Hansard Transcripts 1983-Nov-29 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The acting Minister of Health (Mr. Wells) has had a tremendous degree of difficulty over the last number of months because he has been asked not only to fulfil his responsibilities as House leader, but also to take trusteeship over the portfolio that expends the greatest amount of public funds.

In that regard, he has been faced with a double difficulty, but as opposition critics we have also been faced with a double difficulty. A number of questions have been raised by both myself and my party, and by the leader of the New Democratic Party and his critic, over a number of months and the minister has promised he would investigate the situations and report back to the House. In many instances, the reporting back to the House has not occurred.

I wonder if the Speaker could take it upon himself, in his role as the arbiter of affairs in the Legislature, to make sure that when the minister, acting in his capacity as Minister of Health, gives an undertaking to report back to the House, this is done on every single occasion.

Mr. Speaker: After listening very attentively, I would have to tell the honourable member she has failed to establish a point of order. However, I noticed the acting Minister of Health did pay very close attention to what she was saying and I am sure he will act accordingly.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: I think I have reported back on a number of occasions and in generalities in regard to a number of specifics about nursing homes. I have also indicated I did not think I would discuss the personal details of overbilling charges and so forth in this Legislature because I do not think it is the place to discuss them. They are all being investigated.

As my friend knows, the estimates for the Ministry of Health begin next Monday. All the various matters that have been brought up have been itemized and will be dealt with there. The leader of the third party asked me about that yesterday. I told him I certainly would not want to have everything cleaned up so the member would not have anything to handle in the 15 hours of estimates starting on Monday. If the member has a specific question she would like answered, I would be happy to bring that forward.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, there has also been a difficulty because of the unfortunate circumstance of the illness of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) and now the illness of the acting minister. There are a number of questions to which I have not heard answers. Is there a statute of limitations in terms of how long we are to wait for them?

One of my questions was about the Social Assistance Review Board taking forever to respond. It is now having that record beaten by the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: As I had ruled earlier, it was not a point of order. However, I allowed the honourable member to make his point of whatever. I am sure the acting Minister of Health (Mr. Wells) will take your comments into consideration.

Ms. Copps: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker: The acting minister asked whether I was prepared to provide specifics with respect to his nonresponse to questions that have been tabled in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would have to ask you to put that question to the minister during the proper time.

Ms. Copps: Just on the point, Mr. Speaker,

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order with all respect.

Ms. Copps: The acting minister did say he would report back to the House.

Mr. Speaker: He will.

Ms. Copps: He asked me to provide specifics and I am prepared to provide them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would suggest you make him aware of your problems at the proper time. We are now going to have oral questions.

Ms. Copps: I do not wish to press the matter, Mr. Speaker, but I did understand the minister to say --

Mr. Speaker: You are pressing the matter, of course.

Ms. Copps: -- he would be prepared to entertain an update on the situation about which he has promised to report to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure he will.

Mr. Henderson: Where is the leader over there?

Ms. Copps: Where is the leader over here? Where are all the cabinet ministers?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, will you entertain a motion to adjourn the House until we get some ministers in here, so we can ask some questions.

Mr. Speaker: No, we are proceeding to oral questions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on the point that was addressed by the member for Ottawa East, I do not think the member is being totally specious in his suggestion.

Mr. Speaker: I did not suggest that.

Ms. Copps: You must realize that when we have a full front bench here, it is very disconcerting to look on the government side of the House and see that there are very few ministers who are even in position to answer questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Disconcerting as it may be, it is not my responsibility to assure attendance in this chamber.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues were just trying to give the ministers some time to appear. They were trying to do the government a favour. God knows, they need help at the moment.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RAPE TRIAL DECISION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) -- and, according to the list, I was under the impression he was going to he here today -- I will ask a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice with respect to the very disturbing and incredible case I am sure he is aware of. I know the Attorney General has been aware of it for some time. That is the decision yesterday of Mr. Justice O'Brien to jail a rape victim in Ottawa. We have the bizarre situation where a rape victim has been jailed and the alleged rapists are going free.

What steps are the secretary and the Attorney General putting into motion immediately in order to rectify that incredible injustice?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would have to say the Attorney General is particularly concerned about that from a number of fronts.

It is rather interesting that in that very trial, I am told, a number of people were there supporting the rape victim in her quest not to testify and were extremely delighted when she was granted the right not to say anything at a particular point when the crown attorney, in essence, did not pursue the matter. That was followed by another situation on the other side of the courtroom where other people within the courtroom, supporting perhaps the side of the accused, gave the same kind of support as those cheering for the rape victim, with the same volume. It was a rather interesting and bizarre case.

2:10 p.m.

I know the Attorney General has called for a transcript on the matter of the trial. As well, he has looked into the issue of the contempt case. The contempt case has now been dealt with by Mr. Justice O'Brien. That has to be dealt with on the merits, and I am sure he looked at it in a proper way. However, I know the Attorney General is particularly concerned with the issue and has called for a transcript on the matter involving the trial itself per se and is concerned about the issue of the contempt case as well. The matter is before him and is being considered by him. No doubt he might have some observations to make at another time.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be aware that the victim has gone to jail for seven days. By the time the Attorney General comes back to this House, or shows his head, the sentence may be over. Clearly, this requires action today.

Is the minister, as the Provincial Secretary for Justice, as the superminister of justice, prepared to instruct or work with the Attorney General to launch an appeal immediately from the crown so that this young lady will not have to spend seven days in jail on a contempt charge?

Surely he has an obligation to take this stain off the precedent books of Ontario, and that is one way in which he could proceed immediately to protect rape victims in this province. Would he do that today.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I believe the Attorney General will be here, as someone notified me a moment ago, in a few minutes. In any case, as the chief law officer of the crown, he would be the one who would have to take any decision involving an appeal. However, he can certainly expect any support I could give him.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, the complainant in the rape case is in jail. What action can this government take today to procure the release of that complainant from the jail in Ottawa? Can it be done through the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk)? Can it be done by order in council of the government of Ontario? Can it be done immediately? That is the crucial and key question before the minister.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate that is a decision the chief law officer of the crown must take. Constitutionally, that is his responsibility and he will take it; he will have to make the decision, whatever it might be. Remember that a court acting with proper jurisdiction has made a decision and made the decision the member has spelled out today.

Mr. Cassidy: Doesn't the government ever make decisions?

Hon. Mr. Walker: If there is to be an appeal, the crown attorney and the Attorney General will have to make that decision. That is their responsibility.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister in his capacity as the secretary for justice policy is aware that this is not an isolated incident. Surely he is aware that both Debbie Parent, of the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre, and representatives of the Ottawa Rape Crisis Centre, deal on a daily basis with victims who are afraid to carry on through the justice system.

Surely the minister must recognize it is the responsibility of his government since statistics at present indicate that nine out of 10 women in this province who are raped will not go to court and will not fight their case.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Copps: Surely the minister has to accept some responsibility and has to agree that the best way of attacking the problem would be by calling together all of the parties involved, including the Attorney General, who wrote to me on this issue last June, and making sure the Attorney General, in concert with the assistant crown attorney for the city of Ottawa, launches the appeal of a precedent-setting jail sentence for a victim who has come forth in a rape case.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that this is a very complicated case. It has many sides that are conundrums, no matter which way one looks into the issue.

Mr. Renwick: No. it isn't. It is a very simple case.

Mr. Cassidy: There is a woman in jail.

Mr. Renwick: The law has made a mistake.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that when the Attorney General is here, he will make a decision relating to the question of any appeal, if there is to be one launched. That is his constitutional responsibility, and I can assure the member he will take that responsibility properly.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Peterson: Everything is complicated, but surely there are matters of right and wrong and justice and injustice.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: This is clearly an injustice and the minister has to respond in these kinds of injustice. Surely that is his responsibility. We do not need a lecture on the difficulty of this situation.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: We need action now. My question to the minister is this. This obviously raises a number of broad policy questions that fall clearly under the minister's responsibility. One relates to the protection of victims. This particular victim was, shall we say, not particularly satisfied in her own mind with the quality of the protection she was offered.

