The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

DISPOSAL OF PCBs

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, last year before the standing committee on resources development, I presented a seven-point program for the disposal of liquid industrial wastes.

In the past year, we have made considerable progress in implementing these steps. Our new waybill system, with its new classification system, is in place and giving us the detailed knowledge on liquid waste movements that we need.

The classification system and waste disposal guidelines set out requirements for treatment and disposal of these wastes. These guidelines are now assisting industry in safely handling the materials.

Regulations are being prepared to require registration of wastes, to direct wastes to specific treatment methods and to establish perpetual care funds for waste disposal sites. In October, we released a ministry interim report on the subject of perpetual care and are currently obtaining public feedback.

On the transboundary movement of wastes, discussions are continuing with the federal government and an initial draft proposal has been released by them.

With regard to facilities and site selection, we have already chosen two short-term solidification facilities. The MacLaren report which identifies 17 candidate areas for long-term disposal has been released and we are obtaining public response.

When I introduced the program, I said interim storage facilities would be needed for some of these wastes until adequate, permanent disposal sites could be established. Safe storage is particularly crucial for PCBs, as there are no facilities currently available for their disposal.

I told the committee that the government was prepared to assume the lead in order to obtain these vital sites and that we would ensure they were established in the safest possible manner.

To this end, the ministry retained the consulting services of M. M. Dillon Limited, a Toronto engineering company, to recommend criteria and locations for establishing interim storage facilities for PCBs.

The primary recommendation of their report, which I am tabling today, is that one facility be established as soon as possible to store PCBs. This storage will be needed until plans and facilities can be completed for permanent destruction.

The report considered 53 potential locations under many criteria designed to ensure that a temporary storage site would be secure. While storage is a safe temporary control for PCBs, we asked the consultant to consider a wide variety of factors to make sure such a site would be ideally located. Many of these factors were obtained through consultation with environmental groups.

Some of these factors were: proximity to major PCB sources as opposed to distance from population centres; distance from major water bodies, environmentally sensitive areas and unusual geological features; existing land use; and good access and control of the site.

Based on these and other criteria, Dillon has recommended three preferred sites: South Cayuga, the Blenheim area and the Middleport area. Of those three, the ministry’s technical staff has chosen the Middleport area site for a detailed environmental assessment and proposed development.

They made this choice for a number of reasons. Since electrical transformers and capacitors represent the bulk use of PCBs, we felt it was appropriate the storage facility be located on Ontario Hydro property if possible. The Middleport site qualifies on that point.

The location also offers good control of the site as well as good access. No initial preparation of roads will be required. In addition, the facility will be close to major PCB sources so there will be a minimum transportation risk. Middleport is 15 kilo- metres southeast of Brantford. The proposed facility will be six kilometres from Middleport itself.

The proposal is to incorporate both bulk and warehouse storage, with special handling methods designed to protect the surrounding area. A minimum of 40 acres would be required for the overall installation, and the report recommends that the warehouse and storage facilities cover four and one half acres on that site.

Dillon has calculated that if the facility were to operate over a five-year period, it would handle approximately 4,950 tons of PCBs in liquids, contaminated fluids and solids.

Because of the importance of this facility to the citizens of Ontario, I want to keep them as fully informed as possible and involved in the decision-making process. To this end, I am proposing that a citizen-liaison committee be established with representatives from society at large, area residents and ministry technical staff. In that way, I feel we can ensure not only that the public is kept fully informed through all stages of this proposed development, but also that their input is considered and their concerns fully answered. To start this process, my staff have already been in touch with the appropriate municipal representatives.

In co-operation with the consulting firm, the ministry is gathering the information necessary for the proposal under the Environmental Assessment Act. This and any other data will be made available to the residents and the public through the liaison committee, and through open information meetings, prior to the hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board. I give my personal guarantee that everything will be done to ensure citizens are kept fully informed on every step of this process.

The Dillon report has estimated that there are currently 14,430 tons of PCB material being used in existing transformers and capacitors all over the province. As these transformers and capacitors come out of service over the next several years, their contents eventually will join the additional 550 tons estimated to be in storage now in various locations.

If this chemical is not properly stored as it comes out of use, it will without doubt contaminate our environment and work its way into our food chain. Ontario needs one site where we can ensure that storage of our PCBs is done safely and securely.

I would also like to stress that safe storage can only be a partial remedy. We need a facility which will provide for the complete destruction of PCBs and we need it as soon as possible. I am sure the members are aware of the efforts of my ministry in making an effort to find the best way to accomplish this, just as I am sure they are aware that public acceptance is difficult to achieve.

We in Ontario have made use of this chemical; so we must all accept the responsibility for its disposal. If approved, the Middleport facility will give us the needed time to establish the safe and efficient disposal facility which we so urgently need to eliminate this hazardous substance from our society.

I feel this last year has been a year of marked progress. This is one more step in the eventual and complete control of hazardous waste for the protection of the people of this province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISPOSAL OF PCBs

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of the Environment. I won’t ask him how come all the areas studied and stored in always happen to be Liberal ridings, because apparently they can’t be burned in Conservative ridings.

In view of the professed interest of the minister in making sure that citizens are kept informed and participating in the fullest way possible, I would like to ask whether, in these unusual circumstances and given the urgency of the matter, the minister will endeavour to provide funding for the various citizen groups which undoubtedly will wish to be represented at the hearings, to bring expert testimony and have assistance with regard to asking the proper questions and cross-examination and so on.

Given the funding that obviously exists on the side that will be proposing the facility, how about giving some fair chance to the citizens who might want to make sure all the experts are brought in who might have contrary views? Why doesn’t the ministry fund them to make it a fair and equitable hearing?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I have several responses to that question, Mr. Speaker. The first response I would like to give is in reply to the inference that somehow or other there was partisan political consideration in these deliberations. Let me tell the honourable member that this side of the House is not prepared to play those nasty games that they are continually playing. We are not prepared to do that.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The leader of the Liberal Party has a few attributes of his personality, of his facial configurations, that aren’t any hell either. He talks about my long nose; I admit it, but it may be it is going to help me sniff him out.

Let me talk more seriously about this very serious concern.

Mr. Eakins: Be serious.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will be a lot more serious, I am afraid, than some of the members opposite who are taking a view on this item and many other environmental items.

Mr. Speaker: Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. It is hard not to hear those nasty remarks.

[2:15]

Perhaps the leader of the Liberal Party is not aware of the complete protection that is embodied in the Environmental Assessment Act for the people of the province. I have said to him repeatedly that any waste site will be done under the Environmental Assessment Act. It’s another commitment here. I have, on previous occasions, brought in the most expert of witnesses to give the full facts before an environmental assessment hearing. We will continue to do that.

We believe that process does allow for the witnesses to come, and does allow for the public to be protected. No, I don’t see the need for funding on a specific case, such as this illustration. I disagree. I think our job is to put the facts clearly and fully on the table and let the board make the decision as they should do.

Mr. S. Smith: Even with the best will in the world on the part of the government, which we seriously question, does the minister not realize that any system of hearings, any quasi-judicial situation, requires to some extent that those who might be adversaries in the process also have a reasonable opportunity to be well represented and well defended as necessary?

Does the minister not see that in providing, for instance, the $200,000 to a couple of companies that are having hearings on a certification project in Blenheim and Niagara Falls, the ministry is on one side of the matter? If the citizens’ groups are to participate meaningfully, as did the Indian group, for instance, in front of Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt, they require funding so as to get their own experts, not just the ministry’s experts who are giving the ministry viewpoint. They require funding to make a fair and adequate presentation of whatever case they might wish to present so that thoroughness will be the order of the day. Why not be fair and equitable and, in this instance, provide a certain pool of funding for the citizens in that area, given the importance of the matter?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: What the Leader of the position does not seem to understand or recognize is that the function of the ministry, paid for by the taxpayers, the servants of the taxpayers, is to put all that information clearly in front of the hoard.

He scoffs at those in my ministry who will put in great numbers of hours and a great deal of expertise forward for a hearing -- not to gloss over the facts somehow or other, but to the contrary.

I think the recent events in Mississauga gave a credibility to my ministry that was never quite seen before. Let me say, in that instance, the people turned to my ministry to be guaranteed there was complete safety there. They were quite willing to accept that expert --

Mr. S. Smith: On PCBs?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No. I am saying, in the recent spill they turned to my ministry and wanted all of our expertise; more important, and to their credit, they trusted us. In this open process my ministry has, we do put all of the facts forward -- not just the pros, but indeed the pros and cons.

If the Leader of the Opposition is saying he cannot trust my ministry, he is dead wrong.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I am glad to see the leader of the Liberal Party has accepted an idea I have been proposing for two years. I would like to ask the minister, does he not agree he will never obtain public acceptance for the location of disposal sites in any municipality unless the people in that municipality see they have had full opportunity to present their case, which requires public funding of citizen groups and public assistance in some cases to the municipalities which may wish to present the case for the citizens as a whole? I cannot see how he can get public acceptance if the people do not think they are being given full opportunity to state their own case. They do not wish to have the ministry state their case for them. They have their own concerns.

Hon. Mr Parrott: I can add very little to what I have already said. This process of environmental assessment is the most open and the most progressive of any jurisdiction. The opportunity is certainly there, and the expertise is available for the citizens’ groups. We are prepared to work with them. Why else would I have suggested my staff would sit with those public groups, other than to ensure the fullest disclosure of the facts and the fullest amount of information we can possibly give?

I will tell the Leader of the Opposition we do it from an open-mind position, not a positive position that there is no answer to the problem of waste in this province. Indeed, there must be answers and we are seeking to find them. In the last year we have found many of them.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If the Environmental Assessment Act is so wonderful in the eyes of the ministry, why are there so many exemptions to it on government projects?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If the honourable member looks at the situation, Mr. Speaker, he will realize in 1975 there was a very extended grandfathering period, if I can use that term, where it was known those projects which were already under way would, therefore, not logically now start to be under the Environmental Assessment Act. That’s the way it was then, and it had a lot of logic in it. It wasn’t as though those discussions went on without a hearing. The hearing was held under two other acts, the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

To have a full and complete environmental assessment, one most start at the conceptual stage of a project, well in advance of acquiring property, well in advance of making some of those decisions that have to be made and many years in advance of a facility’s coming on stream. In the last little while, we are seeing those projects coming under the full review of the Environmental Assessment Act. A whole new change of direction will be seen. I think what has happened was very logical. The act is coming into full force now.

NATURAL GAS CONVERSION

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker. Since I believe the minister agrees the problems in energy are that we are running out of cheap oil in this country and not running out of natural gas, can the minister tell us exactly what his government is doing to expand the availability of natural gas in areas of our province which are not now covered, such as some of the smaller urban centres like Madoc, Bancroft and places of this kind? What is the government doing now to expand the availability of natural gas to centres of this kind in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition will know as a result of an announcement, the information on which I shared with members of the general government committee last week in the estimates, the established natural gas suppliers are very busy at the moment trying to cope with the numerous requests for conversion. The information that was shared with the committee at that time shows the amount of interest there is in this particular program on the part of the consumers in already serviced areas and areas that can be accommodated for this. This occupies a great deal of their time in order to meet that particular demand.

My understanding -- and I am meeting with the natural gas companies shortly -- is that they are awaiting some further particulars and some further information on the incentive program, about which we have been hearing briefly during the course of the last few weeks, and how that program might relate to opportunities which they might seize to expand service in areas not now serviced by these companies in order to provide natural gas to those particular parts of the province.

Mr. S. Smith: I take it the government is basically waiting for the outcome of certain discussions to do with incentive pricing of natural gas, if I understood what the minister said. He’s nodding his head. I assume I have then.

Can the minister then comment on these discussions, and in particular can he comment on the report that the government of Alberta is considering a scheme which would reduce the price of natural gas to 65 per cent of the equivalent price of oil? Can he tell us, particularly, whether the government of Ontario is demanding that this reduction be of such a nature that the benefits are actually passed on directly to the consumer in the form of a lower price paid, or is it simply going to go to the companies themselves?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The Leader of the Opposition should understand that we have been trying to get some clarification with respect to the program. It has only been talked about in generalities. We have no more detail, and we are trying to get some clarification, as I am sure the natural gas companies are, as well. At that time we will be able to comment.

There is no point in announcing a position with respect to a program about which we are trying to get some details in order that we can have a position. In other words, how would we be able to be specific with respect to answering your question until such time as we know what the program being proposed actually is?

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the most accessible means of saving on our supplies of heating oil in the winter of 1981-82 is going to be conversion to natural gas, will the minister undertake to meet with the industry providing conversion equipment so as to ensure there are no supply bottlenecks next winter or the winter after that?

Will the government undertake to bring in incentive programs to help encourage home owners to make the switch from heating oil to natural gas at the earliest opportunity?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As the honourable member knows, Mr. Speaker, the government of this province has taken a position with respect to the price of natural gas that it should be unpegged and provide an even greater incentive with respect to its use as an alternative to home heating oil.

With respect to the latter part of the honourable member’s question, we will be able to make some statement with respect to our program in that area once we have some clarification with respect to what we have been reading about in general terms insofar as a new incentive program is concerned related to the pricing situation, as he indicates.

In answering his question, I assume the equipment he is talking about is what is needed for purposes of conversion. As the honourable member will know, one of the reasons for the backlog at the moment is the inability of the suppliers to keep up with the demand in this particular jurisdiction. I agree with him we should be doing all we can in addressing that particular situation to cope with the increased demand for conversion.

Mr. Sargent: Here is an easy question for the minister, Mr. Speaker. In the event that the conversion from oil to gas doesn’t come on stream and there is a big shortage of energy, would he consider setting up a multi-million-dollar make-work program for cutting down the thousands and thousands of dead elm trees in our part of Ontario, to make work and provide firewood for stoves?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am very optimistic that the conversion program to natural gas, which we have been talking about in this exchange, will be quite successful.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, speaking about this conversion program -- we have had a lot of talk about that, and I have seen no government policy heretofore -- is the minister aware of the very serious difficulties the natural gas companies, and particularly Union Gas, make and cause for the people who want to convert? For example, they will not pump out the oil; they will not take out the oil tanks the people have in their houses; they will provide no trade-in value for a perfectly good oil furnace in place.

