague has already mentioned that the Attorney General’s office is working on changes that will benefit and strengthen this legislation as well.

There is no question that the topic of support payments and the enforcement of such payments is a highly emotional and complex issue and one that is not readily solvable. It’s very easy to set out the guidelines and procedures in statute law but there is no more difficult type of legislation to enforce than that dealing with domestic matters where individual attitudes and emotions are so directly involved. For the courts to try to govern and control those in a legislative, legalistic manner is not always easily attainable. Each case has a different set of factors and variables that may or may not be solved to the satisfaction of the people involved.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services, through its desertion services section, helps locate spouses who have deserted their families in order that support may be pursued. Its staff works with the family courts to facilitate enforcement procedures. The concern is that not only must payments be made; they must be made on a regular basis. If this is not possible in certain circumstances, the ministry will provide support payments to the family.

It does distress me, as I know it distresses the other members of the Legislature, that some people treat the demands of parenthood in a rather loose and light fashion and don’t consider those responsibilities as seriously today as in the past, perhaps. I was most interested to listen to the reasons given by the sponsor of this bill for bringing this matter before the House in this way. He cited clearly and concisely the other options he had tried in an effort to bring a successful resolution to the very personal problem his constituent had experienced, which had attracted his attention to the whole matter. I think he has made it clear to the House that those several options were not readily available to him in assisting his constituent and in dealing with a very basic and fundamental problem, an obvious deficiency in the existing legislation. To deal with it expeditiously, the member has presented a convincing argument to this House this afternoon that this is the most appropriate course to pursue.

For this reason, I am pleased the parliamentary assistant has indicated this government would be prepared to support the legislation. I would not have expected him to say otherwise. Certainly, I am prepared to give that support, as I am sure are all members of this House.

It is quite clear that occasions will arise to illustrate our fallibility as legislators. We can make errors in dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s when we enact legislation in this House. It is apparent from a reading of the relevant sections in the existing statute that it cannot accomplish what was intended, and the courts have found this to be so as well. No one can question the decisions taken in those two cases that highlighted the deficiency. The sponsor of the bill spoke specifically to those two court decisions.

It is quite clear the courts of this land have shown the inadequacy of the wording in the existing statute, which runs contrary to what was intended. For these reasons I would simply conclude my remarks by saying the member for Kitchener is to be commended for having investigated this matter so thoroughly. After having exhausted all other options, he has chosen this way to bring the necessary equity to the situation, not just for his constituent but for the many innocent children who are also affected.

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

Mr. Williams: As I said earlier, I am pleased to support this bill before us today.

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased to be able to address myself to this bill. The previous speaker has mentioned that his party will be supporting this bill and I’m very pleased to hear that. But I suppose, as a lawyer and as an officer of the court, I really must express my absolute and total dismay at the callous disregard shown by the Attorney General when my colleague first brought this matter to his attention.

The information which I have, and which I understand is correct, is that the member for Kitchener brought the decision of Judge Douglas Bean to the attention of the Attorney General. I understand the Attorney General had been requested at that time either to amend the act to permit the parents or guardians to act on behalf of the children or to appeal the particular ruling. In a letter to my colleague dated October 17 the Attorney General took a rather highhanded approach and said he wasn’t prepared to do either of them at this time. I can only say that in my opinion that is a very callous and disrespectful attitude for an Attorney General to take, in view of something which obviously is so flagrant.

It certainly does please me very much to see that the members on the other side are going to support this bill. Had the Attorney General acted promptly when this matter was brought to his attention, perhaps we would not have been put through this exercise at all. I’m quite certain immediate action should have been taken by the Attorney General when this matter was drawn to his attention by the member for Kitchener.

Incidentally, I think the decision of that particular judge is as deficient as the section which presently deals with the enforcement of that order. When an order is made, the order is for payment to the parent on behalf of the children. In all of my years in court, in all of these family court matters in which I have appeared, the order is always made “and the husband shall pay to the wife for the support of” and then the children are listed and their ages given. To me the wrong interpretation was placed by this particular court on that particular section.

However, I suppose it is because of deficiencies of this nature that we do present this bill today. The member for Kitchener is certainly to be applauded for the immediate action which he has taken.

I think this brings us to a broader area with respect to children in family courts. The child in family court today is represented by the parent; that is to say the mother -- or, now, the father -- who applies to family court for support does so on behalf of the children. We are relying on that parent to give proper advice and to make proper representation on behalf of that child. Many times, where family court orders with respect to children were obtained in such a way, I’ve seen that the greater allotment of the money which was to be paid -- in other words, let’s say the supporting parent is the father, who can pay only so many dollars, for example, $200 a month. What they will do is to apportion that money in such a way so the wife receives the greater amount.

[5:30]

I have said many times -- and I’ve spoken about this in family court -- that perhaps the day has arrived where the child in family court should be properly represented by the office of the official guardian.