It raises the question of expert witnesses also. The minister will recall in this case that Cindy Moriarty, the director of the Ottawa Rape Crisis Centre, was not allowed to testify, even though she had counselled some 1,000 rape victims in the past and could have shed some light and given expert testimony on the state of mind of the accused at that time. It has obviously raised the question of the funding of the victim advocacy centres across this province. That is clearly the minister's responsibility.

Is the minister prepared now to respond to the invitation of a number of people involved in victim advocacy in crimes of violence and rape, to put together a high level group to deal with those very special problems that are not being dealt with now under the laws of either Ontario or the Dominion?

Hon. Mr. Walker: The Attorney General and I met with the advocacy people as recently as a week ago. Certainly, we are prepared to put together the necessary group of people to resolve the issue. We feel there is a compelling problem out there. We recognize that situation and we intend to address it. We have indicated that in respect of other aspects of victimology. I certainly think victim justice will become the entire theology of our government over this next year as it relates to justice. That is what the member can expect over the next round.

Mr. Peterson: I do not know how the minister can talk about victimology in this House when we know the statistics, when he knows because of this case other rape victims will he discouraged from coming forward, let alone testifying; because here we have a victim in jail. Surely that case stands in stark contrast to anything the minister has said in the many speeches and books he has published on the subject. This has to be rectified in order to get the message out very clearly.

Will the minister guarantee to those people involved with the victim advocacy clinics -- as he knows, a number are in danger of closing down in the very near future; we have a crisis in our own home town of London -- that those advocacy clinics will not have to close, and will he not go on saying forever that it is a provincial-federal battle? Will he guarantee they will not fall between the cracks of federal-provincial jurisdiction? Will he make that guarantee as he did on the transition homes?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think the Leader of the Opposition is somewhat confused about the kind of clinics that are around. He realizes, of course, that there are rape crisis centres and that rape crisis centres have received funding under this government. Indeed, I was the secretary a few years ago who provided the funding for rape crisis centres across this province. We do not have to listen to a lecture from him on the matter or take second seat to anyone across this country in respect to the rape crisis centres.

Second, when it comes to victim advocacy centres such as those for battered wives, which he seems to be delving into for the moment in broadening his question somewhat, on the basis of the statements made by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. McCaffrey) and by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) just a few weeks ago, along with myself, we intend to take the necessary steps to ensure that the clinics, the various counselling centres and the shelters across this province will not in any way be imperilled for funding reasons.

We intend to sort out a new formula by the new year that will relate to consistent funding in the matter of the shelters across this province. I do not think we need to take a lecture from the member when we are in no way shirking our duty. In fact, we can say our duty is being met and being met well.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that, apart from the question of the rape crisis centres and the transition houses and the counselling services contained therein, there is an important question he has missed; that is, funding for those centres that are specifically providing legal advice for people who have been the victims of crime either in the home or elsewhere. The minister knows perfectly well that is the question that was put to him both with respect to the centre in London and other centres.

Those centres have been funded on a seed basis only, and the minister knows this, by the federal government. He knows funding is running out. Is the provincial government prepared to find funding for those organizations that are providing legal, psychiatric and therapeutic advice both for the victims of crimes and the perpetrators of those crimes in order that we can finally get to the root of this problem and provide people with the kind of assistance they really need?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party is simply reiterating the question asked by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) on Friday. It was asked of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) and relates to the advocacy clinics for battered wives. The two that come to mind, of course, are Hiatus House in Windsor and the Battered Wives Advocacy Clinic in London. We have been talking to members of those two clinics. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and I met with members of the London Battered Wives Advocacy Clinic last Tuesday. We are satisfied that we are going to see enough support to continue the advocacy clinics in one way or another.

At the moment they are funded, as the honourable member says, by the federal government. There are assessments that are coming in. The one from London will he due by the end of December; it is now two months late, but it will be brought in by the end of December. The one from Hiatus House is due at the end of February. These were brought into the funding arrangements initially, and we expect to see the assessments of them. When the assessments are in, we will form an opinion on the advocacy clinics themselves.

However, I still stand by the original point I made. Whether we are talking about the advocacy clinic itself, a shelter or, in the case of Hiatus House, both a shelter and an advocacy clinic, none of them will close as a result of impending peril or emergency funding. That will not be a problem over the next while. We have given that assurance and we intend to fulfill it.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am happy the minister is lauding his government's performance on the issue of rape crisis centres. I wonder whether he can explain to us why Debbie Parent from the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre, who was a full-time employee, is now on the unemployment rolls of this province because her rape crisis centre does not have the funding to carry on a full-time, full-staff component. Can the minister answer to Debbie Parent here in this House as to why the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre has had to reduce its staff from five full-time counsellors to two because of a funding crisis?

Hon. Mr. Walker: We are now back on to rape crisis centres, Mr. Speaker. The Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres across this province was granted a significant sum of money. Most recently that funding was renewed, and the funding is being administered by them.

If Ms. Parent has been discharged or let go from the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre, then presumably it was because they concluded that they had other purposes for the moneys they receive. However, we have no indication that there is any widespread unemployment among the workers within the rape crisis centres of this province. If that is the case, then we would like to hear more. But at the moment we are satisfied, and we have been satisfied in the past, that the amounts granted have been sufficient for their purposes. That has been the indication over the last while. If there are some exceptions, we would like to hear about them.

DETENTION OF RAPE VICTIM

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Attorney General is not here. I therefore have to address my question to the Provincial Secretary for Justice. I draw the provincial secretary's attention to the provisions of the Charter of Rights:

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

Further on it says:

"Everyone has the right on arrest or detention to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to he released if the detention is not lawful."

Will the Provincial Secretary ask or advise the Attorney General to take action immediately to produce the body of the person detained in the jail in Ottawa before the Chief Justice of Ontario to determine whether that detention is lawful and in accordance with fundamental principles of justice?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the answer remains the same as to the earlier question. The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the crown and must take a decision on the matter of whether an appeal will be forthcoming and whether, for that matter, a question of habeas corpus will he entertained. This is something the Attorney General must decide on his own in his constitutional responsibility as the chief law officer of the crown. The honourable member can expect his opinion as soon as he arrives, I am sure.

Mr. Renwick: Why was the crown law officer in the court in Ottawa so ambivalent with respect to the submissions made to the court that he did not join with defence counsel to deplore any suggestion that the complainant be placed in jail in this instance? Will the provincial secretary ask the Attorney General whether he knows of any other instance in any civilized country where a complainant in a rape case has been jailed for failure out of fear to give evidence in court?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Of course, I cannot answer in a specific case why a specific decision was made by a specific member of that court or why the crown attorney might make a certain kind of decision. I cannot offer comment on that, and it remains the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. I can draw to his attention the comments the member has made and his latter comments in respect of a specific case in any other part of the Commonwealth. That I will undertake to do.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I find the response of the Provincial Secretary for Justice somewhat disappointing, given that just a few weeks ago he was making comments in this House about the abuse of victims, abuse towards women, etc. Considering that this particular case is not something that should be news to the government -- this matter has been festering now for a number of months; the provincial secretary has known that this matter was coming up and that it was coming up before the courts -- can he explain why it is that he is not able to give some explanation or at least some answers to the questions being asked about the actions of the Attorney General and his ministry?

Why is it that he cannot tell us the crown will be looking into launching an appeal, considering the submissions made by crown counsel in this case, not asking -- as I understand his submissions, from press reports -- for a jail term? Why is it he cannot give us some explanation as to the protection given to the victim? Why is it that the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), or at least the Provincial Secretary for Justice himself, is not standing in this House and telling the citizens of Ontario the type of protection being given to victims of this type of case, because it is nothing new that motorcycle clubs threaten their victims? Can he give us some explanation as to the type of protection given to the victim by the police in this particular case?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, why does he not ask the Solicitor General that question?

Mr. Roy: I can't. You have to redirect the question.

Mr. Speaker: Is that a referral?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, has there been a --

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. Was that a referral or not?

Mr. Roy: Yes. It was a referral to the Solicitor General.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, let me take the question. In terms of the specific police action in that particular courtroom as it relates to that particular witness and that victim, one has to inquire of the Ottawa police, presumably, for the answer. I am not in a position to answer that.

I do not have the responsibility as Provincial Secretary of Justice for the actual day-to-day running of the courts. That is the responsibility of the Attorney General and, through him, the crown attorney. That is a question that has to be posed to him. The member cannot expect me to have the answer to that kind of question.