Does the minister not feel that his government should talk to those distributors, to force them to give people who want to convert -- because it is obviously the correct thing to do -- a far better shake and not take advantage of them financially the way they are doing?

Hon. Mr. Welch: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that some weeks ago, during the course of a debate on our energy policy, the honourable member who has just asked a supplementary question did recite in some detail the problems he personally was having with respect to conversion in this particular matter. I want to assure him that I have sent a copy of the Hansard report of that particular debate directly to the president of the company that services that area.

[2:30]

LEGISLATION FOR THE HANDICAPPED

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier about the government’s efforts to provide protection against discrimination against the handicapped and specifically about Bill 188.

In view of the mounting opposition by groups representing the disabled to the government’s bill to protect the handicapped against discrimination, and since these groups have taken the view that the bill is grossly inadequate and a separate bill would lead to separate and unequal status for the handicapped, will the government now agree to withdraw Bill 188 and to bring in an adequate, comprehensive and effective bill to protect the handicapped against discrimination as amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the leader of the New Democratic Party shares the government’s desire to deal with this issue. We intend to move ahead with the legislation related to the handicapped.

I understand that some concerns have been expressed; the minister will be addressing these concerns in meetings with those people wishing to make these representations.

It is the intention of the government to have as comprehensive a bill as possible. To delay it, to suggest that it come in as part of amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code, would not be moving the process ahead. If there are some alterations to be made in the bill itself -- and I haven’t met with these groups yet, but I know the minister is in the process -- we are quite prepared to do that.

We want to see that particular legislation approved by this House. The minister will have more to say on it after he has had meetings with the groups who are registering these concerns.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the Premier not aware of the overwhelming opposition to the proposed legislation by the groups representing the handicapped to the point where they are prepared to accept certain delays in the legislation if they can get a guarantee from the government that it will be replaced by amendments to the Human Rights Code?

Is the Premier also aware that there was no consultation to speak of with those groups or with the advisory committee for the physically handicapped in Ontario? Since that consultation did not take place prior to the bill, and since these groups are now saying they don’t want this bill in its present form but want amendments to the Human Rights Code, why will the government not accept their view, consult with them, and bring in the amendments to the Human Rights Code as they are proposing them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The minister has every intention of meeting with those groups. In fact, there was consultation prior to the legislation, and the minister will be meeting with them in an attempt to resolve the difficulties.

Mr. S. Smith: In view of the opinions being expressed by the representatives of the handicapped, why would the Premier not bring in a bill to amend the Human Rights Code and then allow any further amendments that might happen to come up for debate to be voted on by a free vote, just as the federal House has had on a number of matters?

Mr. Sterling: Why free?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Have you no position?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: The words “free vote” seem to cause a tremendous degree of consternation over there. I can appreciate that; I can understand that; I’m not sure if they’re more nervous about the word “vote” or the word “free.” “Vote” is somewhat nerve-racking for these people.

Mr. Speaker: What was the question?

Mr. S. Smith: The question is, why would the Premier not accede to the wishes of the handicapped persons and have a proper amendment to the Ontario Human Rights Code brought before us for debate and accept that, if other matters happen to come before this House by way of amendment, those should be voted on by way of a free vote? Why does the Premier find that an unacceptable procedure?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I won’t embarrass the leader of -- he’s not of the Liberal Party any more; I see in all his communiques he leaves the word off. I knew why he did that federally but why is he doing it provincially? I’ve never found a party name to be offensive.

Mr. Peterson: Your own name is offensive.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand that, but don’t apply that to all my relatives.

I won’t embarrass the Leader of the Opposition as to why he wants to talk about free votes and why he would leave the leadership of his party if there wasn’t a free vote. I won’t pursue that because I think it’s really rather ludicrous in the context of this very serious matter of dealing with legislation for the handicapped.

As I said to the leader of the New Democratic Party, the minister will be meeting with the groups who have expressed an interest. Surely the members of this House are anxious to have legislation dealing with the question of the handicapped, and we as a government would like to see this proceed. I think really what the member is suggesting is a political device to get himself off the hook with his own caucus; but he has to solve that himself.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every member of this Legislature has a right to participate in the question period. Most of all, they have a right to be heard.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I ask the Premier why we should accept a bad bill, with the argument that we need to get legislation through in a hurry, when we have been waiting since 1974 and 1975; then, from 1977 on, we were promised there would be amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code? It doesn’t make sense to try to use the argument of haste now with what is simply a bad bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This government is interested in good legislation, Mr. Speaker. Those members may not be, but we are, and we intend --

Mr. Bounsall: You don’t have good legislation here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen. The history of that party doesn’t indicate they are at all interested in good legislation. It is always a parochial, non-objective point of view they express over there.

We are prepared to consult with those groups which have a vital interest in this. That is the intention of the minister and of the government. If it is necessary to make alterations to the bill, to accommodate legitimate concerns, we are quite prepared to do so. I am simply suggesting if members want to delay this process for some period of time, that’s fine; but we would like to move ahead.

Mr. S. Smith: Since everyone in Ontario is aware the reason the Premier didn’t bring in an amendment to the Ontario Human Rights Code was to get himself off the political hook, why doesn’t he show the courage now? Let him bring it in, and let’s see where the members of his party stand. Let’s see where the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) stands. Let’s see where the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) stands. Bring it forward and let’s see where they stand over there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I only go by what I read. Quite obviously, like a fish, the Leader of the Opposition took the bait today, hook, line and sinker.

MINING COMMUNITIES

Mr. Cassidy: A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that it is now two years since the Premier announced the formation of his cabinet committee on the economic future of mining communities, and since in that two-year period four of the nine iron ore mines in Ontario have closed down, can the Premier say what specific policies the cabinet committee has recommended to bring about the revival of one-industry towns which have been affected, such as Atikokan?

Hon. Mr. Davis. Mr. Speaker, I think the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) read into the record yesterday some material related to this matter. It is still a problem. The member’s colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) asked the identical question when his leader was away two or three days ago.

I acknowledge there is some difficulty, and there is no simple solution to it.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the Premier say if the cabinet committee continues to meet on the economic future of mining communities, and when does it intend to bring forward in this Legislature a policy to deal with the future of single-industry towns in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The committee doesn’t function just related to the question of mining. It also relates to the pulp and paper industry. While they don’t like the policy we have adopted, those members who have constituents in those communities who do relate to the pulp and paper industry are very much in support of the policy we have introduced just to deal with that particular problem in northern Ontario.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier: In view of the lengthy answer I got from the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) yesterday, I would like to put the question to the Premier as well. While I appreciate some of the things that have been done, would he not agree that it is time those communities could expect some guidelines as to what the government is going to do in regard to expanding the economic base, expanding tourism, providing industrial development officers and assisting in supporting the tax base of those communities that are losing their industries?

Does the Premier not agree that it is time there was a set of well-known rules and guidelines to deal with these specific problems?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think it’s a question of a well-known set of guidelines. I think one deals with these situations, not necessarily individually but in terms of attempting to help those communities. For instance, what the Minister of Industry and Tourism has introduced with respect to the tourist industry, I think is probably going to have a significant impact on some of those communities about which the honourable member is concerned.

I’m not kidding anyone. We don’t pretend to have answers to every individual problem. As a government we have been making some progress in terms of the pulp and paper industry, which the honourable member, in fairness, has supported, in spite of the fact that the member’s leader hasn’t. I thank him for that. The member’s leader didn’t hear me refer to the fact that the member was supporting that policy while he didn’t -- but that’s not unusual in the Liberal caucus, in any event, so it doesn’t surprise me.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If the Premier has admitted he doesn’t have any answers to the problems of one-industry mining towns in northern Ontario, can he, as a member of the cabinet committee -- and I assume he is a member of that cabinet committee -- tell us if he has asked the right questions regarding the future of one-industry mining towns in northern Ontario?

For example, has the committee specifically studied the report that was undertaken by the three steel producers of Ontario -- Algoma, Stelco and Dofasco -- with regard to the amounts of ore in northwestern Ontario?

What independent studies has his government done, and what will he tell the Legislature about the viability of those deposits at the Caland mines, Bending Lake and Lake St. Joseph?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, these matters are being studied by the ministry and by the cabinet committee.

I’m sort of an ex officio member of all cabinet committees, I should inform the honourable member. The difficulty is not always in asking the right questions, as I find here every day of the week except Wednesdays. The difficulty is finding the answer. The questions are there.

TEACHER-BOARD DISPUTES

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. I’m glad to see she is here and I hope she is feeling a little better. My question relates to the continuing contract difficulties in Brant county and in North York with regard to the teaching disruptions there.

Is the minister today in a position to explain what progress is being made in those particular situations and would she be in a position to recommend that compulsory arbitration take place, especially in view of the length of the disruption and the fact that both parties seem to be very far apart, and in view of the fact that we’re winding up around here and we may not be in a position to legislate them back?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time, I have no intention of legislating anyone back. It seems to me it is up to the parties to the dispute in Brant to find a solution to their problems with the assistance which can be provided for them through the Education Relations Commission.

I think if the parties to that dispute are looking for the Legislature to solve their problems for them, they may be gravely disappointed. However, if indeed the educational program of those children is in jeopardy, I can promise the parties to that dispute that we will find a solution which will probably be unsatisfactory to both of them. But we are concerned primarily about the children and about the educational program.

It is certainly the best solution in any of these circumstances that a negotiated agreement, agreed to by both parties, provide the basis for the contract upon which they will work together for the ensuing years. I would hope the parties to these disputes would listen to that, would understand that philosophy and make every attempt to find those solutions.

Mr. Cunningham: I have a supplementary question relating to the difficulty facing the North York high-school students in their desire to compete in extracurricular athletic activities.

As a matter of policy, does the government condone the possible threat of sanctions or blacklisting of coaches who participate in teams from schools that currently are involved in disruptions? Will the minister take some kind of specific, finite and definite action to ensure that students may participate in athletic competition in Ontario, regardless of whether there are sanctions in force?

Mr. Speaker: That is really not a supplementary, but if the minister has a brief response I’ll let her answer it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would agree that it is scarcely a supplementary. However, that is one specifically peculiar situation which is a matter of grave concern to me. It is one of the reasons I established the external review committee to look at the terms and conditions of Bill 100, because the concept of work to rule is one which has potentially great damage and jeopardy for the rounded educational program of students. It is one which should be examined very carefully by those who are concerned about the board-teacher relationship and the legislation which controls that relationship.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, the minister must surely be aware there are student demonstrations allegedly planned for North York because of the work-to-rule situation. Given the fact feelings are running very high and that if there are disruptions individual schools might end up being closed, to nobody’s benefit, why does the minister insist on going through with this obviously wrong principle? Why doesn’t she bring together the sides for final offer selection or some other form of compulsory arbitration, put an end to the work to rule and put an end to the strike in Brant county? Why do those children have to suffer when there is nothing they can possibly do to remedy the situation?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: First, I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that students in North York have provided a model of behaviour which we in this Legislature would do well to emulate from time to time. They have functioned extremely responsibly and are certainly providing an example for both the board and the teachers’ federation in their responsible approach to the problem they’re facing. There is no indication at this point there will be demonstrations of any kind. I think it’s unfair of the Leader of the Opposition to suggest to the media that these are impending or imminent activities.

There will be a meeting of the North York Council of Student Presidents within the next day or so to consider future action as a result of the very careful deliberations which the student presidents have taken over the last several weeks. I am in very frequent contact with those representatives because many of them live in my own riding. I’m extremely proud of them. They’re doing a very good job and we are attempting to do what we can to help.

I would remind the Leader of the Opposition the teachers’ federation was offered final offer selection and rejected it out of hand by a very large majority. Final offer selection is no panacea. It is fine for specific, singular items for solution, but in the broad spectrum of solutions which must be found it is no answer at all. That board and that local of the teachers’ federation must find a solution to their problem. We are willing to provide them with any assistance we can to help them to find that solution, but they must find it.

ENERGY EXPORTS

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Now that the Prime Minister has indicated a unilateral willingness to supply the US with emergency oil and given that Canada is already a signatory to the emergency oil-sharing agreements of the International Energy Agency, can the minister inform this House whether he has obtained a firm understanding from the federal government of what the implications may entail for Ontario this winter?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I haven’t any firm in- formation from the federal ministry relative to the news item carried today in connection with some modification with respect to a small increase in the export of heavy crude oil. As the honourable member will know because of her visit to the National Energy Board at the end of last week, I am expecting within the next day or two an update with respect to the supply situation as of the end of October on the basis of the November 10 accumulation. Perhaps once I have that I will be in a better position to share with the honourable member in the House the details of that particular matter.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I was not alluding to any forthcoming pronouncements from the NEB. I ask, in a supplementary way, is the minister satisfied with the terms of the international oil-sharing arrangement which commits Canada to cutting oil imports by 47 per cent, while the US is only obligated to cutting oil imports by 19 per cent if an emergency is declared? Is he able to tell us what a 47 per cent cut in Canadian oil imports would mean to residential and business consumers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As far as Ontario is concerned, we are not dependent at the moment on any imports at all. The approximate 20 per cent of the national needs is all for the eastern part of Canada. The implications as far as Ontario is concerned wouldn’t be great unless there was to be some rearrangement with respect to the country because of that emergency.

As the honourable member appreciates, and I hope she does, it is very difficult to answer hypothetical questions with respect to this matter. I think the important thing for Canadians as of this December day is that there is apparently no need to respond to any particular emergency situation, but we have to monitor these matters in so far as our own supply is, from time to time, on the basis of the actual situation. We have federal legislation which would be brought into play if need be to arrange for the national situation in the event of some problems with respect to supply.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, since this subject of petroleum supply for Ontario was first brought to this House on October 12, and since between that time and now nothing substantive whatsoever has taken place, all that has happened is rhetoric of one sort or another, will the minister undertake to deliver one statement to the House this next week which indicates comprehensive action on his part to soften the blow that ultimately will occur?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I feel the honourable member is not being quite fair in the preamble to his question. Every time a question with respect to supply has been brought up, we have responded on the basis of information which has been made available to us and on the basis of information the ministry has been able to obtain in consultation with the oil companies.