There are so many of these cases coming to court now and in so many instances the rights of the children are not being adequately looked after. The day may very well have come, or it may very well come in the near future, when a child should not necessarily rely on the representations of the parent who is applying to family court on his behalf. Rather, there should be representation made on behalf of the child in the presence of the office of the official guardian to safeguard the best interests of the child.

It may very well be that this is cumbersome; it may very well be that this is costly; however, it could be that the agencies of the various family service societies which there are in various municipalities -- many of them, incidentally, now have permanent counsel; they have permanent legal staff because of the complexities of the matters which have arisen in that branch of the law -- should have a representative of those family services in court to see to it that the interests of the children are fully protected.

As I said, I have seen many instances where the pot is divided in such a way that it is the wife who gets the greatest portion of the moneys which are available and I just don’t think it’s fair. I don’t think it’s fair for the child. It’s not fair for the children. I am addressing myself to that because I think it is an area of great concern and because it’s an area which I believe deserves future consideration.

The whole idea of enforcement of orders in family courts can only be described -- certainly in many respects -- as frivolous. What usually happens is that the person who is ordered to pay falls into arrears. He may be in arrears for years, for two years or three years. He will appear in court on a show-cause summons or whatever mechanism brings him into court and the first thing that happens is that the arrears, whatever they are, are wiped off the books and they start all over again as though he has expiated his sins or his inability to pay or his unwillingness to pay. He comes to court and says, “I realize I am in arrears for $4,000 or $3,000 or $6,000, but I simply don’t have it, so I am asking that the deficiency be wiped off the books.” Often that is done. I find that the method of enforcement of orders in family court is cavalier and it certainly is not carried out in the manner in which it should be.

Again, I must compliment the member for Kitchener for bringing this private member’s bill forward and, again, I also must take issue with the office of the Attorney General for being so lax and for not doing anything about this, even after it was brought to the attention of the Attorney General. It’s a cavalier attitude: “We’re not going to do anything. We’re not going to appeal the judge’s ruling and we’re not going to bring in an amendment to the bill.” That is precisely why the member for Kitchener has had to do this. As I said, it’s a cavalier attitude which is demonstrated too often by that ministry. In any event, it certainly has been my pleasure to rise and speak on this bill. I understand it is being supported by all members of the House and I think that in itself is quite complimentary.

Mr. McClellan: I am happy to rise and participate in the debate in support of the bill before us and to congratulate the member for Kitchener for bringing it forward.

I want first to continue in the same vein as the previous speaker with respect to the traditional attitude towards the enforcement of maintenance orders by the court and the agents of the court. This is one area of the law that is systematically treated as a joke. It is systematically held in contempt. There has never been any serious commitment to the enforcement of maintenance orders by the legal system -- from the courts right down to the lowest minion of the courts. Enforcement orders are treated as matters of no account.

I have a copy of the study entitled, Family Law Enforcement of Maintenance Orders, prepared for the Law Reform Commission of Canada by Edward F. Ryan -- I believe in 1976. He undertook a quite thorough study of the state of enforcement of maintenance orders at that time. One of the things he dealt with in the study is the fact that over half the maintenance orders throughout the country, on average, are never enforced; the payment is never made.

That has been documented here and in other studies. I don’t know what the figures are for 1978. There is a reference in Mr. Ryan’s study to the statistics -- albeit for 1971 and 1972 -- that the amounts received pursuant to maintenance orders represented only 55 per cent of maintenance becoming due. This is in Ontario and in other provinces the percentage of --

Mr. Sterling: It is about 80 per cent here.

Mr. McClellan: Is it 80? I would be grateful, and I mean this sincerely, if the parliamentary assistant could provide us with some current statistics. The material we have been shown to date indicates an enormous amount of arrears -- something in the order of $36 million in arrears on unpaid enforcement orders. The studies I have seen indicate the rates across the country vary upwards from 50 per cent -- unenforced, not enforced.

Mr. Sterling: It depends how you look at it in dollar value.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, it does depend how you look at it in dollar value. I would like to know the basis of the parliamentary assistant’s understanding of the situation.

Nevertheless, it is a truism to say that enforcement orders are not taken as seriously as any other matter that comes before the court -- I think even including traffic tickets. I am not being flippant. I really think there is a very strange and, in some respects, malevolent attitude towards enforcement orders that needs to be addressed vigorously by the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, even if they are the same person.

We are pleased to see the amendment because it addresses an injustice that existed within the Family Law Reform Act. It now makes provision for dependants to have their rights to maintenance enforced and it jibes with the recommendations discussed by Mr. Ryan for the Law Reform Commission of Canada. In his summary of solutions to the problem of non-enforcement, he starts by saying in his third recommendation, “Dependent children should have the independent right to enforce maintenance orders made in their favour.” I think everybody here accepts the basic principle the member for Kitchener has spoken to and tried to deal with.