Mr. Roy: Will you allow a referral to the Solicitor General?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Why don't you ask the question when you have a moment?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: I seldom want to lecture anybody about elementary law in the province, but the prerogative writ of habeas corpus means that you produce before a judge at any hour of the day or night the person who is claimed to be unlawfully detained and find out whether or not that detention is lawful.

Will the provincial secretary urge the Attorney General to produce the person before the court today, whatever the hour of the day or night may be, before the most convenient judge of the High Court of Justice available wherever that person may be, to determine whether or not that detention is in accordance with fundamental principles in the charter?

Hon. Mr. Walker: The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) can rest assured that the concerns he has raised relative to habeas corpus will be brought immediately to the attention of the Attorney General. However, it must be the Attorney General who formulates an opinion on that; it is his constitutional responsibility. I will see to it that the Attorney General has this matter brought to his attention within the half hour or the hour -- maybe sooner.

2:30 p.m.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: We have one minister who is not prepared to speak on this very serious matter, we have another minister who is apparently unaware of what is being questioned and we have a third minister who feels the Grey Cup parade is more important to him than addressing this issue.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member please resume her seat?

Ms. Copps: The Attorney General should be here in the House to answer this question. Why is he not here instead of at the Grey Cup parade?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a point of privilege.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that ITT Aimco of Mississauga, a company with a serious accident record and a long history of failure to guard machinery properly, of contraventions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and of receiving orders -- often repeat orders -- from the Ministry of Labour, has suspended Dennis Bascom, the worker health and safety representative, for three days without pay, starting today, for carrying out his responsibilities under the act?

If the minister is aware of that, what action is he prepared to take to ensure that this suspension is rescinded immediately and to stop the company from taking further reprisals against employees who exercise their rights and responsibilities under the act?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that particular circumstance, but I will be pleased to look into it just as soon as question period is over today.

Mr. Wildman: In his investigations, I hope the minister will try to determine what led to the issuance of the letter of suspension yesterday after Mr. Bascom had advised operators not to operate a press without proper guarding following an accident resulting in the serious injury of another operator and after Ministry of Labour inspectors had issued an order that the company install proper guarding on that press and after the company had complied with that order.

Will he also look into the question of whether this letter of suspension threatens further reprisals up to perhaps termination of employment for this health and safety rep and whether this is not a direct contravention of section 7 and section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will be pleased to look into the matter personally and expeditiously.

Mr. Wildman: In his investigations, I hope the minister will attempt to determine whether he should maintain his confidence in this so-called internal responsibility system when he is faced by irresponsible, flagrant and continuous contraventions of the act by companies like ITT Aimco. Is he prepared to make a decision to prosecute ITT and other companies who harass and take reprisals against employees who attempt to use the act to improve safety in their work places?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: With respect, I do not agree with the broad statement made by the honourable member about the responsibility of the industrial sector. Certainly there are isolated cases of irresponsibility, and those are the ones we try to deal with. I will certainly be more than happy and anxious to look into the matter he has brought to my attention.

VISITOR

Mr. Conway: Before I put my question, Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the Legislature will want to join with me in welcoming the very distinguished former member for Simcoe Centre, Mr. Arthur Evans, who appears very hale and hearty, in the government members' gallery.

CONTRACT TENDERS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. It concerns the contracts entered into by the Ministry of Industry and Trade and Donald R. Martyn and Associates in the amount of $153,000 for the setting up and opening of the various technology centres in Ontario.

In today's London Free Press, the former Minister of Industry and Trade, the now Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker), is quoted as saying that written contracts do exist for that amount of money, in excess of $153,000. But, to quote the provincial secretary, these are not contracts drawn up by lawyers; rather, they are -- quoting him -- directly "letters of understanding."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: Can the Chairman of Management Board indicate to this House whether these letters of understanding, which exist between the Ministry of Industry and Trade and Donald R. Martyn and Associates and which led to the expenditure of $153,000 on an untendered basis, are letters of contract for purposes of the Ontario Manual of Administration?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, we have been through this issue several times. As the honourable member knows, and I am sure his memory is better than it would appear to be from his question, I have not seen anything that is a contract or a letter of intent -- or whatever kind of witchhunt he is on -- at Management Board. He knows that, and I hope he will remember it.

Mr. Conway: In view of the fact that the public Treasury has been drawn down in excess of $153,000 by this particular untendered contract to the friend of the Provincial Secretary for Justice, in an apparent flagrant violation of the Manual of Administration, which is much touted by the Premier (Mr. Davis) as being among the most thorough and comprehensive anywhere in the Dominion of Canada --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: Can the minister indicate whether those letters of understanding meet any of the rules of the Management Board and, in particular, the Manual of Administration?

Furthermore, given that the Provincial Secretary for Justice is also quoted in today's London Free Press as saying that this is not an uncommon situation, can the Chairman of Management Board indicate just how widespread is the practice of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of public moneys on an untendered basis on the foundation of letters of understanding? This is something that can be found nowhere in this so-called most comprehensive Manual of Administration.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member is out looking for a little material for a certain event that is happening right now in a certain part of the province. I would have excused him if he could not have remembered what happened two weeks ago. However, he does not even remember what I said to him two minutes ago. I have not seen those, whatever they are.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary; the member for Etobicoke.

Mr. Conway: Who can indicate whether these letters of understanding are legal procedure?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Renfrew North please resume his seat?

Mr. Conway: Who can indicate on behalf of the government of Ontario that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member will please resume his seat. The member for Etobicoke.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, if the minister feels that the opposition is on a witchhunt then obviously he also feels that the Provincial Auditor is on a witchhunt.

In the light of the nonanswers that the minister gave to us in this House a few weeks ago, has he analysed the response of the Provincial Auditor which clearly condemned the minister for his abdication of responsibility and said that he, as the minister, and not just the Provincial Auditor, had a responsibility for looking at these contracts and finding out whether there was a violation of the Manual of Administration?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, no, I did not read anything in any report which indicated that.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the acting Minister of Health. First, I would like to report to him on another opting-out case. A Mr. Spencer in my home riding in Windsor was charged $232.70 in extra bills by an orthopaedic surgeon in Windsor.

Time after time the minister has said that people can get opted-in rates from opted-out doctors in areas where 50 per cent or more of the specialists are opted out. In the case I raised a couple of weeks ago, 100 per cent of those specialists in Guelph were opted out. Will the minister indicate how people can get opted-in rates from opted-out doctors when large numbers of specialists are opted out, in this case 50 per cent of the orthopaedic surgeons, and in the case in Guelph where 100 per cent are opted out? How can they get the service at opted-in rates?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside knows, the doctor to whom the person is going must indicate that he is opted out, and is going to charge above the Ontario health insurance plan fee schedule. At this point, if the patient indicates he would like someone who is opted in, the doctor may have some suggestions to make in that regard.

Philosophically my friends differ with me on this, but at times doctors will indicate they are willing to perform the service for the OHIP fee schedule. At that time, that problem has been solved for that patient. Certainly in my view it has.

2:40 p.m.

If that is not satisfactory, there is a telephone number and a service provided by the Ontario Medical Association which will attempt to get an opted-in doctor for that patient. That will be done and that doctor's nurse may even provide that service for the patient. While it may present a bit of a difficulty at the time to contact a few other doctors, it is possible for a person to get that service and have it provided at the OHIP fee schedule.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that the two alternatives are either spilling out one's financial difficulties to the doctor and asking for charity medicine where 100 per cent of the specialty is opted out in that region; or if it is not 100 per cent but 50 per cent, as it is in this case with the orthopaedic surgeons, is he saying that all of the patients who want services at opted-in rates have to wait in line for the few specialists who are opted in and therefore wait longer than those people who are wealthy enough to pay the extra bills? Does the minister not understand that is the two-class medical system we in this party oppose and have been complaining about?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, no, I do not accept the fact it is a two-class medical system. I suggest to my friend he has not looked at the alternatives. The alternative, for instance, of trying to force every doctor to opt into this system; the alternatives for this province to the very fine and excellent health care and medical system that has been developed, the kind of system that allows us to attract doctors here of great competence in certain specialities. There are a multitude of ramifications to this and the member takes a very simplistic approach to it which lacks a depth of knowledge of the health system.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the acting minister is taking a somewhat simplistic view of how deep and serious the problem is across the province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Copps: Bringing to the attention of the minister a case similar to the one raised by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke), I would like to ask the minister to investigate a case of a 57-year-old unemployed woman, whose husband is retired and on a disability pension and who was required to have a bone transplant performed on her hand. It was billed to her at a cost of $609. She received $357 from OHIP. This woman was not informed of the cost of the procedure, nor was she asked if she could afford to pay.