I am told that the November 10 information is now with the board. I have a Telex which I received just before coming into the House which would indicate that I will have an update on that matter.

I am told also that the media release will again stress the obvious need to curb consumption -- a point which the honourable member has shared during his question -- conservation of our resources, whatever the results of that particular survey are and will properly caution against alarm. That has always been my concern in responding to questions -- wanting to share information which the honourable members are entitled to have without creating the problem itself.

SAFETY AT ROCK CONCERTS

Mr. G. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General concerning the recent disaster in Cincinnati involving a rock concert and the loss of life and injury there.

As the Solicitor General, being the man responsible for disasters and the authority in the fire marshal’s department --

Mr. Speaker: I think that would be a legitimate point of privilege.

Mr. G. Taylor: The minister will respond to that at the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister, in his capacity as the chief person in that regard, have the legislation reviewed or the public halls reviewed to make sure a similar disaster would not happen here? I have attended with my children at rock concerts in Maple Leaf Gardens, where they have some 3,000 people on the floor of the ice surface and another 16,000 in the seating section and the performers --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. G. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have more detail, if you so desire.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Solicitor General have a response?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t know if I have a response, but I have a defence. Obviously, I am reluctant to accept responsibility for disasters, despite the allegations I hear across the aisle from day to day.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very tragic, very distressing occurrence. Certainly we will want to learn as much as we can from that very terrible tragedy to avoid any such occurrence in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing has the answer to a question asked previously.

OLC SALE OF LOTS

Hon. Mr. Bennett: On November 29 there was a question asked by the member for St. Catharines concerning land offered for sale by the Ontario Land Corporation in Niagara Falls and Welland.

The Ontario Land Corporation owns serviced lots in these municipalities: 41 lots in Welland and 129 in Niagara Falls. Last September these lots were offered for sale to the builders registered with the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada new home warranty program. They were also advertised four times in the Welland Tribune and the Niagara Falls Review.

Market studies in July and consultation with the local Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation office indicated prices for serviced lots in Niagara Falls ranged from $300 to $325 per foot frontage. Therefore, OLC’s asking price for a 40-foot single lot was $12,000, which was at the low end of market. In Welland, the market price in July ranged from $300 to $325 per frontage foot, or $15.000 for a typical 50-foot lot, again based on the low end of market.

In view of the lack of response from qualified builders, asking prices were reduced to $11,000 per lot in Niagara Falls and $14,500 in Welland. This was communicated to over 300 HUDAC builders on November 9 by a circular letter addressed “to whom it may concern.” I would be pleased to provide to the member for St. Catharines the mailing list of the builders who received the circular.

It is OLC’s policy to sell lands to builders registered with the HUDAC home warranty program. If the member or others have individuals who are willing to buy lots from OLC from its surplus inventory, I would be pleased to hear from them. One of the reasons we have tried to sell to developers is for the simple reason that quite often grading and levelling and subdivision agreements must be entered into with the municipalities.

Mr. Bradley: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister clearly saying the average individual citizen who doesn’t happen to be in the building industry will be eligible to purchase these lots and the minister will assure me if those people make applications to purchase one of those lots they will have an opportunity to purchase them?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the lot is ready and able to be sold as an individual lot, we would entertain an offer from an individual anywhere in this province. If the lot happens to be in a condition whereby it must be part of an overall subdivision because of grading and service requirements, then obviously it would have to be sold as a parcel to afford the opportunity of moving out the surplus lands from OLC.

PRESTOLITE PLANT

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. Is the minister aware that a new group of investors has come forth to join Joe Mason and the employees in the reopening of the Prestolite plant?

Is the minister prepared to discuss with these people the provision of provincial funds under the Employment Development Fund as he was in the case of the previous people involved in the reopening of this plant?

Thirdly, has the ministry been approached by the new investors for such moneys?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, yes and indirectly.

[3:00]

AMBASSADOR BRIDGE

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, Mr. Speaker. We will try the minister again.

Is the minister aware that Central Cartage of Michigan has dropped its application before the Foreign Investment Review Agency for the purchase of the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor and Detroit, the only bridge of the 14 between Ontario and the United States that is not government owned? It is now applying under the name of Fallbridge Holdings, a Canadian incorporated company but wholly owned by Central Cartage and therefore still a foreign-owned company. Will the minister in this government ensure that this sale to this foreign company be vigorously opposed before FIRA?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, the member well knows that all we do in the case of FIRA applications is to convey to the federal government our feelings with regard to any particular application, whether they meet our priorities and whether or not they are consistent with our goals and ambitions.

As the member is well aware, pursuant to the FIRA legislation we cannot disclose the re-commendations we may make to the federal government. I think though it would be fairly safe for the member to conclude that as minister of tourism and as minister responsible for industry as well I would have certain predictable reservations about the ownership of that particular bridge, which is so important to both industry and tourism in the province.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: If the Canadian government and this government continue to be uninterested in purchasing this very profitable endeavour -- over $2 million per year profit -- would the minister at least ensure that this bridge eventually comes under government control? Or indeed, would he discuss the matter with his colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), to determine whether or not the Ontario Municipal Board would be inclined to allow the city of Windsor to float additional debentures to purchase this bridge at a very reasonable price, particularly in view of the tremendous profitability of this venture?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be pleased to pursue the latter suggestion with my colleagues. I am not sure that we might have so direct a degree of influence on the discussions and the decisions 0f the OMB that we may make that possible.

I will say that I, for one, would much prefer to see the bridge owned by, for example, the city of Windsor, than by a private company, be it Canadian or American.

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, yesterday part of a series of questions was asked by the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong) of my colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker), about the policies of St. Joseph’s and Queensway Hospitals with respect to the inspection of possible rape victims.

The staff of my ministry have been in contact this morning with the chief administrators of both hospitals, both of whom have assured us it is their policy to examine possible rape victims.

SALES TAX REBATES

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I will try to be as short as possible, Mr. Speaker. This is to provide some additional clarification of my earlier response to the question raised by the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), concerning refund of sales tax to a vendor whose customer becomes bankrupt before paying taxes.

Where a merchant sells taxable goods on credit and the account becomes a bad debt, the sales tax legislation allows us to refund to the merchant the tax on this sale if he has submitted it to us. Provided that the merchant does not continue to extend credit to his customer, we will refund the tax outstanding from credit sales made in the last six months. I referred to 15 months; I correct that, it’s six months of dealing with the customer.

I should emphasize, however, that this provision applies only to the sale of goods and not, for example, to the sale of buildings where the tax is paid by the contractor and not by the purchaser of the building.

In the case raised by the honourable member involving bankruptcy of a customer, the tax portion of the outstanding account at the time of bankruptcy will probably be refundable. However, if the member would like to provide me with details of the specific case I would be prepared to look into it for him.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mr. Swart: My question, Mr. Speaker, is of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Will he recall that last Tuesday I asked his colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), to investigate and intervene in the storage of explosives and toxics and flammable materials in rail cars in the Port Robinson railyards and he replied that the Minister of Transportation and Communications had made representation to the federal Minister of Transport on this overall issue and that an interim order on the makeup of the trains would be made in a day or two? I ask the minister now if he has seen Bill C-25, the federal answer to the problem. If he has seen it, doesn’t he agree that that bill is wholly inadequate and can he tell the House whether that interim order was made last week and, if so, does it apply to situations like the one in Port Robinson?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, yes, we have seen the new bill and we have the draft regulations. Although we are reviewing the bill I couldn’t at this moment agree with the honourable member that it is totally inadequate.

In regard to the interim order, I have information that the order was issued by way of a Telex message to the railway companies. It was last week, as I indicated that it probably would be. The wording of the order does provide that tank car shipments of flammable compressed gases must be separated from the tank-car shipments of chlorine, hydrous ammonia and sulphur dioxide by at least five non-placarded rail cars which are not listed in section 74-589(j) of the so-called red book of the Canadian Transport Commission.

I just have a Telex message on this matter. I haven’t actually seen the printed order because, as I understand it, it was being translated and printed so it could be officially presented and gazetted in both languages. The order does provide for the separation of cars in the train by five cars carrying non-dangerous materials.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he does not realize that that interim order only deals with trains in transit and does not deal with a situation like that which we have in Port Robinson and many other railyards in this province where they have stored cars containing very hazardous materials, materials which will interact, side by side? Will he immediately make representation to the Canadian National Railways and to the Canadian Transport Commission to eliminate at once the hazards which exist in storing these kinds of products in rail cars side by side?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not contact the Canadian National Railways or the Canadian Transport Commission. My contact would be with the federal Minister of Transport and we will bring this to his attention.

LEGAL SERVICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a question for the Attorney General in regard to northern Ontario. Has the Attorney General had time to consider our conversation about providing notaries public in northern Ontario who would be able to aid in land transfers and things of that ilk for communities that are 50 or 100 miles away from the nearest legal assistance and who have trouble getting into these communities to conduct this kind of business?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to divert the honourable member. I am just reading the seventh page of a response to him in relation to boundary waters on Lac La Croix so I am sure he will enjoy all seven pages.

As soon as the estimates process is completed, Mr. Speaker, I hope I will have an opportunity to meet with officials of the law society to discuss the member’s concern. I think the legal aid plan might be utilized in some manner to afford that assistance to people who live in the north who just don’t have access to legal assistance. If anything can be done, I think it should at least be attempted through the legal aid system.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I gather from that the minister intends to deal again with the legal fraternity, but obviously they are not going to be able to provide assistance on more than maybe one day a week in some of these communities. Does the minister realize that a lot of the people in these communities are on shift work? If they happen to be working for the railroad they are out of town for two or three days and if somebody comes into the community even one day a week that will not be sufficient. What we really need are lay people with the ability to conduct some of these legal matters, such as notaries public and under the act the minister could restrict them to exactly those functions he considers necessary.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have a little difficulty with the suggestion, as I think I indicated to the honourable member. The idea of training individuals to in effect give legal advice, without the supervision of a lawyer who is licensed to practice in Ontario could be a rather risky enterprise. We do use paralegal assistance in our community law offices in various parts of the province, but an underlying principle in the provision of needed legal assistance in this manner is that there be some accountability at the professional level.

While I am very sympathetic to their problem, I would not be prepared to encourage a system that might lead to people receiving bad legal advice. I think perhaps the member and I should sit down and discuss further the nature of the assistance he considers to be most necessary. If the assistance is of a relatively limited nature, that would be something else again, but there are a number of aspects to this problem that have to be considered and I would be very happy to discuss this matter with him.

Mr. Speaker: Since there isn’t time for a supplementary from the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), perhaps you could include him in the meeting.

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the resources development committee sit tomorrow from 9 a.m., to consider Bill 24, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Mr. Foulds: Could the government House leader indicate why he has amended the motion presented to me by my House leader to strike out the words “to 10 am.”? I assumed there was an agreement for the resources development committee to sit merely for one hour rather than to sit for an unlimited time. Or is it to be continuous?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I just got the typewritten copy of the motion a minute ago. It was my understanding we basically had agreed the committee would need an extra hour, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., to consider the bill, and then would move on to estimates. However, I was of the feeling if we put the motion in the terms it was written, 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., they would have to cease to consider the bill at 10 a.m. even if they needed another 15 minutes. I felt we should allow that flexibility to the committee, rather than to tie its hands completely and say it had only one hour to do the bill.

Motion agreed to.

REPORT

LIBRARY SERVICES

Mr. Speaker: I would like to remind the honourable members that pursuant to standing order 105, I have received the annual report of the director of library services which I have today laid on the table.

[3:15]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 161, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this is somewhat of a housekeeping amendment. It deals with clarification of some provisions that were made in Bill 89 last June relating to the so-called grandfathering of unlicensed truckers. It makes some housekeeping amendments regarding the common bill of lading and the W licence applications for regions. It really could be considered housekeeping legislation. I’ve presented a full explanation of these items to my critics.

I just want to indicate I will be asking that Bill 161 go to committee of the whole House. I’d like to advise the critics I have one amendment I will be implementing. They have been issued the amendment.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, we endorse the legislation which reflects the findings of the select committee on the highway transportation of goods. These amendments are somewhat minor but help to clarify the legislation respecting the grandfathering situation as described this past summer in Bill 89.

I appreciate the minister’s consideration of the suggestion I made with regard to the extension of time in keeping with the original legislation. My concern then, as it is now, was that many people in the industry who are operating without benefit of a licence but who, in fact, may come within the provisions of Bill 89 were unable to make their application to the board in time. The amendment will extend the time to somewhere around the end of February of next year, which I believe to be in the best interests of the public and the people involved.

The balance of the amendments to the act are housekeeping in nature and we support them.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, the major thrust of Bill 161 is one that I can accept and I thank the minister for consulting with both the Liberal critic and myself on it.

I have some questions and then maybe some concerns about one of the amendments the minister is proposing. I understand what he is attempting to do and I agree with the major thrust of what he’s attempting to do; however, I will have some questions on subsection 1 of the first amendment he’s proposing. Perhaps we can deal with that in committee.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe there are any questions to answer. I understand the member for Etobicoke wishes to ask some questions in committee and I’ll answer them at that time.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 175, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly again these are some minor amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. These amendments provide for the issuance of a special licence plate for road-testing purposes to motor vehicle inspection stations which need proper authority to do a road test on a vehicle that may have had the plates removed because it was unfit.

There are also some minor amendments regarding the probationary licence program. It clarifies the suspension of a licence and makes amendments to the definition of an ambulance and fire department vehicle, emergency vehicles and other minor modifications to the legislation passed last spring -- last June, I believe it was -- allowing for emergency vehicles to proceed under certain circumstances through a red traffic light.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, again these are housekeeping matters relating to the Highway Traffic Act and somewhat of a minor nature and we endorse them.