Let me deal with the matter contained in section 1(c), the business of other persons or agencies assuming the responsibility and onus of making sure maintenance orders are enforced. In Mr. Ryan’s report he recommends on page 46 that “Techniques for court-initiated enforcement should be explored and existing programs carefully monitored. Assuming the initial success of such programs proved that they are as good as they appeared to be, court-initiated enforcement should replace enforcement by the defendant’s spouse and children.”

We haven’t moved very far at all in that direction. The act clearly permits other persons or agencies referenced in section 18(3) to act on behalf of persons for whom a maintenance order is outstanding. Yet the Minister of Community and Social Services has chosen to take a very narrow view of his responsibility for ensuring enforcement of maintenance orders for welfare recipients and provincial family benefits recipients. He has a set of rather limited situations in which he is prepared to assume the responsibility for the enforcement. In most situations he leaves it up to the individual to try to plough his way through a court system which is simply not responsive.

The parliamentary assistant shakes his head in disgust, but I believe that is an accurate description of the current state of affairs. We had a lengthy discussion during the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services in October of this year. We have asked for some data from the ministry with respect to the total number of maintenance orders outstanding on behalf of social assistance recipients in order that he can compare the total number with the number on which the ministry is acting as the enforcement agent. We haven’t obtained this data yet.

The indication remains that the ministry allows most people to try to scramble as best they can through a court system and through officers of the court, which are unsympathetic and unresponsive to the issue of maintenance enforcement. That is why we have arrears of $36 million outstanding in 1979. That is the beginning and the end of the problem.

[5:45]

Until the government is prepared to take the onus of enforcement off the individual and place it where it belongs, either with the court or some appropriate agency of government -- in the case of a social assistance recipient, the Ministry of Community and Social Services -- the problem will remain unsolved.

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

Mr. MacBeth: If nobody else wishes to take the few remaining minutes on this bill, I would like to take those minutes myself and speak to this matter of private members’ business.

First of all, I want to go on record with the other members who have spoken to this bill and say it is a good bill and one I am most happy to support. I am particularly pleased with the nature of its subject matter because I feel this is the proper kind of matter for a private member’s bill.

As one who occasionally occupies the Speaker’s chair, I am hesitant to get involved with controversial matters. As it turns out, this does not appear, at least at present, to be a controversial bill.

We try to deal too often with controversial bills in private members’ hour. It’s not that the House does not have a right to express its opinion on these things; it does. It is good to have discussion on them. But I believe they are best handled by way of resolution rather than trying to embarrass the government into changing government policy or dealing with major financial responsibilities.

This bill does not deal with financial responsibilities; nor does it try to change government policy in any way. I commend this bill to the members of the House, not just for its content, which of course I support, but also because of its nature. This is the kind of private members’ public business we should have more often.

To get back to my main complaint, when private members’ bills are introduced dealing with major matters and where we are trying to set government policy, members have only a limited time to discuss the issues. If one is getting into a private member’s bill that deals with a major policy and we are limited to two or three members on each side of the House speaking for 10 minutes on that bill, it is unfair to the other members of the House who may wish to go on record as to why they are in favour or are against the bill and why they are voting the way they are.

My major objection to votes on private members’ bills that deal with major policies is simply that it does not give adequate time for discussion by all members of the House.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the remarks of the six other members who have spoken this afternoon on Bill 159.

I believe that the support on all sides of the House will allow us to proceed to help some children who may otherwise have enough difficulties thrust upon them through no fault of their own.

This is an amendment which I hope will be helpful. I hope the time will be available for it to pass through the committee stage and be attended to within the next several weeks. We will be able to give a very nice Christmas present to a number of deserving people in this province.

WINDSOR-QUEBEC RAIL SERVICE

Mr. Speaker: Resolution 37 concurred in.

FAMILY LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Breithaupt has moved second reading of Bill 159.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 13, I would like to indicate to the House the business for tomorrow and next week.

Tomorrow we will continue in the House in committee of supply and continue the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue.

On Monday, November 26, in the afternoon, the committee of supply will finish the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue, if some of these estimates still remain after tomorrow’s meeting, and then start the estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. The House will meet on Monday evening and consider Bill 122 in committee stage, followed by Bills 146, 147 and 172, second reading and committee stage as required.

On Tuesday, November 27, we will consider legislation in the afternoon and the evening: Bills 164 and 165, second reading and committee stage as required, followed by Bill 156, second reading and committee stage, Bill 160 committee stage, Bills 148, 149 and 150 second reading and committee stage as required.

Wednesday, November 28, the justice, general government and resources development committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday, November 29, in the afternoon, we will again do private members’ public business, ballot items nine and 10. In the evening, we will consider the first and second reports of the standing statutory instruments committee. If any time remains we will move into budget debate.

On Friday, November 30, the committee of supply will consider the estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

The House recessed at 5:45 p.m.