This woman, like many others across the province, is embarrassed to ask those kinds of questions and to reveal her desperate personal situation to orthopaedic surgeons and others. Does the minister not believe it is time for a study across the province to find out how many people who are paying opted-out rates are in a situation similar to this woman, who is in very dire financial circumstances and who was forced to pay an opted-out rate for surgery which was very critical to her?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, if my friend would give me the name and details, I will look into it. If that patient was not informed beforehand it is a violation and she is not bound to pay. When she gets the OHIP cheque, she should sign it, send it back, call the Ontario Medical Association, give the details and that is it. I want to emphasize that we have enacted regulations which make it mandatory that the patient be informed. If one is not so informed, there is no reason why that person should pay. He or she should not pay.

The college takes a very dim view and has alerted doctors by letter that this business of trying to inform patients two minutes before they go into an operating room is not acceptable. That has been done.

My friends over there fail to grasp what the real problem is in this province and what the real problem is in medicare in Canada. Instead of worrying about specific cases, which I maintain can be handled by the mechanisms set up by this government, by the Ontario Medical Association and by the college, we can guarantee universality and acceptability. The real problem in this country is the fact that the federal government is reducing funding for the health care system.

THUNDER BAY CRIME

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Correctional Services. Recently a tragic and brutal crime occurred in my riding. A 15-year-old girl, Corine Carlson, was murdered and her body mutilated when she was attacked while walking home from school. The 19-year-old youth who committed the crime was at the time of the attack on probation for one of many previous sexual criminal offences.

Needless to say, this crime has been the cause of considerable concern in my riding and in the city of Thunder Bay. On behalf of those concerned people I would like to present to the minister their concerns. Is the minister aware of this situation? Will he be responding to the concerns that many groups and individuals in the Thunder Bay area have expressed about this tragic incident? About 1,700 or 1,800 people have signed a petition, which the minister has now.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the unfortunate and tragic incident that has been brought forward in the House today by the member for Fort William. Although I have not been directly contacted in this regard, our director of probation and parole services has received numerous letters and is presently responding to those letters individually.

I would like to point out to the honourable member that as a minister of the crown I am concerned with the issue of public safety and, within the boundaries established by law and by the courts, the programs within my ministry have this focus as well as the rehabilitation of offenders.

Mr. Hennessy: In the light of this horrible crime, will the Ministry of Correctional Services be reviewing the conditions and procedures of the probation and parole system in Ontario with the aim of minimizing the possibility of such a crime happening again?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: It should be pointed out to the member that the level of intensity of supervision of probationers is determined largely by the conditions that the judge has seen fit to include in the probation order. In the supervision of probationers my staff have used various methods, which include face-to-face interviews, telephone contacts and contacts with other significant people in the offender's life, such as parents, the employer or school authorities.

In this particular instance there was contact with the offender. It occurred on a regular basis, at which time he appeared to the officer to be rational and coherent and gave no indication of any serious problems. In addition, his mother was contacted three times during the period between April and June.

It should also be pointed out that the law regarding probation as a sentencing option is contained in the Criminal Code of Canada and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada and the federal Parliament. However, the operation of the probation and parole services is part of my ministry and we believe a high level of service is currently being provided.

I want to assure the member for Fort William that we have also been vigilant over the years to adopt changes that improve our service. He may, however, wish to direct the petition from the Thunder Bay council to my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

2:50 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY INCOME FOR THE AGED

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I know the minister will recall the select committee report on pensions, which was tabled in this House in March 1982, and he will recall that it endorsed the following principle: that the government of Ontario should adopt and implement in all programs the principle that single pensioners aged 65 and over need not less than 60 per cent of the income required by a married couple.

The minister is also aware of the fact that in October of this year a single elderly person's income was only 52 per cent of that of a married couple, and that is down from 53.4 per cent in July 1980. Can the minister tell the House when he intends to bring forward measures to increase the guaranteed annual income system for the aged supplement to an amount equal to at least 60 per cent of an elderly couple's income?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference, what I think or what I want to do are immaterial. That is not within my jurisdiction. I told the member's leader that a couple of weeks ago. Those payments having nothing whatever to do with the Minister of Community and Social Services. I do not set the amount; I do not do anything.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is true, absolutely true.

Mr. Wrye: I will certainly agree with the minister that he does not do much. The fact of the matter is --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wrye: I have a supplementary and then the minister can play his jurisdictional games all over again.

The fact of the matter is that the Ontario Status of Women Council for one has reported that, of all unmarried women, close to one half of those over 65 and two thirds of those over 75 are below the poverty line. If the minister can escape from his jurisdictional games long enough, perhaps he can indicate to us how much more evidence his government needs before it recognizes the plight of these elderly people and sits down with the federal government and works out some kind of program? The Gains program comes under his ministry.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It does not. The Gains-A program is not a responsibility of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The rules of this House are very clear. A minister can answer only within his own jurisdiction.

Why we have a member who has appointed himself the critic who does not even know which minister is responsible for which program I know not. He has no excuse because, in fairness, his honourable leader asked me -- I do not expect the leaders to know -- the identical question some time ago. I guess the member does not pay any attention to him.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, with the minister's indulgence, I will redirect a supplementary question to the Treasurer, who does have the responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: Only the minister can redirect.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in fairness, it is not the Treasurer.

Mr. McClellan: He is the one who makes the decision. The Treasurer is the one who is sitting on it. We all know who makes the decision.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We would all like to hear the next question.

CHILD RESTRAINTS

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Revenue. Can the minister inform the House if it is the intention of his ministry to reimpose the provincial sales tax on child restraints come January 1, or does he intend to exempt them from here on in?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I should tell the honourable member that matter does not come under my jurisdiction.

Mr. Samis: Would the minister redirect that to the Treasurer then?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, no.

Mr. Samis: I am sorry. Did the Treasurer say no, he would not reimpose --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. No.

Mr. Speaker: The minister answered no. Was that your supplementary? New question, the member for Lanark.

PAYMENT FOR PRODUCE GROWERS

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Some months ago, a program was introduced to help the apple producers in eastern Ontario who had damage done by frost, snow and so on over the last two winters. I understand quite a few applications have been received by the ministry, but many of the people in Lanark and throughout eastern Ontario have not received any funds yet. Can the minister tell us when those funds might be available?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the program to which the honourable member refers is, in many respects, a joint federal-provincial program.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Why does it surprise members opposite that we can work together with the federal government? We do it on many things, whether it is red meat stabilization or crop insurance. We would like to work together with them on agribonds and any number of things. I do not why that would surprise the members opposite. I just wish the federal people would react sooner to the proposals we make to them.

At any rate, on this particular program, to deal with the replacement of apple trees in eastern Ontario that have died as a result of winter kill, we do have 36 applications to date. Because it is tied into the federal program, we have based it on the field inspections which the federal government has been carrying out. It was by mutual agreement that we would not duplicate one another's field inspections.

We have apparently, just in the last week or two, received those field inspections. So once these applications have been matched up with the field inspections, in other words, verified, then we can process the applications fairly quickly.

Mr. Wiseman: Since it is a joint venture between the federal and provincial governments, will the minister use his office to push the federal government to make sure that these payments are made as soon as possible?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Just to clarify it, the payments are to be made by us with respect to the payments for the tree stock. As I have said, we have only just received the federal field inspection report in the last week or 10 days. I would think the first of the cheques should go out some time this week or early next week from the provincial government, based on those field inspection reports.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, what is the delay? These trees were killed two or three years ago. Will the government pay interest to these farmers in the amount it is paying them, as in the case of Re-Mor?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the honour able member may not be aware of the program. The program that the provincial government has provided is to pay for the replacement trees. The federal program has a certain grant -- I am not sure if it is per tree or per acre; I guess it is per tree -- over a three-year period to assist them, so I think the member's question should more properly be placed in the House of Commons. Our program is simply to pay for the tree stock.