Mr. Philip: As the minister said, the amendments are housekeeping. The one that struck me as interesting is the one that deals with the fire and ambulance amendment to section 6 of the bill.

Perhaps the minister would like to discuss this in committee, or perhaps he can simply answer it now. Is there legislation forthcoming, or some kind of policy forthcoming on extrications, since this has been a concern that both myself and the Liberal critic have had for some time. We have met with his officials. It seems to me that people are dying on the roads and on our highways and they are not able to be removed expeditiously. Many of them are becoming wheelchair victims unnecessarily because this minister, the Solicitor General and the Ministry of Health can’t seem to decide whose jurisdiction extrication comes under.

Accepting the fact this is a housekeeping amendment, this one section is at least some hopeful indication this government is finally coming up with some kind of policy on extrication and we can expect some action on this in the near future. If so, when?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask the minister a couple of questions pertaining to these amendments.

The first one I would like the minister to answer, and if possible to advise on: I recall the time we in this Legislature accepted the originating amendments to the Highway Traffic Act allowing emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire department vehicles to proceed through a red light subsequent to a call, after having made a full stop. I would like to know from the minister whether he has received any representation on this from police departments, fire departments, et cetera. There have been a number of accidents, I know, in a couple of jurisdictions and there has been some discussion about provisions of the Highway Traffic Act. Some people seem to claim that our amendments -- made, I think last year -- render the situation more dangerous than it was before.

I am not one who necessarily subscribes to that view, because I think the legislation before was even more confusing; in some ways this legislation makes it all clearer. I am wondering if the minister has received complaints about it.

The other matter is that I was not aware there was a vehicle on the road called a cardiac arrest emergency vehicle. I was not aware of that sort of vehicle on our highways. Is this something new, Mr. Speaker? I have not heard of it. What does it look like, for the uneducated, unsophisticated, or whatever? What are we looking at? What is the public looking at, at an intersection, when it meets one of these animals coming his way?

Finally, I would like to say to the minister that it seems to make an abundance of good sense to me that special powers be given to these emergency vehicles when they are responding to a call, but when they are going back there is no reason why they should be speeding or proceeding though intersections on a red light. That amendment in section 7(a)(i) seems to make good sense.

Hon. Mr Snow: With regard to the comments made by the member for Etobicoke I would say that we do recognize in this bill the emergency extrication -- if that’s the right word -- vehicle when properly equipped as required in the legislation, to have the same privileges in going to an emergency as a fire or police vehicle.

As I’m sure the honourable member knows -- there has been for some time an interministerial committee working with the Attorney General, Solicitor General, my ministry and others on this whole matter of emergency support vehicles. I understand that the report is about ready for publication and will be published in the very near future by the Solicitor General.

With regard to the member for Ottawa East’s comments, the cardiac arrest emergency vehicle provision in this bill is at the special request of the Ottawa Civic Hospital, I believe.

Mr. Roy: That is why I asked the question.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The member said he didn’t know what it was or where he might expect to find it.

Mr. Roy: I’ve never seen it in action.

Hon. Mr. Snow: To my knowledge, there is only one of these vehicles at the present time. It is located in the city of Ottawa. It runs from the Ottawa Civic Hospital. It was brought to our attention after this amendment was put in that that vehicle should have the same provision. If it has the siren and the red light, it will have the same privileges. The member might expect to find it in Ottawa.

I would also like to say I have not had any complaints or any problems brought to my attention by police or fire departments since this legislation was brought in. I had a meeting last week with about 150 to 200 police safety officers from practically all the police forces in the province. As a matter of fact, I had a discussion on this particular matter with them and no problems were brought to my attention.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 161, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

On section 1:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor.

Section 1(1):

“Subsection 6(11) of the Public Commercial Vehicles Act, being chapter 375 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1970, as enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1979, chapter 56, section 6, is amended by adding at the end thereof ‘other than a class F, FS or R operating licence, as prescribed in the regulations.’”

Section 1(2):

“Subsection 15 of the said section 6 is amended by striking out ‘120’ in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof ‘180.’”

Section 1(3):

“Subsection 19 of the said section 6 is amended by striking out ‘under section 19 of the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act’ in the fourth and fifth lines.”

Will you give us a short explanation, Mr. Minister?

[3:30]

Hon. Mr. Snow: Three items are covered under this amendment. Subsection 1 deals with the grandfathering provisions of Bill 89. The way the bill is written at the present time, any applicant for licensing under those provisions was prohibited from applying if that applicant held any type of a PCV operating authority during the period in question.

After consideration, and after the bill was passed, certain problems were brought to my attention. I consulted with my opposition critics and agreed on this amendment. The holding of a class F, FS, or an R licence, which are very minor licences under the system, would not prohibit an operator from applying for another type of licence.

Subsection 2 is the extension of time for the application under this provision from 120 days to 180 days from August 31. This extension of time was requested by the member for Wentworth North. I had no objection to implementing that amendment.

Subsection 3 is a housekeeping amendment which clarifies that after the granting of a licence under this grandfathering provision there will be, according to legislation, a review of the probationary licence after the one-year period rather than at the option of the board.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, in anticipation that these amendments are going to pass I’d like to ask the minister if he would consider not only itemizing these changes in the Ontario Gazette and wherever else he might consider, but also some form of publication in the press, so people who would be interested in this and people who might be able to make applications pursuant to the original provisions of Bill 89 are aware of it so we don’t have a situation, say in March or April or some time thereafter, of people coming to us wanting to make applications pursuant to these provisions and finding they are unable to do so.

Because it’s a highly technical matter that applies to very few people and sometimes there isn’t an understanding of just what is involved, it would be my hope that where people can apply they will, so we don’t have some difficulties some time after the end of February, when people who might want to participate in this would find themselves pre-empted from it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will try and see what we can do to publicize this. I would hope anyone planning to apply under this provision would know about the provision. Of course, this was the provision recommended by the select committee three or more years ago and was finally legislated last year after lengthy discussions with the industry. It was proclaimed with the 120-day period.

We’ll certainly try in every way possible to publicize it. I don’t know that I want to give the member a commitment that we’ll do a mass advertising campaign, but I’ll certainly discuss it and see what we can do within the industry to make sure everyone knows of the extension of time.

Mr. Philip: I assume what we have here are three amendments and that they will be dealt with separately. They’re dealing with matters that are basically related to the same problem of regulating the deregulated, but they’re substantially different.

The problem I have is, first of all, philosophically I disagree in my guts with regulating in any form the gipsy operators who have shown such disregard for the law in the first place. I recognize and the minister recognizes we have a problem of what to do about the small fellow, who really should be called a gipsy operator, but who might have picked up an F, an FS, or an R operating authority along the way. Should he be penalized or should he be simply considered as part of that gipsy operation, that nonlicensed body we now allow in under the grandfather clause?

I would have thought the minister would have discussed this amendment with the industry. I was disturbed a few moments ago when I asked him, before we dealt with the bill, if he had contacted the industry, and he informed me he hadn’t. He has always boasted with some justification that he has consulted with the industry on the amendments to all of the provisions of the select committee on the highway transportation of goods. I know he has done that, but suddenly this one comes along and he hasn’t consulted with the industry on it. At least that is what he has informed me.

My first question is, what happens if someone has an A operating authority and also has an R or an FS? Is the minister suddenly then going to allow him some kind of grandfathering by putting in this amendment, or can he assure us he is not? If he is, then what he is doing is saying to every legal, large operator, who may have operated part of his business illegally or without authority, that he now can come in under the grandfather clause.

If we are going to do that, I want to be aware at least of what we are doing. If we are going to do that or if we are going to give authority to those who have had an F, FS or an R operating authority then what do we say to the people who may have another kind of operating authority? Will they not come to us and say: “You made this exemption for these fellows. You have exempted all of the gipsies. Why am I the one who is penalized?”

I would like to have some answer to that question. First, why has there been no consultation with the industry; and, second, how can we handle the fellow who may have an A but also an R operating authority?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I did tell the honourable member a few moments ago I have not discussed this amendment with the industry personally. I know members of my staff met last week with representatives of OTA. I can’t tell him at this moment whether this particular amendment was discussed. Certainly they were aware of the bill, but I can’t say this amendment was discussed.

I personally have two meetings arranged. I believe one is scheduled with the OTA next Monday in my office, where I meet with them regularly to discuss numerous items. As it so happens, this bill came up for debate before that meeting could take place.

I can’t tell the honourable member for sure, but I really wasn’t that concerned because I felt this is a very minor amendment and not something of any grand scale. It is to deal with a situation where one of these operators may have had, for instance, one dump-truck licence during that period, which would prohibit bim from applying for some other more major part of his operation that may have been operated on a lease or a semi-illegal basis.

I can assure the honourable member it certainly is not the intention that anyone who has any other class of licence other than the ones in the amendment, the F, FS or R, to have the privilege of applying under this bill.

I am advised the Ontario Trucking Association was certainly advised of this bill on the day it was introduced. That still doesn’t tell me whether they were advised of the amendment I introduced today.

Mr. Philip: Perhaps I can help the minister on that. I took the trouble of calling the Ontario Trucking Association when I saw the amendment and when I was concerned about exactly who we were letting in under this amendment. I spoke to the executive vice-president and he expressed shock. He had seen the bill but not the amendment. He expressed the same concern I have, that perhaps we don’t really know who we are letting in, who we are grandfathering, under this particular section.

Unless I can have some assurance from the legislative counsel to the minister that we are only allowing in these small operators who may have accidentally picked up, in the process of their operations, the F, FS or R operating authority, then I have real problems in accepting this particular amendment.

Under those circumstances, where we have some reasonable doubt and concerns, I would ask the minister to consider withdrawing this one amendment pending some discussion with the industry and finding out what their concerns are. Perhaps we can have an opportunity to bring that in and handle that problem, which I recognize as a problem. The minister and I are in agreement on that.

Rather than bring in a bad amendment, an amendment which may do something we don’t want to do, that neither party wants to do, perhaps the minister would be willing to withdraw it until he has had an opportunity to discuss this specific amendment and its implications with the industry.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am advised by my legal advisers there is absolutely no doubt in their minds this amendment we are putting in allows only those who have had the three specific types of licences to apply. That is the best commitment I can give. It certainly is not the intention to open it up any further.

I can give the honourable member a commitment that it is not my intention -- and I won’t have the opportunity, I am sure, before the time limit expires for the application of this grandfathering -- to make any further amendments to the bill that would bring in any others. I have no intention of accepting any further pleas for loosening this regulation.

My legal staff here and my assistant deputy minister assure me they have no doubt this does not open the floodgates to anyone other than the holders of those particular classes of licence.

Mr. Philip: I assume then what the minister has just given us in fact amounts to a statement of policy or direction to the board. Therefore someone who happens to have an A operating authority and also one of the others just mentioned in the amendment will understand, or the board will understand, these are not open for consideration under the grandfathering clause.

[3:45]

Under subsection 2, which is the matter of striking out 120 in the second line and inserting 180, it seems to me there has been more than ample coverage in the various trade magazines about Bill 89. I don’t really see why an additional 60 days is needed, but I am not going to object strenuously. If it pleases the Liberal critic then I am willing to go along with it.

I think his suggestion of additional advertising or additional publicity may well be worth the effort with the understanding that enforcement will be very tough after that 180 days. Because some of the very people who have operating authorities and have also operated gipsy operations have done so out of frustration that they are being undercut by the gipsy operators.

Surely, once we have this in place, we have to say at the end of the 180 days, “Game over; if you haven’t applied, if you don’t qualify, you are not getting it now, and we are going to nail you every time you go along our highways in competition with those who have followed the law.”

I hope we can have the assurance with the minister that having passed that subsection, we will at least give it the kind of enforcement that is needed after the 180 days.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the honourable member I have no intention of extending this particular thing any further. I must say this amendment is totally at the request of the member for Wentworth North. Personally, I have not had any requests from the industry for an extension to this time limit. On the other hand, when I had that request, in taking it into consideration I had no real reason to say we should not give that extra 60 days if the honourable member had some information that I may not have had that he felt made it necessary. So, in the spirit of co-operation, I agreed to that amendment.

Mr. Cunningham: Perhaps I might offer an explanation here. Through discussions I have had with some people in the industry it’s apparent there is a slight conflict that I guess is somewhat unavoidable in Bill 89. The conflict is that it would be illegal -- I think the suggestion was made by the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) during the course of our select committee on the highway transportation of goods -- to conspire to deal with an individual who would purport to truck for hire without benefit of a PCV licence.

Ostensibly, what is required in Bill 89 to make successful application under this provision would be the open admission on the part of an individual who has operated without benefit of a PCV licence, under the guise of a lease or a buy-sell arrangement or not even that, of the fact they had operated without benefit of a licence and, of course, they had to be continuing to operate even up to the date of the application. This put some people in a difficult position and they were wondering just what the effect of law would be. They were somewhat hesitant to go before the board and admit that they were operating illegally.

To complicate matters it was even more difficult for them to obtain the assistance of witnesses, of shippers they had worked with, some of whom may not even be in business any more, to come before the board and admit, “Yes, we have been using somebody who doesn’t have a PCV permit,” and to say, on behalf of the carrier, “Yes, we have been operating and we have sinned,” et cetera. Therein lies the difficulty and that reticence I think has been common with a number of operations and they have been reluctant to make an application.

With that in mind, I suggested if we could just extend it for a temporary period of time then those individuals may make an application. I agree with the member for Etobicoke that if at the conclusion of the 180 days, which I gather would be around the end of February, they have not made their application and if at the conclusion of the hearings applications either haven’t been granted or they haven’t been made, then the full course of the law should come into effect and the so-called bad actors should be dealt with with the full force of the law. Conversely, those provisions of the act respecting shippers who would conspire with people who don’t have a licence should apply as well and strict enforcement should take place.

That was the trade-off we made, the concession we made, to the regulated industry to facilitate the licensing of these heretofore unlicensed operations, and I feel that is the only way the legislation can work. It’s the only way the compromise we have effected can be facilitated.