CONSERVATION AREA DIKES

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

There is an agreement between the government of Canada and Ontario, signed on March 20, 1974, by the Honourable Eugene Whelan, and on March 26, 1974, by the Honourable William A. Stewart, to share the cost to construct or reconstruct dikes to protect agricultural land from flooding in the counties of Essex and Kent and the regional municipality of Niagara, as authorized by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on November 14, 1973.

Can the minister tell us why his ministry has failed to live up to its agreed-to funding agreement with the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority for maintenance of the dikes constructed under this program, which was part of the agricultural and rural development agreement?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that we have failed to live up to our agreements. Normally, once we have committed ourselves to something, we live up to it. If the honourable member would like to send me some information about how he feels that we have in some way not done what we said we would do, I would he happy to look into it. If he is correct, we will rectify it, but to the best of my knowledge we have lived up to those agreements.

3 p.m.

Mr. McGuigan: I can help the minister out by this supplementary. It appears that it has been abrogated. According to an August 20, 1980, letter signed by Norm Watson, addressed to the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority, it is stated: "I am pleased to confirm that authority under order in council 2344/80 has been received by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food to provide assistance to the conservation authority for the establishment of easements and the maintenance of the diking works. The funding for the current year, 1980-81, is $110,000."

The first bill has been submitted for $33,000 and has been turned down. I would certainly appreciate the minister looking into this.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would he happy to look into it. The honourable member in the prelude to his question said, "it appears." Oftentimes when I look into matters like this, it is a matter of a difference of interpretation or understanding. If he would send the material over to me or send it to my office, I will be happy to look into it and get him an answer as quickly as I can.

SHOTGUNS IN THE WORK PLACE

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour about the use of shotguns in the work place. Is the minister aware of the use of eight-gauge industrial shotguns in pulp and paper mills in the province for shooting lime buildups from lime kilns in the kraft process? Can he explain why there are absolutely no regulations in the Occupational Health and Safety Act governing the use of such firearms in the industrial work place?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the question comes as a complete surprise to me.

Mr. Foulds: If it comes as a complete surprise to the minister, can he investigate the use of these shotguns in the pulp and paper mills of the province? In particular, will he investigate the use of them at the kraft mills, the Great Lakes Forest Products mill in Thunder Bay and the Domtar mill at Red Rock? Will he ensure that there are proper procedures, proper training programs for the operators, proper safety devices for the guns, proper disposal of the misfired cartridges and proper storage of the shells and the guns themselves?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will be pleased and, in fact, rather interested to look into this matter.

THUNDER BAY CRIME

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, my question is further to one asked by my colleague the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy). Would the Minister of Correctional Services clarify whether the convicted individual referred to was released as the result of a parole board order or in response to the sentence handed out to him by the court?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, the offender had been sentenced to a period of incarceration as well as a period on probation. He had satisfied his sentence, and there was no further authority for the Ministry of Correctional Services to detain him. He was out in the community lawfully and serving a period of 12 months' probation. Yes, it was the decision of the court.

EDUCATIONAL FUNDING

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Education. Given the way things are going today, if she does not feel like answering, perhaps she would redirect it to the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman).

Given her government's determination to pursue restraint, as witnessed by the Treasurer's statement of November 8, would she confirm or deny the rumour that is currently making the rounds of school board administrators that the general legislative grants for education will be pegged at a 3.7 per cent increase per pupil over last year's grants, with a remaining 1.3 per cent of the allowable five per cent going to superannuation payments?

At the same time, could she confirm or deny the other popular rumour among the school administrators of this province that the government intends to offer some kind of incentive to municipalities to keep their mill rates, as they relate to education requirements, down to five per cent? Is the government going to offer them an incentive as it did last year?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed at the fecundity of the minds of school administrators.

Mr. Conway: Fecundity?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Fecundity. Do you know that word?

Interjections.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Thank you. I might have known.

There is no truth to either rumour.

Mr. Van Horne: Given that these rumours are flying around and given the need for school administrators to plan for their needs and activities next year, could the minister give us some indication as to when she is going to let them know the conditions for the legislative grants to the municipalities for this coming year?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As soon as the information is made available to all of us within cabinet, there is a general announcement about the grant which the school boards receive and then use their sharp pencils to divide. The regulations under the general legislative grant usually require an additional six weeks for full development and for sharing.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Mr. Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine with a new question.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Some hon. members: It's post time.

Mr. Robinson: Behind the post.

Mr. Ruston: That is behind the post.

Ms. Bryden: Yesterday representatives of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses from all across the province were calling on members. I understand the minister did not give them an appointment. Whether he was hiding in his office, I do not know.

Therefore, I would like to ask him the question the representatives were asking all members and which relates to one of the key recommendations of the social development committee in its report on wife battering. In view of the wide variation in services for battered women and children that municipalities are prepared to cost share, will the minister accept the recommendation of the committee for special legislation dealing exclusively with wife battering and family violence, which would include legislated standards that must be met by all shelters or transition houses in order to ensure quality care for the victims of battering and also a guarantee of funding for the provision of such services?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, first, if I can correct the member, who as usual is a little bit off, I had a most engaging conversation and I met for quite some time yesterday with Madame Pelletier, who is the community leader responsible for putting in the new organization in Kapuskasing.

I would like to make it very plain, with some of the raucous remarks about post time, I do not associate the member for Beaches-Woodbine with post time. The answer to her is no.

RAPE TRIAL DECISION

Mr. Roy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: When the question period started today, we were advised by the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) would he here to make a statement about this very important case in Ottawa. We were misled by the minister because the question period is over and the Attorney General is not here. We do not have our statement.

Mr. Speaker: As I said earlier, it is not my responsibility to ensure attendance.

Mr. Roy: You should ensure something.

Mr. Speaker: Just one moment. I did hear somebody on this side saying he was on the list to be here. I am sure this is what the minister was --

An hon. member: He used the term "misled."

Mr. Speaker: Yes. He is going to withdraw that because he was not aware he used that word.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: You accused somebody of misleading this chamber. I would ask you to withdraw that.

Mr. Roy: The Provincial Secretary for Justice told us that the Attorney General would be here and he is not. I would have thought that was misleading. I thought he misled us. However, if you say the word is unparliamentary -- and, of course, I do not want to say anything which is unparliamentary -- then what do you call a minister who tells us one thing and another thing happens? Is this "confusing"?

If it is unparliamentary, I will withdraw it. However, I still think the minister should not get up and make statements in the House which he cannot backup and which are not statements of fact. The Attorney General is not here to make a statement and the question period is over.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Not only was it unparliamentary, it was unacceptable.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I rise to correct the record. While I appreciate the comments that were made in my absence yesterday by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and his quoting of my letter to him of February 28 in support of the trapping industry in northern Ontario and in this country -- and I appreciate his taking my words to heart -- I should point out that it is a little unfair for the minister to quote those words out of context and to give the impression that in some way I was disagreeing with the bill presented by my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip).

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege. The Minister of Natural Resources on a point of privilege.

Mr. Martel: He deliberately misled the House.

Hon. Mr. Pope: The members of the opposition cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Martel: Don't come around here and mislead us.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of privilege, the honourable member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms. Bryden: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to correct the record and state to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) that when I said he was not available for an appointment, he was not available in the period between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. when the group had indicated that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege with all respect. Order, please.

PETITIONS

ABORTION CLINICS

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, my petition is addressed to the honourable Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and the Ontario Legislature. I wish to present a petition from my constituents and many of my colleagues' constituents who believe that abortion clinics are the first step towards even more relaxed abortion laws.

"We petition the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature of Ontario to strike a committee to determine what it can do to protect unborn children and then to take steps to follow these directions.

"We further petition the government of Ontario to continue to uphold the law against abortion clinics, while doing all in their power to promote those groups which offer alternatives to abortion."

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to append to this 48,000 signatures. I would suspect that is probably the largest petition ever presented to this Legislature.

COURT DECISION

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the government, asking the Attorney General to appeal the decision of Judge Galligan of the superior court in the Verdon case.

"The decision of the honourable judge was, in our opinion, not severe enough. Two years for the crime that was committed hardly seems adequate. We are not seeking vengeance, but we would like to think that our communities are safe for our children and everybody else. However, this criminal, after being found guilty, got away with two years because the judge took his 15 months' waiting period into consideration. He spent that time in a halfway house, during which time he was suspected of having committed other crimes.