I would hope that in these extra 60 days anybody who hasn’t obtained a licence and who might be able to make an application under these grandfather conditions would in fact do so. If they don’t, then that’s their fault. We have done the best we can and the law will provide for people who break it.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, out of interest -- and I am sure it will be of interest to the journals that cover our deliberations on this -- can the minister inform us how many non-authorized trucking companies have applied to date? How many have given the minister some indication they are going to apply for this grandfathering? He informed me the other day there were very few, but it would be interesting to know who is applying, where they are applying for and what authority they are asking for.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I cannot give the honourable member that information. I can get it. I will inquire from the Ontario Highway Transport Board. I am not aware of any particular applications under this provision. Of course, they have until the end of December. The last time I inquired it appeared there was very little interest, but it may be that the applications will come in before the end of December, or now, before the end of February. I will inquire of the board. As you know, applications do not come to the ministry and the only way we would know about them is to make an inquiry as to how many there are. I will inquire and get that information.

Mr. Philip: I have one question about the third part of the amendment the minister is proposing. Can the minister give us some assurance that the review that will take place at the end of a year of those who have in fact been grandfathered in will be a thorough review, the kind of review that will be as vigorous as the proof of necessity and convenience an applicant would have to go through in applying for an authority? Can he give us that assurance? Will they be simply rubber stamping and saying, “Yes, you seem to he operating OK to us”? Will there be a thorough investigation and a hearing and an examination of their performance during that year?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, this is the whole purpose of the amendment. The amendment here is to clarify that the review is not at the option of the board under the other section of the act. The amendment is to say that a review will be held, and I assure you it will be thorough.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any further discussion on the proposed amendments?

Mr. Philip: Just on a point of order, can we vote on it section by section, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I see no reason why we cannot. They are distinct subsections. I will put the subsections separately.

All those in favour of subsection 1 of Mr. Snow’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Subsection 1 agreed to.

Subsections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 161, as amended, reported.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 175, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Minister, do you have any amendments for this?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Chairman, no amendments.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I want to know what the minister’s intentions are about the point system in so far as it applies to probationary drivers.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t have the regulations that will be under this particular act for the probationary licences. I don’t have the detailed regulations here in my hand at this moment. I understand they are almost ready. They will be going to the regulations committee in a matter of the next couple of weeks.

Mr. Renwick: I wasn’t asking for the actual document. I just wondered what type of modifications and what type of exemptions the minister intends to provide for probationary drivers. If he hasn’t got the information, I suppose I will have to wait until it comes out in the regulations.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The basic thrust of the probationary driver’s licence, as I am sure we debated here when the bill was passed last year, is to detect the offending new driver. I say “new driver,” not necessarily “young driver,” because any driver getting a licence, whether he is 16 or 66, would be on this system.

The basic thrust of the regulations will be to trigger the demerit point system earlier, in order to bring to the attention of the new driver the error of his ways -- speeding or improper turns or whatever it may be -- earlier than would normally come about via the normal demerit point system. There will be, I believe, somewhat different, short-term suspensions at a smaller number of points. I believe it now is 16 kilometres per hour that you must be speeding before you lose demerit points. I think we are considering regulations -- and I haven’t seen the final draft -- so that a speeding ticket for the new driver for less than 16 kilometres per hour would trigger a demerit point.

Mr. Renwick: Is it the minister’s intention that when the probationary period is over and the regular licence is issued the driver would commence with no demerit points -- in other words, that any demerit points accumulated during the probationary period would be eliminated -- or would they be carried over on his record?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sorry, I did not expect to have a debate as to the details of the regulations as part of the debate on the legislation; otherwise I could have had our draft regulations here. As I recall the draft we have discussed, there will be provisions in these regulations that if a probationary driver builds up a certain number of demerit points that trigger a suspension then his probationary period starts all over again from that point. He must also have a certain period of no offences before the probationary licence turns into a full licence. That is about the best I can explain it right now.

Mr. Renwick: That’s fine. I wouldn’t dream of asking the minister any embarrassing questions if he would only put in a GO station at Queen Street East and de Grassi.

[4:00]

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are you proposing that as an amendment?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, with respect to this ability to prescribe modifications to the demerit point system, would the minister agree with me that, even from the attempt to explain the kinds of patterns of modification which may occur and the restoration of full points or partial points as that system moves through, there’s going to have to be some education go on so the people know just how this program is going to work?

Does the minister intend perhaps to make a statement in the House or at least to put out some sort of press release information so that not only will the members of the House know about this circumstance but so there will be some publicity available to the probationary driver so he or she knows what kind of pattern may be expected if there are convictions or demerit points that are going to cause a licence to be in jeopardy?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Certainly we will be publicizing the fact when the regulations are ready. Of course they will be gazetted but I realize everybody does not read the Ontario Gazette every Sunday morning like the honourable member may. This mainly affects new drivers and I’m sure we’ll be putting out appropriate pamphlets and information as part of our driver education manual and in our driver test centres, so the new driver getting his licence will be fully aware of the provisions of the probationary licence.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps there might be the opportunity to have an information kiosk at the GO subway station at Queen and de Grassi.

Section 5 agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Philip: I appreciate the minister’s reply to my question on extrication but it leaves me with as many questions as I have answers. I’d like to deal with at least some of them at the present time rather than delay the minister during his supplementary estimates, which of course are coming up before we adjourn.

Did I hear the minister say that before the House adjourns we will be having a copy of the report on extrication before us? Is that his intent? Is that the understanding?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I’m told that a report is being printed, that it’s coming out any day. It’s being published by the Solicitor General with his estimates before the House, so maybe the member would like to ask him about it, because the member did mention to me a few moments ago that he was bringing other matters up with the Solicitor General during his estimates. He may know exactly what day that report is coming out. I understand that my staff expect it any day now.

Mr. Philip: I have trouble bringing things up with the Solicitor General because I sit beside him in the chair, so it’s much easier for me to talk to the minister across the floor since his ministry is involved with it.

Is the minister indicating that the fire departments or the police will be responsible for extrication? Is that the thrust of the policy?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I haven’t seen the report; there’s a new ministerial committee working on it. I understand the report will be coming out quite soon, but emergency measures such as that do come under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General. What the report will recommend at this time I can’t tell the honourable member.

Mr. Philip: Can the minister tell us how long it has been since first this interministerial committee was struck and how long we’ve been waiting for the report? My calculation in rough terms is something like a year and a half; it may be longer than that.

Can the minister tell us why it is that his ministry, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Solicitor General have not seen fit to -- at least in the interim -- subsidize or give some kind of financial support to groups such as the Simcoe rescue squad so they can expand their operations, particularly their training operations, on the assumption they are saving lives; people are dying on the highways unnecessarily and many more lives could have been saved had this kind of operation expanded? The minister will be the first to admit the Simcoe rescue squad has provided a tremendously valuable service to people not only of the Barrie area but also to many of the people in my own riding who travel north to the cottages on highway 400, which can be very treacherous in this type of weather.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps we could find out clearly whether the minister’s responsibility is really only to change a definition. From what I have heard, the responsibility here is that of the Solicitor General. Your involvement is one which may be ancillary, to make a definition change or do some other things. Is that correct or do you have an involvement in this kind of project, the Simcoe one mentioned, that has received a lot of favourable publicity?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is why we have the interministerial committee with representatives of my ministry, the Solicitor General’s, the Attorney General’s and the Ministry of Health to consider this whole matter of extrication equipment and vehicles and who should be supplying it and who should be funding it.

I have had no provision in my ministry nor in my estimates and I’m not sure I have the legal authority to fund such services. I am not sure in my own mind, if these services are required, who should be supplying them. Should they be under the auspices of the OPP or under the auspices of the Ontario fire marshal? Should the municipal fire departments be the connecting link between the municipal government, the provincial government, the fire marshal’s office and these services? It has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill.

I understand the honourable member’s interest and I am interested too. But all this particular amendment does is put that type of vehicle, when it has the appropriate specified equipment on it, in the same position as a fire truck or a police cruiser or an ambulance going to an emergency. We have brought that particular type of vehicle into the act. There are some of these vehicles throughout the province, not only the Simcoe rescue squad vehicles.

Mr. Philip: By way of supplementary then, supposing we have a situation where the position paper comes down and says that a particular ministry has responsibility for that, and supposing a group such as the Simcoe rescue squad decides the service that is going to be provided by that particular ministry is not adequate and that it wishes to continue with some of its operations, would its vehicles be covered or just the appropriately designated vehicles of the ministry this long-overdue study finally decides is going to be responsible for this?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I believe the explanatory note that went with this says a ministry-recognized organization. I don’t think we can leave this bill so loose anybody with a beat-up old truck can put a red light on the vehicle and call himself a rescue squad and have the privileges of the bill. As I see it, it says a crash extrication vehicle operated by a ministry-recognized organization.

Mr. Philip: If no ministry has recognized this organization, at least until this date, then it does create some problems. That is the point I was making. I wasn’t talking about an old pickup truck whose operator wants to get around the law by putting a light on the top of his truck. The minister knows that.

Section 6 agreed to.

Sections 7 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 175 reported.

LAND TITLES AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 149, An Act to amend the Land Titles Act.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any section in the early part of this bill that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations wishes to amend in any way?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I’m going to move a very minor amendment to section 48, which is really a typographical correction.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any questions on this bill prior to section 48?

Mr. M. N. Davison: I have some comments and questions to direct to the minister on section 40.

Sections 1 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 40:

Mr. M. N. Davison: When we discussed this bill on second reading, on Tuesday night as I recall, I expressed to the minister the concerns I had about wanting to know the government’s rationale for this section 40 and the sections of the other bill before us today, the Registry Amendment Act, that are removing certain things from the Condominium Act and transferring them to these other pieces of legislation. I wanted also an explanation of the government’s position regarding the registration process with condominiums.

I don’t know if the minister wanted to respond to the comments I made at that time --

Hon. Mr. Drea: I never understood them.

Mr. M. N. Davison: He didn’t understand them.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Maybe if the member made the comments again, I could find out what he is talking about.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I will go through them again for the minister.

The thing concerning me is the implication for condominiums and, most specifically, the condominium unit owners. They are the same kinds of implications and considerations that have been important throughout the last decade, since we allowed the construction of a new type of home for people to own and in which to live.

When the government first introduced condominium legislation back in the late 1960s, I can understand that, because it was a new thing in Ontario there were going to be growing pains, there were going to be difficulties, there were going to be mistakes and there were going to be lessons to learn and everybody in this House and everybody in the community would have to suffer through them to some extent.

The government became aware of the problems and, as pressure mounted, it established, finally, back in 1976 or 1977, the Ontario residential condominium study group, the Kealey commission. This was to report on the difficulties in the condominium world and to make recommendations to the government so the government could then rewrite condominium law in order that the problems of the late 1960s and early 1970s could be corrected.

Although he was not minister at that time the minister will recall also that there were very serious economic problems with condominiums. There was a real difficulty created because of uncertainty about condominiums. There was a huge number of empty units on the market because of all the problems that had developed through the late 1960s and early 1970s.

When the Kealey commission reported back in 1977, it made a number of recommendations -- I think the total number was 126 -- to the government for changes in condominium legislation. The first four recommendations coming out of the first chapter of the Kealey commission report dealt with the registration process. I’m sure the minister will recall that.

When the ministry brought in the condominium legislation hack in 1978 it never did deal adequately with the problem of registration. It was left over, and the government never moved on it. There were comments to the effect there will have to be some changes from the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs; the Planning Act was talked about; this, that and the other thing.

[4:15]

I suppose at the time, and I recall discussing with the former minister, the necessity to move in on the registration process and have in the Condominium Act a clear group of changes in the registration process that would work to restore confidence in the market and help the condominium unit owners. It went so far that when we were in committee of the whole House on the Condominium Act I introduced what was the largest amendment I’ve ever introduced in this assembly. It was a seven-page amendment to sections 55 and 57 of that act to bring in a registrar of condominiums who would have some control and act in the public interest, in the consumer’s, unit-owner’s, interest.

That was defeated, unfortunately, by the government for reasons I don’t know. We didn’t get it and we still have these continuing problems. Now surely the time has come when the government should have taken some action on the registration process with condominiums. But instead of doing that, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, they fiddle about. They make changes to the Land Titles Act and the Registry Act. They delete two subsections of the Condominium Act under sections 2, 4 and 5. That’s really inadequate.

I would like some explanation from the minister about the lack of desire, or lack of will, to move. Does the ministry consider there is no problem with the registration process? Is that the reason? Does the ministry consider it’s up to other ministers in the government to move on an ad hoc, bit by bit basis to improve the registration process? Does the ministry have some plan to bring on stream in the next year or two amendments to the Condominium Act to improve the registration process? I’d like to know the reasons.

Unless there is some kind of co-ordinated approach to deal with those difficulties, I don’t see any reason to support amendments designed to take sections out of the Condominium Act, further fracture it and make it more difficult for the condominium buyer to find out what is the law and what isn’t the law. I’d like to hear the minister’s explanation.

For the purposes of saving time, I’m happy to talk about all of the condominium changes, both in this and the act we’ll be doing later, Mr. Chairman, because they’re totally interwoven. I won’t make any comments on those. I think we can deal with it all under this one.

Mr. Breithaupt: When the member for Hamilton Centre began his remarks the minister said he didn’t understand what the earlier comments were. I regret to say I don’t understand what these comments now refer to.

It seems to me the whole matter of compulsory registration has nothing to do with the ownership of condominium units. It would appear to me this section deals solely with the registration of a plan and clears off the title under the land titles system where land might otherwise be registered under the registry office system. It has nothing to do with the ownership of units, with the transfer of units or with that amendment with respect to a registrar of units. It would be my understanding it is only a matter of registration before any individual is even close to becoming an owner of a condominium unit.

If that’s the case, then I don’t understand how those comments relate to condominium land as such under the registry office. If it’s not the case, maybe the minister does have some comment.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Now I understand, Mr. Speaker. If the member had elaborated a bit the other night, I would have understood.