"As we mentioned before, we are not after revenge; we are asking for a reconsideration of the present verdict and justice. Is it too much to ask for?"

This is signed by 2,965 people of the Ottawa area and was sent to me by the parents of the late Jason Verdon.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

POWERS OF ATTORNEY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 132, An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have a companion bill and I would prefer to make a statement at the end of it, if I may.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, seconded by Hon. Mr, Gregory, first reading of Bill 133, An Act to amend the Mental Health Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General was unfortunately called away on an urgent family problem. I would like to make the following statement on his behalf.

In 1979 the Legislature enacted a new Powers of Attorney Act which, for the first time, permitted a person to give a power of attorney that would survive mental incapacity. The amendments I am introducing today respond to a legal problem that has been encountered under the Powers of Attorney Act by a number of families in Ontario, in which a family member is suffering from Alzheimer's disease or some other disease in which mental capacity gradually diminishes.

The current legislation provides that where a person who has been hospitalized in a psychiatric facility is certified by a physician to be incapable of managing his or her affairs, the public trustee automatically by statute becomes responsible for management of the patient's estate and any power of attorney is terminated. Where the hospitalized person had previously given an enduring power of attorney, he or she may have intended that it was precisely in these circumstances that a trusted family member would be able to manage his or her affairs. Our current law operates to defeat this intention.

The amendments I am introducing today will allow the donor of a power of attorney, in addition to stating expressly that the power will survive legal incapacity, to provide that, in case he or she is hospitalized, the attorney may continue to manage the donor's estate and the public trustee shall not assume management. I have had the full co-operation and assistance of the public trustee and representatives of the Alzheimer society in developing these amendments.

The bill amending the Mental Health Act is complementary to the Powers of Attorney Amendment Act. In addition, this bill recognizes the need to provide safeguards for those rare cases where an attorney under a power of attorney acts fraudulently or negligently. The public trustee will be able to apply to a court to have his powers restored where there is evidence of wrongdoing.

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Lane, first reading of Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

3:20 p.m.

TECO MINES AND OILS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Cureatz moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, first reading of Bill Pr52, An Act to revive Teco Mines and Oils Limited.

Motion agreed to.

OTTAWA CIVIC HOSPITAL ACT

Mr. Roy moved, seconded by Mr. Sweeney, first reading of Bill Pr43, An Act respecting the Ottawa Civic Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

BROCKVILLE ROWING CLUB INC. ACT

Mr. Runciman moved, seconded by Mr. Eves, first reading of Bill Pr46, An Act respecting the Brockville Rowing Club Inc.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day. I would like to table the answers to questions 336, 339, 340, 345, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 356, 357 and 359; an addendum to the answer to question 355, which was tabled on November 21, 1983; and a response to a petition presented to the House, sessional paper 205 standing on the notice paper [see Hansard for Friday, December 2].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it was the wish of the House last night in committee of supply to conclude the estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. However, one item was not put to the House and reported back. I am going to suggest that while it does not show on the order paper today, we go to the 51st order first to clean up that order of business.

ORDERS OF TILE DAY

House in committee of supply.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

On vote 904, economic policy program; item 3, industrial leadership and development fund:

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Edighoffer): Shall vote 904 carry?

Vote 904 agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of supply reported a certain resolution.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 68, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Bill 90, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Bill 92. An Act to amend the Health Disciplines Act;

Bill 106, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act;

Bill 107, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act;

Bill 97, An Act respecting Central Trust Company and Crown Trust Company.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Gillies moved, on behalf of Mr. Shymko, second reading of Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

SILVERSTONE OIL COMPANY LIMITED ACT

Mr. Gillies moved, on behalf of Mr. Hodgson, second reading of Bill Pr22, An Act to revive Silverstone Oil Company Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

SMYTH TOWN PLOT LAND ACT

Mr. Gillies moved, on behalf of Mr. Havrot, second reading of Bill Pr33, An Act respecting Certain Land in the Town Plot of Smyth, in the District of Nipissing.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

3:30 p.m.

EASTERN PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE ACT

Mr. Gillies moved, on behalf of Mr. Pollock, second reading of Bill Pr34, An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal Bible College.

Motion agreed to.

MASSEY HALL AND ROY THOMSON HALL ACT

Mrs. Scrivener moved second reading of Bill Pr44, An Act respecting The Corporation of Massey Hall and Roy Thomson Hall.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since it is second reading, perhaps I could say a word or two about the bill. I believe that is in order at this time.

I have no particular comments on the technicalities of the bill with respect to the way in which it establishes the corporation to run the new Massey Hall. However, at the time the hall was completed I think a great number of people did have concerns over the decision by the governors of Massey Hall to choose the name of Roy Thomson to grace the hall.

I gather that after a great deal of research it has been discovered that Mr. Thomson was a devotee of the bagpipes and that this was his one known element of musical pleasure and participation. Frankly, while the new Massey Hall is a magnificent structure, a magnificent place and something of which we can be proud as people of Ontario and as people of Toronto, it still sticks in my craw that, in return for a donation of about a 10th of the total cost of the hall, it should be named after a man whose contributions were as a capitalist, whose ventures with respect to any type of social utility were in large measure in the United Kingdom rather than in this country and who in this country has been noted for running his newspaper empire on the basis of a slide rule and a calculator rather than with any sense of social contribution to the communities in which his newspapers are located.

I also noted at the time that the technicalities of the way the donation was made, which I believe was $1 million per year over four or five years, meant that the donation of the Thomson family, while significant, was not as much of a cash outlay as one might have been led to think. The sum of $5 million over five years translates into perhaps $3 million or $3.5 million in present values at the interest rates that prevailed when the donation was announced.

In addition to that, half the value of the donation, since it is to a charitable donation, will come by means of a tax exemption and therefore is being made by the people of this province or by the people of Canada. The people of this city have made an ongoing contribution to the new Massey Hall by means of the exemption from the municipal property tax on the premises. We all make a contribution by means of the charitable exemptions that are given.

A great amount of money for the new Massey Hall came from the people of Ontario, and the question then is, would there have been a more suitable name that the people of this province might have urged on the trustees than Roy Thomson Hall in view of the fact that most of the money did come from taxpayers and not from the Thomson family?

I am struck by the suggestion that we might have honoured Glenn Gould -- and we might now honour him -- as the pre-eminent pianist of our generation in Canada, as a man whose interpretations of Bach, preserved on record, will go down as the definitive recording of Bach for many years to come, and that to have called the new Massey Hall Glenn Gould Hall in honour of that distinguished Canadian pianist might have been more appropriate.

I have heard suggestions that we might have honoured Sir Ernest MacMillan, whom I recall from my boyhood days when he used to conduct the Toronto Symphony Orchestra and when I used to deliver the Globe and Mail to him on Rosedale Valley Road.

Mr. Nixon: He didn't leave $9 million to the hall.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: I do not think the giving of money is the only thing that should be counted; or if it is money, and if you want to measure these things on the cash register nexus only -- and regrettably in Canada that was too often the watchword of Mr. Thomson -- then the contribution of the people of this province and of this country perhaps should have been recognized first, as it was the pre-eminent contribution, a much larger contribution than that made by the Thomson family.

I have heard it suggested that in return for its contribution -- which again, whatever the motive, I acknowledge is substantial -- the Thomson family might have had one of the practice halls, meeting halls or subareas within the new Massey Hall named in its honour. That is a possibility.

I would have thought that when this matter was considered in the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments, when the government was considering just what was happening, there would have been a bit more sensitivity to the contribution of ordinary people and perhaps to all those people who have devoted such time, effort and talent and often made such sacrifices in financial terms to the perpetuation and continuation of music in this city and province.

I am not going to move an amendment -- I suspect the rules would not permit it -- but I thought those comments should go on the record. Possibly one could seek to influence the trustees of Roy Thomson Hall or the new Massey Hall, suggesting to them that having made their acknowledgement of the gift, an acknowledgement of some of the pre-eminent, towering musical talent we have generated in Toronto and Ontario might be, even now, a more appropriate way to name the new Massey Hall.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to speak on this bill. Since my friend the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has made some remarks, I want to dissociate myself from those remarks. I do not want it misconstrued that some of us in this House might have agreed with those remarks. I feel I should say a few words about this bill.

I think it is unfortunate that there was a controversy over the naming of the new hall. It is a magnificent hall and a great addition to the city of Toronto, Metropolitan Toronto and the whole of Ontario. I would suggest that at the time Massey Hall was named, my friend might even have raised the same spectre of controversy over the naming of that hall

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker: If the Thomson family had paid for all of the hall, as the Massey family did in the case of Massey Hall, it would have been a different situation.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In any event, the member did mention something about the person after whom the hall was named being a capitalist and a free enterpriser, which I am sure the Masseys were also.

The point is, the trustees of the concert hall were the ones who had to pick the name. They picked the name and we can agree or disagree now with it, but the fact is that they did pick a name. As a lifelong resident of Metropolitan Toronto and Toronto, I want to say I do not disagree with calling the new centre Roy Thomson Hall.

We are all sorry there was a bit of controversy. I do not downgrade anyone for having an opinion pro or con. We probably could not have picked any name that everyone would have agreed on. The fact is that Roy Thomson --

Mr. Cassidy: Would you have disagreed with naming it after Glenn Gould?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly I would have been happy if they had called it --

Mr. Martel: How many people did he shaft in getting that money?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would have been happy if they had called it the Glenn Gould Hall or any other name. The fact remains that Roy Thomson was a prominent citizen of Ontario, a man who at one time with hardly two cents in his pocket slugged his way across northern Ontario and built for himself the kind of fortune which he did, and which is now being used in many cultural ways and for the betterment of society here and in a number of parts of the world. I think the people of the Metropolitan Toronto area --

Mr. Martel: How many people did he put on to get that money?

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It was my privilege to have known Roy Thomson. One did not necessarily have to agree with all his ideas or his manner of operation, but the fact is that he was a very eminent and prominent citizen of Ontario and a person who showed what can be done under the great system we have in Canada and the free world. He was the kind of person who could pull himself up from nothing, build a fortune and then make a significant contribution to, and mark in, the United Kingdom.

Roy Thomson Hall has now become a landmark in this area. The name is accepted; everyone says, "I am going to a concert at Roy Thomson Hall." It is now accepted and I suggest to my friends that in a few years from now no one will remember the controversy about the hall. All that will be remembered is that Roy Thomson Hall is a great landmark in this city. Many Canadians, many lovers of musical culture and other events will be able to continue to enjoy that hall for a good number of years to come.

I just want to go on record as supporting the name that has been proposed by the trustees. We should not forget that we did not have the responsibility for naming this hall; it was the trustees who had that. In my riding, we name schools after prominent Canadians. The school board has the responsibility and whether I like the names of the schools or not, I accept them.

Some of the names that we see are interesting. We have Winston Churchill Collegiate, Sir John A. Macdonald Collegiate, Sir Wilfrid Laurier Collegiate, Dr. Norman Bethune Collegiate, Agnes Macphail Public School and J. S. Woodsworth Public School.

All of the people of the community in those areas were not necessarily happy with those names, but they accept them.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, many members of the Legislature had an opportunity to discuss and debate this bill at the committee level. Those of us who sat on the committee are very pleased to see the bill brought back here to the Legislature and come to fruition. However, there must be some response made to those people who would get involved again with the name of this hall.

Down through the centuries, over the years, there have been many people who in many different ways would support the arts, whether painting, music, literature or what have you. Many people have felt within themselves that they did not have the ability to pursue any of those wonderful ways of enlarging their way of life but that they had the ability to provide some of the resources to those talented people. I have to think that down over the years, in many areas, and because I am of Italian extraction I think in particular of the great artists of those times, unless they had been provided with the resources we today would not be able to avail ourselves of the wonderful involvements of those people.

In this instance, this gentleman, who has provided somewhat of a means for those people to share their talents with us, certainly should be acknowledged. We on this side of the House are very pleased to support the bill in its present form.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

RESIDENTIAL COMPLEXES FINANCING COSTS RESTRAINT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 12, An Act to amend the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the bill which I introduced in the House last week will extend the sunset provision of the act for one year from December 31, 1983, to December 31, 1984. The bill will also make a complementary amendment of another date reference in that act.

As I told the House last week, it was my intention to have the recommendations of Commissioner Stuart D. Thom before this amending legislation was brought forward. However, the study has proven to be more time consuming than anticipated and it has not yet been completed.

The bill I am now introducing for second reading will allow the thorough consideration of Commissioner Thom's report and will allow any further legislative changes which may be required in the spring session.

I believe it necessary for this government to take the precaution of extending the sunset date of the act for one year. This will provide a continuation of interim protection for tenants until such time as more permanent legislation is in place.

Mr. Boudria: On behalf of our party, I would like to express a few words on Bill 128, An Act to amend the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act, 1982, or as we call it in layman's language, the pass-through bill. That is a little bit easier for me to say in any case.

Our party will be supporting the bill, as we have previously indicated to the minister. We recognize, given the time of the year, that we must do something to ensure we do not place tenants in the situation they found themselves in prior to the enactment of this law last year.

In so doing, we should remember the mandate which was placed on Stuart Thom, QC, last year when the minister gave the mandate to Mr. Thom. The Hansard of November 16, 1982, makes it clear to us that the minister indicated to the commissioner that he wished an early response to permit the use of section 33 of the Residential Tenancies Act. In other words, he wished Commissioner Thom would take it upon himself to ensure there was a speedy reply in that area of concern, mainly the rent registry portion of the Residential Tenancies Act.

As we know, that portion of the act has not been proclaimed because it is ultra vires the Constitution. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to have a rent registry program in this province.

I know the minister is going to say, when he stands up very shortly, that we do not want to be after Mr. Thom every day telling him what to do. I recognize that. If we do that, we cease to have the impartiality which we have vested in him to come up with a very objective and nonpartisan type of approach to the whole problem of residential tenancies.

Notwithstanding that, I do want to express my disappointment, perhaps not directly to the minister but for the record, so when Commissioner Thom reads the record it will assist him in bringing forward a speedier reply to these grave concerns which tenants have at the moment.

We all know Bill 128 is very necessary. Unfortunately, we must re-enact it for another year. I say "unfortunately," not because we are against the principle of the bill but in the sense that we find it unfortunate that the Commission of inquiry into Residential Tenancies report -- not just the rent registry portion but the second component of the report, which was to review the whole area of residential tenancies -- is not yet before this Legislature.

Along with the minister and everyone else, I recognize that even if the report was tabled tomorrow, with the short time we have between now and the Christmas recess of the Legislature, it would not enable us to have a complete and thorough look at the report and extrapolate from it the necessary legislative changes we want. I do not think anybody would want us to rush into the necessary legislation because if we did that, we would surely miss something and we would not get the good legislative improvements all of us want.

3:50 p.m.

As an interim step, we unfortunately find ourselves in a position where it is necessary, in our view in the official opposition, to see an extension of one year to this bill. I hope, though, Commissioner Thom will he tabling both his reports, the report on residential tenancies in general and the report on the rent registry, very shortly, so that we can have a detailed study of his proposals.

If these reports are tabled in the Legislature before Christmas, I hope then we can perhaps spend some time during the winter months having a look at those documents and be ready in the spring to introduce the necessary legislative changes so that we will not find ourselves at the end of November or early December of next year re-enacting the same legislation for another year. I am sure I speak for all of us when I say we want this to come to an end sooner rather than later.

Last year when Bill 198 was passed, which was the same legislation we are discussing today, we had a number of amendments we wanted to propose to the legislation. While we will not be reintroducing all those amendments today, I want to assure the minister we do nevertheless want to reiterate that last year our party had a number of amendments to ensure that the rent increases were not any larger than they had to be, that we would have demolition control in this province, which we unfortunately still do not have; that, generally speaking, the Residential Tenancies Act in its present state, with large portions of it not proclaimed or not enforceable at this time, is inadequate, and that we want the Residential Tenancies Act improved as soon as possible in order for us to better afford tenants the protection they very desperately need.

Those are our remarks, Mr. Speaker. We will be supporting the bill.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party also intend to support Bill 128, An Act to amend the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act, 1982. We do so for a number of reasons, principally having to do with the right of tenants to security of tenure and to protection against economic eviction.