The member for Kitchener is absolutely right; it has nothing to do with this act. What it has to do with is a preregistration. We are talking in this act about actual registration. I am looking at the Kealey recommendations the member brought forward. For instance, the first one is for the builder-developer to disclose his intention to the municipality to develop a condominium project.

All of these things are far in advance of the actual registration of the plan. It has been my position and the government’s position -- I think it is the only position -- that if the member wants improvements in the preregistration area, realistically it is the responsibility of another ministry, the other ministry being the Ministry of Housing, because it deals with official plans.

It would be extremely difficult under the Condominium Act. We start from there when nothing exists. How could the Condominium Act provide for dealing with subjects prior to a building permit or the actual physical implementation of the building, or the registration of a plan for the condominium? Obviously, it deals with all of the ramifications of the official plan and more properly is under the Ministry of Housing.

In those recommendations the commission was talking in terms of site-plan application, of site-plan agreements, of a building permit, the conditions and standards of development levies for the municipality, and so forth. All of these are well before you head for the registry office to either -- depending upon where you are in a province -- go through the land titles procedure or, where there is no land titles procedure available, go through the registry office with a certification of title.

As to why the Ministry of Housing or so forth, hasn’t dealt with these recommendations, to be honest with you that is the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing.

In terms of the one remark that was made about all the difficulties with registration, we are at a loss to know where those difficulties are, at least within the registry system. If it was something before the registry system, then I would be perfectly willing to carry the member’s concern to the Ministry of Housing. Many of these things, in fact almost all of them, are even before the Condominium Act begins to take effect.

The truth of the matter is, if you start off with the builder-developer discussing his intention, that really is under planning. Is the municipality going to allow a condominium to be located at the particular site or the particular area the builder is discussing? That precedes the Condominium Act and obviously must precede any attempt to register any type of plan, because there has to be an agreement.

Surely these things are within the Ministry of Housing and the official plan. We haven’t really taken anything out of the Condominium Act for any purpose other than when you are registering a plan for a condominium. We feel a much better form of consumer protection is to have it right in the act that you have to use registration, rather than having it in the Condominium Act with an application to the Land Registry Act or the Certification of Titles Act -- putting it right up front in the registry office where the actual declarant makes the registration. We think that is much more effective in terms of land registration than to have it in another act. There is very clearcut authority to deal with any difficulty in terms of registration.

Bear in mind, if we have been accused of anything in terms of registration, it is of being too strict. There are many municipalities which maintain we should accept and register plans when the lower floors of a structure are completed and there appears to be every indication the upper floors will be. There is an argument in the development industry that the finishing off of a small number of units in a large building is sufficient evidence that we should accept the registration of condominiums. We don’t. We invoke the doctrine of “substantial completion.” It is all very well to say that because certain things have been done on the lower floors they obviously will be done on the upper floors and that deeds can be issued and so forth. We want substantial completion.

That has been an area of criticism, but I don’t really think the member would want us to change our present position. I know that from time to time on a borderline case it does cause some inconvenience to someone trying to obtain his deed. By the same token, if we let the development go holus-bolus and someone is promised a deed to something which may or may not be completed, if something does happen in the evolution of the individual condominium unit within that structure there can be some very grave repercussions. To my knowledge that is the particular criticism that has been levied.

Again, looking at the two acts in combination, one of the things we want to do is to preserve -- I emphasize to preserve -- the registration where land titles are available -- that they be a land title. No deviation, no eroding, nothing in that area. But where that land title is not available, then we want to proceed under the Registry Act for its certification. So we are not eroding; we are sticking right where we are.

If the member wants to ask why we are doing this now, the plain and simple answer is the expansion of land titles has not gone as swiftly in this province as was anticipated when these acts first dealt with condominiums. The reason for it is quite simple. It is more expensive than land registry. There have been budgetary restraints and so forth. In the years 1979, 1980 or 1981 it is not going to expand to the extent that was anticipated. Notwithstanding that, even where it is not available and even where the pressure is such that you really want us to keep going through them, we have stuck to the certification of the type.

In terms of registration of the plan whence the deeds will come, provided the condominium is successfully completed, we haven’t changed very much at all. We haven’t eroded the Condominium Act; we have put it right up front where the declarant comes in to register, right under the very act, that he registered. That is all we have done in the package. If the member is going to tell me he prefers to keep it in the Condominium Act and to duplicate it in the Registry Act because we feel much more confident in the actual Registration Act than we do in an overriding statute, then we may have a difference of opinion.

The advice that has been given to me is that it is a far more efficient method of consumer protection in having it up front in the registry statutes than it would be in the Condominium Act.

[4:30]

Mr. M. N. Davison: Either the minister is insisting on taking a very narrow legalistic look at the issue I am trying to put before him or he doesn’t understand what the issue is. I’ll try once more to explain it.

There is a process commonly described as the registration process, not in some legal, technical definition of registration of a single document before or under some subsection of the Condominium Act or any other act but the process that takes place from the beginning of a development until the time we are left with our registered condominium. I am sure the member for Kitchener understands the use of the word registration -- the registration process, as it was put and used before the justice committee when we dealt with this.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes. I have some understanding of the Condominium Act.

Mr. M. N. Davison: My criticism is simply this. The ministry chose to ignore a substantial number of the difficulties and problems that were plain to anybody sitting on the committee when it was doing its work. I don’t understand what the reason was then; I don’t understand what it is now.

What I am saying to the minister is this. Rather than take two subsections out of this act now, the ministry should deal with the real problems that still exist in that registration process. In the broadest context, that is all of the problems that can occur up until the time we have a registered, functional, operational condominium corporation. If the minister doesn’t understand that, I don’t know if I can explain it to him any better.

I think the minister and his advisers are taking and understanding only a very narrow definition of the words “registry, registration or registration process.” I think the ministry now has a responsibility to address the problems they wouldn’t address back in 1978, when we were dealing with the Condominium Act. I don’t want to outline them all, I’m not even sure that it would be in order to do that, but we have not provided a way a condominium consumer in this province can get accurate information about a proposed declarant or developer involved in the process.

To this date there is no functioning consumer adviser on the condominium issue for condominium unit owners or prospective buyers. The proposed declarant has much too much freedom in that process. We still have people living in what were supposed to be condominiums but are nothing more than apartment buildings. All of those problems come from the government’s and the ministry’s refusal to deal with that registration process: all of the processes up until the point in time at which there is a registered, functional, operating condominium.

I think it would better serve the ministry, the government and the people in this province if, instead of fiddling around with these alterations to the Land Titles Act and the Registry Act and the Condominium Act, they would sit up and do something about the real problems. They have ignored them for long enough, and since the ministry is involving itself in the Condominium Act once again, now or certainly the spring session at the latest would be an appropriate time for the government to finally act to solve some of those problems.

That is plain English, Mr. Minister. I hope you catch the drift, as it were. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I will take that under advisement, Mr. Chairman. One would think the member would have said it in those words the other night. I would have given him exactly the same answer. I realize the lateness of time and so forth but when the member was referring to problems in registration, it was in the focus of this. It may have been my mistake but obviously the member for Kitchener had the same difficulty. In any event, I will take that under advisement and I will inform the member prior to the starting of the spring session as to what the intentions of the ministry are.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I appreciate what the minister says. That’s a very gracious step on his part. It’s an improvement. I await the beginning of the spring session.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I said I would inform the member before the start of the spring session.

Section 40 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments or questions on any section?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have an amendment to section 48.

Sections 41 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 48:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Drea moves that section 48(2) of the bill be amended by striking out “b” in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof “a.”

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, that’s to correct a typographical error.

Mr. M. N. Davison: My caucus and I are in complete agreement with typographical errors being corrected. It has my support.

Motion agreed to.

Section 48, as amended, agreed to.

Bill 149, as amended, reported.

REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 150, An Act to amend the Registry Act.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have a new section 9a, and amendments to section 27 and section 49.

On section 9:

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, the new section would become 9a. It will be in addition to section 9.

Mr. Chairman: In addition to 9?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It would be a section in addition to 9, to be called 9a.

Section 9 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Drea moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section: “9a. Subsection 2 of section 20 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“‘(2) Subject to subsection 3, the land registrar shall enter every instrument that mentions such parcel or lot of land in the abstract index in the prescribed manner under the proper heading of each separate parcel or lot of land.

“‘(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations designating instruments to which subsection 2 does not apply and governing the manner of making entries of the abstract index.”

He further moves that the said section 9a comes into force on proclamation and that the legislative counsel be directed to make the necessary consequential changes in the numbering and references.

Motion agreed to.

Section 9a agreed to.

Sections 10 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 27:

Ms. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Drea moves that section 27 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(6) The said section 78 is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“‘(13) A description as defined in the Condominium Act, 1978, in respect of land that is within an area to which the Land Titles Act applies, but not within an area designated under subsection 3 of section 160(a) of the Land Titles Act, shall not be registered under this act.’”

Motion agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 28 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 49:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Drea moves that section 49(1) of the bill he amended by inserting after “sections” in the first line “4,” and by striking out “35” in the third line.

Hon. Mr. Drea further moves that section 49(2) be amended by inserting after “sections” in the first line “4” and by striking out “35” in the second line.

Motion agreed to.

Section 49, as amended, agreed to.

On section 50:

Mr. M. N. Davison: I just wanted to take this last opportunity, Mr. Chairman -- I may never have one again -- to put forward my strongest possible recommendation to the minister that somehow surely these three acts in the new Polaris project should result in lower legal fees to home purchasers, when they buy their homes. There is no longer any excuse for those outrageous and unjust fees.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I suppose as a great defender of the faith, Polaris will make a great number of improvements in this province. It will enhance, furthermore, the reputation of John Graves Simcoe, who started all of land registry and so forth. I will tell you, I simply do not think the legal profession in this province is overpaid, particularly those who deal in real estate.

Section 50 agreed to.

Bill 150, as amended, reported.

FAMILY LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 159, An Act to amend the Family Law Reform Act, 1978.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for Kitchener have anything on Bill 159?

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is an amendment to section 1, which has been agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: Now that we have it on the floor let’s make all kinds of amendments.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, that could be done. First of all, let me thank not only the government House leader, but particularly both the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and his parliamentary assistant, the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), who have been of great assistance in bringing forward to this stage the idea approved by the House in private members’ hour two weeks ago.

[4:45]

There is a requirement for several changes in wording, in order that this amendment be in the style and practice of the Family Law Reform Act. As a result, I will be making amendments which will deal particularly with the three separate headings I proposed be changed in section 27, to which I had spoken during the debate on second reading.

None of these particulars deals with changes in principle approved by the House, but they do give further detail so the three subsections follow the intent of the original legislation.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Breithaupt moves that section 1 of Bill 159 be amended by striking out clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the amendment to section 27(1) of the Family Law Reform Act, 1978, and substituting the following therefor:

“(a) a person entitled to support under the order;

“(b) a parent of a person entitled to support under the order; or

“(c) a person or agency mentioned in clause (a) or (b) of section 18(3).”

Mr. Warner: I’d like first to pass along my personal congratulations to the member for Kitchener who has achieved what few members of this assembly have been able to achieve; that is, as a private member and an opposition member to bring about a change in legislation. For that he is to be commended.

He has persisted on the issue and brought forward an excellent bill which was debated here. It’s most pleasing to see it go that extra step and to know that when we’re finished with it it will become law.

I’m quite pleased to support the amendment he has moved. In speaking to it I can only express again the kind of frustration which I expressed during the Attorney General’s estimates at the unfortunate aspect that when those delinquent fathers don’t pay, the pressure is put on the mother who has been left to raise the children.

Unfortunately, the pressure is often put on her by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, because it’s sometimes made clear to the mother it’s her responsibility to find the delinquent father and, if she is unable to do so, her mother’s allowance payments will be cut back. Often she has been further frustrated in attempting to get some settlement through the courts.

In one small measure I hope this amendment to the Family Law Reform Act will help quite a few mothers in obtaining the kind of support they deserve and require. There is a larger issue to be answered and the government has obviously failed in attempting to resolve that problem. In fact in some instances as I have cited, where the Ministry for Community and Social Services is held responsible it has made the problem worse. That’s highly unfortunate. Why they choose to treat mothers who are attempting to raise children on their own in that way, I have no idea.

As I say, I welcome the amendment that has been put forward and the bill itself and I will support it.

Mr. Sterling: It’s my pleasure to rise and support the amendment put forward by the member for Kitchener. The attitude of the Attorney General and myself towards the member for Kitchener’s bill is that this is continuing the nature of the hearings and the legislative process that took place with regard to the Family Law Reform Act. I think that process culminated in a very successful piece of legislation. As I have said, we recognized that there were going to be some shortcomings in that bill that we weren’t able to foresee when we were going through the process.

We all recognized at that time that we were really turning around a century of antiquated law. It is really surprising -- and I say again, I am quite proud to be part of that committee -- in that we were able to construct a bill which has had really quite a small number of inadequacies.

I would like to again congratulate the member for Kitchener for bringing this bill before the House to rectify one of those inadequacies. I hope that in the springtime we will be able to bring forward some additional amendments to the bill, because there are one or two other small areas, where we can --

Mr. Wildman: Are you going to publish this in the Kemptville Advance?

Mr. Sterling: You could publish it in the Kemptville Advance, the Winchester Press, or any other place.

Mr. McClellan: It isn’t even Thursday afternoon.

Mr. Sterling: They come out on Wednesday. It’s okay; I can phone them.

Ms. Gigantes: Is this your big speech of the year?

Mr. Sterling: You haven’t been listening, Evelyn, but at any rate, I congratulate the member again because the bill will clear up a problem that does exist for some people.

Along with the Attorney General and the House leader I thought we should carry this forward into legislation as soon as possible; therefore we have supported it all along.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McClellan: During the second reading debate, my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) raised the question of the use of the word “may” in the second line of section 1(1) and he had indicated during the second reading debate that he would prefer the use of the word “shall,” so that upon the application of any of the three parties named in Mr. Breithaupt’s bill, the court would automatically invoke automatic enforcement.

I intend to move an amendment to change the word “may” to “shall.” The reason I want to pursue that is based on the comments of the parliamentary assistant during the second reading debate.

I would remind the committee of what the parliamentary assistant said when he was talking about the automatic enforcement provision in the 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.”

This is the point I want to stress, the parliamentary assistant said: “Unfortunately the procedure varies across the 53 family courts in the province. This is done in some cases to the wishes of the family court judges and in other eases it is due to staffing restraints.”

In other words, apparently there are some parts of Ontario in which the clerk of the court -- I don’t know if the clerk of the unified family court would be included but I doubt it, but at least the clerk of the provincial court (family division) would refuse to accept the application for automatic enforcement. I don’t think that that’s acceptable.

I don’t think I should even need to justify that position. It should be self-evident. Upon the request of one of the three parties for enforcement and upon filing the necessary material as prescribed by the rules of the court it should be automatic that the court assume the responsibility for enforcement.

I do not stand easy with the provision that allows the clerk of the court -- and I assume that means the clerk acting on the instructions of an individual judge in a particular court -- to refuse to do this.

I want to make the bill apply equally all over the province, by changing “may” to “shall,” so that whenever one of the three parties applies for automatic enforcement, they will be guaranteed to get it.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that section 1(1) of the bill be amended by striking out the word “may” in the second line and replacing it with the word “shall.”

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I most oppose the amendment, basically on the basis of the process that is practised in family court. If we put in the word “shall,” it would really go contrary to the existing process.

One of the steps in the procedure of enforcing an order is to call the errant person into court and ask why he is not paying the maintenance order. The judge is given the opportunity at that time to postpone the payment on the maintenance order if there is reason why he or she cannot make the payment on the maintenance order -- if something has gone on in between. Under the new act this is usually a process in which only one of the individuals is brought in. It is not a case where you review the order. It’s a show-cause type of hearing whereby the person is called in to say why he is not paying the order.

If he gives sufficient reason, the judge has the power to stay the payment on that maintenance order or to make an arrangement for some kind of payment until the person can come back and alter the order.

The problem with “shall” is it doesn’t really give the discretion to the judge to accept those reasons. He just has to order the payment to come forthwith and that’s all there is to it.

That’s the main reason for the government’s opposition to this amendment.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that by now we would have moved far more rapidly into the matter of automatic enforcement, with some procedures which would protect the very cases the parliamentary assistant has made reference to.

[5:00]

There is no question that there are cases where the default -- I can remember one case where a man was terminally ill and even then was forced into the court, against the wife’s wishes, simply because the agency giving support payments to the wife had insisted on those procedures. That shouldn’t happen in family courts.

The alternative places a terrible onus on the wife or the mother -- in the past, in any event -- in these matters. I had hoped we would have moved faster to correct those procedures. As long as the show-cause proceedings are still going forward without automatically enforcing the reverse kinds of procedures to give protection, I don’t know how we could accept that particular amendment. I say it with the greatest reluctance, because I do understand what lies behind the amendment and I would very much like to support that principle.

I have some experience in the matter and I think we must allow the person against whom an order has been made to give some explanation. The difficulty is that it really is almost an abuse of the system in so many cases, but it causes one to want to support the “shall” rather than the “may.”

Mr. Renwick: I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant might consider giving his support to the proposed amendment.

In the ordinary parlance of the term, everybody assumes that if one obtains an order, it would of itself speak. But the process of the court has meant obtaining an order really doesn’t mean anything because one has to take this additional step of enforcing the order.

I understand the courts have become enmeshed in this problem of the time interval between an order being issued by the court and its enforcement. That is where this whole idea of showing cause has crept into the system, with immense delays and immense inequities. When the parliamentary assistant says that the process is dictating what will happen, then it destroys the kind of amendment the member for Kitchener has tried to insert into the bill to eliminate, to the extent possible, this interminable delay between an order of the court and its enforcement. Even this procedure as set out in the act says one gets the order but then one has to make a request. The parliamentary assistant is saying that not only does one make the request, but the judge can revert to the old system, have his show-cause and nothing ever happens.

Surely, when we have a statute which says that “shall” shall be construed as imperative and my colleague moves that the word “may,” which is permissive, be changed to imperative, one is saying what the ordinary lay person on the street believes to be the case, that an order of the court is to be obeyed. One doesn’t have all these intermediary proceedings.

The time has come when the order should be that the beneficiary of an order can have a mandatory way of getting that order in force. That does not deprive the person against whom the order is issued of an opportunity, when faced with that order, of coming to the court and saying, after the event but in a much more difficult situation, “I don’t want to obey the order and I want to show you why.”

But at least this will be a step forward, and this will permit the beneficiary of an order to say: “I can go to the court. I can do what the court requires of me.” That’s what the act says, “upon the filing of such material as is prescribed by the rules of the court,” do what the court says. The enforcement process will automatically follow and leave it to the person against whom the order has been issued in the first place to then take whatever steps he needs if he feels he can’t comply. Surely the court must be in the position to say: “You have had your day in court. You have had your opportunity to speak to the order before it was issued. The order has been issued and now you are subject to that order.”

Mr. Chairman, there has always been provision under the rules that regardless of whether or not you are engaged in the enforcement of an order, if a person is the person against whom the order has been made he can usually make application to the court to have the order reviewed, if it is too onerous.

The whole weight and thrust of making it imperative is to put the shoe on the foot of the person against whom the order has been originally issued. He is the one who has to respond. He is the one who, if he hasn’t been complying, has been the recalcitrant person. Surely the shoe must be on his foot.

There are two things he can do. He can say this order is inequitable or unreal because of changes in circumstances and come to court to vary the order, which he is entitled to do. It has nothing to do with this enforcement provision. He can give the court an opportunity to assess the equity of it. Or, the person who is the beneficiary of the order can say, “Look, the order is there, I want it enforced and I want it enforced in an imperative way.” Then, when the attempt is made to enforce the order, if the person against whom the order is outstanding has been so lax in taking any action, even at that point under the rules of the court he can come and say, “Look, I still can’t deal with it.”

Let us not, in a funny way, punish the victim. That is what the use of the permissive “may” is. You permit the person who has the benefit of an order to have to take some other step. Then you allow the court to interpose an interminable delay on the matter.

By moving to the imperative in this clause, I don’t think you are in any sense depriving the person against whom the order is issued of any rights. All you are saying to him is, “If you want that order varied in any way, you better get around to doing something about it. You can’t lie in the woods and wait.” So the person who has the benefit of the order has to go to the court, comply with the rules of the court and then has to be subjected to another interminable delay in order that this co-called show-cause action will take place.

It is a strange world and it is unfortunate but this is a man’s assembly. Most of the orders are out against men and I doubt very much whether we should be the ones who are, at this time, delaying the enforcement of these orders by granting the bench the opportunity of further delay. I think if the judges were consulted they would probably welcome this way of dealing with the matter, because I would assume that not only are these so-called show-cause matters delaying, but they are extremely frustrating for the judge who has to sit and listen to them.

As I say, at the risk of repetition, if the person against whom the order is made doesn’t like it because circumstances have changed and he can’t abide by it, or doesn’t think he should abide by it, he can apply to the court to get the order varied.

Let’s concertina this interminable time lag that has crept into the time between an order of the court issuing and the continuous enforcement of that order. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to reflect on what the member for St. George has said and what my colleague has said and accept this amendment, knowing full well the rules of the court are sufficiently flexible to avoid the kind of inequity which may, in some odd cases, occur by the person who is the object of the order having an opportunity to come and get the order varied if he wants it. But he can’t lie back and wait for some interminable process before he has to obey that order.

Mr. Sterling: The basic problem with the argument put forward is that the reason for holding a show-cause hearing at all, or to have such a procedure in the whole process, is for the court to be able to proceed without both parties being there. In other words, the wife, in the normal circumstance, doesn’t have to come in from far-away places and either lose a day of work or have to get a baby sitter to have a show-cause hearing. It is up to the court to determine why this individual is not paying.

There was nothing more frustrating in my legal experience than seeing a show-cause hearing recalled and the husband, in the normal case, not showing up for that hearing. Consequently, the woman, who is usually financially pressed because of the predicament normally associated with this kind of an order, is out half a day’s pay, or a whole day’s pay, and in some cases has incurred babysitting, transportation and other costs.

The problem I was trying to express relates to this: If the husband comes in, and there appears to be good reason for him not being able to meet the maintenance order, and if the section has the word “shall” in it, the clerk has no authority to stay his action until a rehearing of the issues can take place. That is the basic argument I am trying to put forward.

If we put “shall” in, there is no real reason ever to have a show-cause hearing. You might as well have both the parties back there to argue the issues over again, because I don’t think you can make an order, in changing the maintenance order, without having both parties there. That is basically the reason for us not wanting to put the word “shall” in. It would put the clerk in a legal predicament of having to enforce an order which shouldn’t be enforced because the person who is paying it is not in a position to pay it.

Also, I feel there would be a greater reluctance to hold these kinds of hearings. The rationale behind having show-cause hearings would go. You would go back to the system, which I didn’t like, before the Family Law Reform Act was put forward. In that situation you would require the other spouse to be there to prove the case, or have a hearing where the spouse pressing for the maintenance payment would be there to accept a lower payment on a maintenance order.

That was basically the reasoning behind insisting that it stay as “may,” as indicated in the original bill.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could clarify something. Did I understand the parliamentary assistant to say that, prior to the amendment on a show-cause hearing, the wife had to be there? That of course, is not so on a show-cause.

The problem when they put it was that, as a rule, or at least in many cases, the wife did have to make a sworn statement. Her evidence was not the best evidence since, for the most part if any moneys had been paid into the court, they had probably gone either to the Ministry of Community and Social Services or to the municipal welfare assistance. She had really no idea about that financial statement, but she was not present unless she chose to be at a show-cause hearing.

[5:15]

In the days I remember a great many of the orders ran around something like $10 a week. Suppose that at the time this comes into effect you have five years’ arrears. I am not sure what a clerk could or would do with that kind of enforcement. If the husband has a good cause -- and, believe it or not, most didn’t but some did -- at what point could the husband seek a variance of that second order? That’s where I am having problems.

I would dearly love it if we could say “shall” and that there might be a provision for the kind of procedure where a husband was able to plead a change in circumstances. I don’t know what it is today, but certainly in my experience I would say that in at least 70 per cent of the cases -- and that may be a conservative estimate -- there was no justification for the nonpayment.

This is why I think there should be some procedure open for those cases where the husband has a legitimate excuse. In some cases that did happen.

I wonder if it isn’t possible for this to be struck down, and for the parliamentary assistant to discuss the matter further, so we might be able to work into this bill that kind of provision so that we can use the word “shall” and make it stick.

Mr. McClellan: Just a final comment: I would ask the parliamentary assistant to accept the suggestion of the member for St. George. I want to go back to the parliamentary assistant’s own comments in the second reading debate.

I would like to reread his remarks about the variance across the province in the use of automatic enforcement by the courts. The parliamentary assistant said: “Unfortunately the procedure” -- and here he is talking about the procedure of automatic enforcement -- “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.”

Neither of those two reasons is the same as the reasons he has given here today. I am prepared to look at amendments which take care of the show-cause difficulty. I don’t pretend to understand the lawyer’s argument that has taken place. If there is a problem with respect to the show-cause aspect of it, let us come back with drafting that takes care of that. Please don’t ask us to accept that in some parts of the province, because of the whim of a family court judge or because of staffing restraints, the family court will not undertake automatic enforcement of support orders or maintenance orders. That is intolerable, and I am sure the parliamentary assistant will agree that it’s intolerable. So I say to him he should accept as a kind of consensus that where we ought to go is to stand this down and see if we can’t find the wording to take care of “show cause” and eliminate inequities between regions of this province or from one family court to another. Again, I am quite convinced the parliamentary assistant or the ministry cannot accept that, because of the whim of a judge or because of a staffing restraint, a person in a particular court district should be ineligible to get automatic enforcement of a support order.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments on the amendment?

Mrs. Campbell: Is the parliamentary assistant not prepared to respond?

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, I don’t know how you could draft this bill to take in the problems outlined. I think they were probably better described by the member for St. George in terms of the long-term maintenance payments which hadn’t been made. In other words, if the arrears were very great, what do you do in a situation where maintenance arrears have built up for whatever reason and there aren’t any assets to make that payment?

I am quite willing to stand it down. I’m not certain I can come up with an answer this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, but if you want to adjourn the debate on this particular bill, I could discuss it with the staff, because I hadn’t had any notice of this particular amendment. I will have to leave that up to the mover of the bill.

Mr. Breithaupt: This is a most difficult situation, Mr. Chairman. Clearly, I don’t want to lose the bill because of another amendment which is probably a very worthy one. It’s going to cause a great number of difficulties to attempt to accommodate the results which will flow from changing the word “may” to the word “shall,” at least from the point of view expressed by the parliamentary assistant.

I think it’s clear that the members of the House have been favourable in their comments in attempting to make the correction and the change I have proposed. It is also clear members feel very strongly that orders, once they are made, should be enforced as a rule rather than following the somewhat less imperative approach the legislation has historically had.

I wonder if a possible compromise might be to follow the comments made by the parliamentary assistant earlier. He referred, in the second reading debate, to the need to have certain other amendments to this bill brought before the House. He said there were certain other amendments being considered.

One way of dealing with the matter might be to have this theme further developed as part of a discussion on those amendments. I recognize that would give several months of possible difficulty in some cases. However, I must say I have not heard of particular problems where a clerk has not enforced an order based on some capricious approach. However, the law, as the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) has mentioned, has been permissive rather than imperative. If the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) could agree, possibly a way to resolve the matter would be not to proceed with that amendment and to stand it over for a clear opportunity to consider that theme and have a response expected from the ministry when the bill, as a government initiative, comes before us for some or certain amendments in a new session, as was suggested would likely be the case.

This may be a way to get what we want accomplished today and, as well, to consider that change in thrust that I think members generally and probably would favour as well when the entire Family Law Reform Act might be open for a variety of amendments in the new session.

Mr Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. McClellan’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill 159, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported four bills with amendments and one without.

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 177, An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, 1971.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, this particular bill is introduced to allow the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to expand from its present seven members to an unspecified number of members. Basically, the reasoning behind this thrust is that it would be desirable to appoint some members to the board from areas of the province other than southern Ontario, where most of the board members now come from.

Evidently, the chairman of the board has indicated there has been difficulty in composing a panel of the board from time to time. It would be hoped that some of the new members of the board to be appointed would be from other areas of the province, including northern Ontario and eastern Ontario, and perhaps some members who are bilingual. That is the basic thrust behind the bill.

The members of the board are paid on a per diem basis and, therefore, the overall expense of the board should not be increased in accordance with the number of members on the board.

[5:30]

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, just for a brief moment, I would like to express some concerns I have. If you look at the bill, it seems to be a pretty straightforward matter; I’m sure that, basically, is the intent. I guess the only concerns I have are with the membership and with what the parliamentary assistant has said. I recognize the need in other parts of Ontario, and that of course has to take a good deal of preference.

The thing that bothers me is that, when the minister is talking about new members, he should remember we have just begun, in a pretty tentative way, to understand the rights of children before this particular board. We have had some discussion in the Attorney General’s estimates about the kinds of orders that can be made, particularly if a child has been abused sexually, for example, and where one does not have clear-cut evidence at that time as to physical damage; rather, one looks to the future in the hope of bringing assistance to that child.

I am concerned if what is being said here will have any limiting feature on that sort of case, so far as the understanding of the board is concerned. I was hoping that, if we needed any further legislation, it would be here how to enable that particular board to make an order -- not for a lump sum kind of judgement or order, but rather to carry the matter so that in the future there could be, as a result of the monitoring, the kinds of service brought to the assistance of a child that may well flow from the kind of traumatic experience the child has had.

One would need to continue to have, both in the north and in the south, people with that kind of sensitivity and experience. I would not like to approve this amendment without being very certain that it won’t affect that kind of situation.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary assistant puts forward what appears to be a very reasonable argument as to why the change is necessary; why, instead of not fewer than five nor more than seven members, it should now be unlimited to meet a need in northern and eastern Ontario in particular.

It all sounds quite reasonable. If one had a suspicious mind, one would think this possibly is opening the door a little bit more to the defeated Tory candidates -- giving them a chance at some remuneration. For example, if the parliamentary assistant perceives a need in northern Ontario that isn’t met, I would like him to explain why it is so absolutely necessary to meet that need by way of the Lieutenant Governor in Council and not the local communities. Why is it not possible for the communities in northern Ontario to make the appointments?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Well, they do; they have a lot of input.

Mr. Warner: Yes, they have a lot of input; there are several NDP members from northern Ontario over here. But, in addition to that, I don’t understand why he wouldn’t do that.

Perhaps the parliamentary assistant, in order to alleviate an otherwise suspicious mind, could tell me how much these appointees will be paid and, since he places no restriction upon the numbers, could he tell me in terms of the information he has regarding the need, approximately how many people he intends to have appointed on a part-time basis or a regular basis over the next little while. Perhaps he could explain why it isn’t possible for the communities in northern Ontario to make the appointments of people to sit on the board.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, this bill poses the precise problem that has been raised both by the parliamentary assistant’s remarks and by the remarks of the members who have spoken before on this bill.

If that is what the bill was about -- that is, to provide for the regionalization of Ontario or for the travelling of the compensation board to various parts of Ontario, and had said so, and the explanatory note had said so -- then, as an adjunct to that, if the parliamentary assistant wanted to eliminate the restriction on numbers, it would have made sense; or he could have said, “We will increase the numbers that are to be made.” But he is asking us to divine the purpose from the explanatory note, and that says nothing whatsoever about better service being rendered in other parts of Ontario.

For the life of me, I do not understand why we are faced with bills that are supposed to be self-contained and explanatory, and then have an extraneous reason given for the purpose of the bill. If there had been just a single section saying the board shall from time to time as it sees fit sit in northern Ontario and in eastern Ontario and in other parts of Ontario -- if it had said something like that, the parliamentary assistant wouldn’t have this kind of a problem. But he is asking us to eliminate the upper and lower limits on numbers and then to take on faith that somehow or other that is going to improve the service in the other parts of the province. That is an impossible jump for us to be expected to make -- and we’re right here in the assembly -- let alone anybody who sees the Statutes of Ontario and finds this amendment has been introduced. There is no way somebody is going to say, “This was designed to provide a method by which the services of this board could be provided in different parts of the province on a more efficient basis.”

It is just not possible to do that, and he is asking us to take it on faith because he stands up and says so. My colleague is entitled to his scepticism; we all share it. If he wants to stand the bill down, to draft a clause that says what the bill is about, stating the purpose it is intended to serve, then he would have no trouble with the bill; but it is a waste of our time to be asked to make this kind of innocuous amendment to achieve some unstated purpose of government.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t going to participate in this debate but then I heard northern Ontario raised; so I thought I should participate.

I have a number of concerns. Since, as my colleague from Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) has indicated, the parliamentary assistant has indicated that the purpose in removing the upper and lower limits is to provide for perceived inadequacies in various regions of the province, I would like to know right now, before deciding whether to support this amendment with change, how many people are on the board now from the north and what communities they are from. If, as the parliamentary assistant indicates, there are none, could he please explain, following his rationale, why he is eliminating the minimum number as well as the maximum number?

If the idea is to increase the numbers on the board, why is he removing the minimum? It doesn’t seem to make a great deal of sense. If what he is saying is that he is going to appoint as many as necessary, could he please tell us what the ministry considers to be the necessary number? How many will be from which regions? How many will be from eastern Ontario, central Ontario, southwestern Ontario, the northeast, the northwest, and north-central Ontario -- if you want to include my area?

I would like to know how many native people he considers desirable, if any, to include on the board.

As my colleague the member for Riverdale indicated, if the minister’s justification for the change is as he states, he hasn’t made that clear in the wording of the bill. He hasn’t set out a regional basis for appointments, and he hasn’t stated what would be necessary in terms of numbers. We don’t even know, from the way the bill is worded, whether the Lieutenant Governor in Council might not, through attrition or some other process, lower the number of people on the board. That might be desirable, but I would like to know what justification or rationale he has for either increasing or lowering the number.

Would the parliamentary assistant please tell us what he is doing? They haven’t done that in the bill.

Mr. Sterling: I indicated in my opening remarks there was more than one reason for asking that the legislation be amended to increase the number of members on the board.

One of the reasons was that it would be a better opportunity for regional representation. I also mentioned that the chairman was having difficulty in filling the panel for the different hearings. In the year ended March 31, 1979, there were 713 applications heard by this board. That was up by 25 per cent from 570 applications the previous year.

At the present time, the board normally sits with a panel of two members. The board’s experience is that there sometimes is difficulty in forming the panel for the increasing number of hearings the board is now entertaining. As most members are aware, this board’s activities are becoming more widely known to people in Ontario. Therefore, applications tend to increase each year. That is another reason.

In addition to the increase in the number of cases and the difficulty of the board in forming a panel, there is the regional aspect I mentioned previously. Right now, the board sits outside of the Toronto area at least once each month. It sits in various parts: it sits in Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Kenora and Sudbury in northern Ontario. At the present, as I indicated in my opening remarks, because the members are all from the southwestern and southern part of Ontario -- at least, that’s what I was told prior to coming into the Legislature this afternoon -- there is a backlog in the cases heard outside of the Toronto area.

It is thought that, with the appointment of additional members outside of the area, this backlog would be decreased and the hearings would occur at an earlier date. Also there would be a saving to the government in terms of the transportation costs for the board members since they are reimbursed for those costs.

[5:45]

It is thought there would be a further five or six part-time appointments to the board. All the members of the board, save the chairman, are part-time. I do not know how many there will be from each particular area. I imagine it would depend on the need in the area exhibited by the caseload experience in the past.

With respect to the concern of the member for St. George in relation to child-abuse cases, we may very well have to bring the legislation back to deal with that particular problem. This bill was not meant to address or even to consider that problem.

In answer to the question asked by the member for Riverdale with respect to amending the bill, I don’t know what kind of an amendment he has in mind in terms of expressing the meaning or the intention of the bill.

Mr. Wildman: Set out the regions.

Mr. Sterling: The only problem with setting out the regions and the number of people per region is that it could fluctuate from time to time in the future. Quite frankly, I don’t know why the bill should set minimum or maximum limits. We’re moving into something completely new and the number of board members should fluctuate with the demands placed on the board. Therefore, this sort of open-ended bill would seem to be the right approach.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

INTERPROVINCIAL SUBPOENAS ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 178, An Act to provide for the Enforcement of Interprovincial Subpoenas.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned on the introduction of this bill, it provides for a method of enforcement within Ontario for out-of-province subpoenas dealing with civil and provincial offences in other jurisdictions. It also gives Ontario residents the responsibility of receiving a subpoena from reciprocating provinces. Those provinces have been outlined in the explanatory note on the bill and include British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories.

The idea is to avoid the expensive and complicated procedure now necessary to subpoena someone and to obtain a judgement in our present justice system.

The bill provides for protection of the witness going to another province by providing him with conduct or witness money which must be paid in advance. There is additional protection for the witness in the bill to prevent an abuse of the process in that the subpoena cannot be used to entice the person into the jurisdiction in order to serve him with further legal documentation to draw him into other legal proceedings.

I think the bill is fairly straightforward. It results from the proceedings of the uniformity of legislation in Canada commissioners. I think it is a good piece of legislation which really shows the co-operation that can be shown between the different provincial jurisdictions in a country.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I understand the purpose of this bill, but I am particularly concerned about section 7. We have the principle of the bill, that someone has a subpoena and is brought into Ontario. We have witness fees, and certainly this province cannot be deemed to be overly generous about this kind of provision. But we have the provision, for example, the cost of hotel accommodation for not less than three days at the place where the witness is required to attend in court, in an amount not less than $60.

Then we have the unusual provision of them demanding additional sums to cover this kind of situation when a person is under subpoena. It is bad enough, I suppose, when it is in your home province, but if you have come from British Columbia, and this is the kind of fee schedule we show and they have to move to get more money, I just wonder how, in practical terms, we are going to enforce this kind of thing.

Surely we should be pretty reasonable right off the bat, rather than have that kind of provision which doesn’t seem to be very reasonable if a witness has to be called into Toronto, for example, to give evidence.

The principle of the bill is one which, I think, is long overdue. The tragedy is that not more of the provinces are in support of this sort of procedure. One would hope we would end up with all the provinces supporting this, because in the normal course it should speed up the justice procedures and make it possible to get on with trials across the whole of Canada.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, you will probably be disappointed to know I am going to be brief on this one.

We support the principle of the bill put before us. As the member for St. George has said, it is overdue. It is not the member for Carleton-Grenville’s fault this province normally follows, rather than leads. He has probably had a hand in it, but it is nice to know we have followed along with British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories in attempting to catch up in modernizing the law. So we will support the bill.

I also would like an answer to the question raised by the member for St. George.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say I think this type of legislation is long overdue. I would subscribe to the comments made by my colleague from St. George, especially about fees.

It is bad enough that you get subpoenaed to end up in BC for Thursday, December 27, or something. At least you should have sufficient funds. Where are you going to find a hotel room in Vancouver for three nights for $20? Do we want the witness to stay in an area of the city which is questionable? Do we want that of our witnesses in this province? Surely, if the member were subpoenaed, he would not want to be placed in that position. I think our fees should be reasonable to start with.

I want to make another comment. What is wrong with the province of Quebec? Maybe he knows and maybe he doesn’t. Why are they not in this? I would think there would be more witnesses exchanged with Quebec than all the other provinces together. It seems to me that is where we would really need it. That has been my experience in my very limited practice. You know that is so.

I would like to know whether the member might help us on that. If the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) can get along with Lise Payette, surely there has to be a way the member could get along with the Minister of Justice of Quebec and get some form of reciprocal agreement with that province.

I really do think that in the administration of justice this legislation is necessary, but let’s make it workable and if we are treating everyone within the system with a certain amount of justice and lawyers are trying to get adequately paid -- and it is tough -- if we are causing this type of inconvenience to witnesses, let’s give them enough. They are not in it to make money. The disruption of ending up some place else is bad enough but at least there should be sufficient funds to be able to survive while you are there.

Mr. Wildman: By the way, I have a subpoena for you.

Mr. Sterling: From out of the province? If the member opposite did have a subpoena for me he would also have with him in his hand the conduct money necessary for me to appear in that other court in that other jurisdiction.

I agree with the members opposite that the money is not enough, but the fact of the matter is this legislation is identical in the schedule, in the money, in every other aspect with the legislation in the other provinces. The amount, I also indicate, is the minimum amount. Once the witness appears in the trial he has every right in section 7 in Ontario -- and a similar section appears in all the legislation in other jurisdictions -- to ask for what it is costing him to stay in that area.

The money has to go out. As you know the subpoena often goes out quite some time in advance of the trial. Therefore, the money is going out on the front end. We wanted to keep the legislation in tune, as an exact replica of the legislation in the other areas, because it is basically what has been recommended to us by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. Therefore, we put those amounts in. Again I indicate those are minimum amounts. You can ask the courts for additional amounts of money if those amounts are going to be incurred.

The other thing -- I didn’t know this and I had asked the question the member for Ottawa East asked about Quebec. I thought, why isn’t Quebec under this piece of legislation. The answer I got was there is legislation that actually goes back to pre-Confederation days which is still in force and is enforceable in the courts, which allows witnesses to be subpoenaed from one province to the other. By evidence of this piece of legislation we would be quite willing to go along with Quebec and have them pass a similar piece of legislation which would automatically opt them into it as well as the provinces that are already there.

I hope that this answers the questions of the other members.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.