First, let me say, before I make some comments about the context of this act, we appreciate the fact that the minister is bringing in this extension of the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act now rather than, as we had feared he might do, as part of a small package of Thom commission reforms.

It may simply be paranoia, but I was concerned, and I use that word advisedly, that the minister would receive the Thom report some time in November and take one or two reforms from the Thom commission, attach them to this bill and put us into the kind of straitjacket of either having to vote against this or put through a series of watered-down reforms from the Thom commission.

I think it is very important that all of us in the Legislature as representatives of tenants, and indeed of the development industry, have an opportunity to review the full report of the Thom commission in an orderly and relatively rational way. That simply cannot be done if it is done in a hurried way to meet sunset law expiry deadlines.

So we look forward to the Thom commission report and an opportunity to discuss its recommendations. My guess is that -- well, why guess? We will wait and see when we get the Thom report. We had expected it a month or so ago and I am beginning to wonder whether we will see it within three or four months. Perhaps December 31, 1984, will be upon us with the requirement of another extension before we have the full report of the Thom commission, parts 1 and 2. I do not think that is beyond the realm of speculation. At any rate, that is speculative.

Let me just go back a moment if I may get into the "I told you so" stage of the discussion. I do not want to prolong this, of course, because it is so annoying to my colleagues in the Liberal Party. We in the New Democratic Party had pointed out when we had the first rent control bill that the bill was seriously flawed by permitting the refinancing pass-through costs as legitimate rent increases. Simply for purposes of recollection, I remind members that we said in December 1975 that "for the purposes of this act increases in costs should be deemed to mean increases in maintenance, heating, supervision and utility costs."

We argued right from the outset that the kind of refinancing costs that represent simply squeezing out speculative profit from residential accommodation and passing the cost of that speculative profit on to the backs of tenants through increased rents was an illegitimate form of rent increase. If somebody wants to speculate on property and make a lot of bucks out of the escalation in the market value of somebody's home, which is exactly what we are talking about -- we are not talking about normal commodities; we are talking about people's homes, places where people live -- they have absolutely no right to expect the people who live in those homes to pay the freight. It is an absurd proposition, which we rejected in 1975 over the objections of the other two parties.

We repeated those objections, I think more clearly, in 1978 when we rewrote the legislation. We attached a minority report to the report of the committee that studied the new legislation. I simply refresh the members' memories and the memory of the minister once again; I am sure he remembers it at least generally. We said in our minority report:

"Point 6(b)(vii) in the report allows the pass- through of financing cost increases that result from the sale of property. In our position we argued that rent review programs should be neutral in respect to the way in which the building is financed and the inclusion of financing costs for pass-through is a major loophole in the present program. We do not feel that the committee's position is adequate to close it."

Again the other two parties ignored that warning and permitted the inclusion of financial pass-through resulting from the sale of a building as a legitimate form of rent increase. We had literally hundreds of examples of landlord after landlord simply squeezing the speculative profit out of their buildings or using the profit of a building they owned in order to increase their property holdings by purchasing other buildings and in a quite illegitimate manner passing the costs of that speculation, either to acquire more property or to extract their profit, on to tenants through ever escalating rents.

4 p.m.

As long as it was confined to one or two buildings, to relatively small buildings or to a building here and a building there, nobody seemed to pay too much mind. Then came that horrible day when the largest single landlord in Metropolitan Toronto decided to unload an entire portfolio -- I do not have my notes but I think it was 10,000 or 11,000 units. Those 11,000 homes were simply dumped on to the market so that the company, in turn, could take out its speculative profit.

Then we had the series of flips in the trust companies affair, the numbered companies and the whole fiasco. It became necessary for the government to act simply because of the magnitude of the problem in that single sensational event involving 11,000 tenants in Cadillac Fairview apartment holdings.

There was nothing new about what was happening there except that it was more spectacular. The building had been flipped a couple of times and the gouging was even more blatant than normal. The basic exercise was exactly the same as that which has prevailed since our rent review program was initiated in 1975.

The government was forced to bring in this legislation because it knew very well the magnitude of the speculative profit that had been extracted from the Cadillac Fairview holdings. It knew that the kinds of rents the Cadillac Fairview tenants would be required to pay would mean, of necessity, that many hundreds, if not thousands, of them would be evicted because of the pressure of the economics of the situation. It knew the rents would be so high the tenants would lose their homes.

We are not supposed to talk about tenants in those kinds of terms. Tenants do not lose their homes do they? Of course they do lose their homes. An apartment is a home for a tenant just as a house is a home for a home owner. There is no difference. There are differences in law, but in terms of the dynamics of the situation there is no real difference.

Does the minister want to have a meeting? I am speaking to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member is speaking through the chair to the minister. I think the member can continue

Mr. McClellan: I do not think I have trouble in talking to the minister at any time.

To finish off this review, the government was forced to bring in this legislation to protect tenants from an inevitable catastrophe of evictions. There still seems to be some ambiguity on the part of the government over whether this kind of limitation on financial cost pass-through is going to be permanent or whether this is seen as a temporary aberration, to use the words of my colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) when he first described rent review in 1975. I am convinced many people in the other two parties are still under the delusion that rent control itself is some kind of temporary aberration which will disappear when the market somehow returns to its senses.

Similarly, I think there is an assumption that this kind of limitation on speculative profit, which is the nub of Bill 128, will somehow disappear. It will not. The reality of the private housing market in this country is that it has been unable to function. It does not function unless it can extract its speculative profit. It has never been able to function on the basis of the normal kind of rewards for equity. If I invest money in normal securities, I content myself with interest on that equity. Most businesses do the same thing. Most businesses are not fuelled by the kind of maniacal energy of ever-escalating speculative profit. The housing industry is quite singular in appearing to be utterly dependent on the extraction of speculative profit.

Until very recently those of us who believe there are other ways of providing decent, affordable housing in our society were content simply to fulminate and express a kind of moral outrage without having real opportunities to point to working alternatives. That situation has changed too. The Achilles' heel of the private development industry, exposed very fundamentally through the Cadillac-Fairview fiasco, has required the government to intervene in such a fundamental way that it has taken away, stripped from the landlords of this province, their time-honoured right to pass through whatever financing costs their whim dictates.

The government itself has been forced to act against its deepest philosophical and ideological convictions in this matter and to limit the capacity of landlords to extract speculative profits at the expense of tenants. This has been a singular event in Ontario's social and political history. At the same time, over the course of the last decade, alternative institutions capable of supplying affordable housing have developed across this country, largely because of some very progressive policies initiated at the federal level under section 56(1) of the National Housing Act.

We are now in a position to point to the co-operative movement across this country. particularly in places like Metropolitan Toronto, as being a network of institutions, nonprofit developers and resource people working with tremendous success and vitality to provide decent affordable housing on a nonprofit co-operative basis, not on an experimental scale but on a large scale, to house many thousands of people.

We have structures in place in our society that make it possible for the first time in our history to talk seriously about supplying the necessary quantity of decent, affordable housing outside the market. We have a network of 40 municipal nonprofit housing corporations which have developed over the course of the six years since 1978 in many cities and towns across the province, each of which has the capacity to provide large quantities of good, decent, affordable housing. We are no longer in the position of being captives of the private real estate industry for the provision of affordable rental accommodation.

The structures are now in place, through the municipal nonprofit program and the tremendous vitality of Ontario's co-operative housing movement, to be able to meet our housing needs for rental accommodation through nonmarket institutions. It is a matter of concern that the Ontario government at this time has not one clue with respect to a policy of housing supply.

4:10 p.m.

That is the subject of another debate. I will not get into that today. We will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations later this week and we will be starting debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on Thursday of this week as well. We will have an opportunity to discuss those things at greater length and have some dialogue about it.

This piece of legislation in front of us has a significance I am not sure the government has fully assimilated as yet. I do not believe for a moment that the private housing industry, the development industry in Ontario, would be prepared to assume its traditional role, the kind of role Cadillac Fairview, Meridian and the other huge development companies played in the late 1960s and 1970s. None of them would be prepared to play that role in today's political, social and economic climate.

They would not be prepared to play that role in the presence of a statute such as Bill 128, which limits their capacity to gouge speculative profits at the expense of their tenants. They will not play the game under those rules. They will not play the game under the rules of rent review.

The government knows that. It causes the government a great deal of concern. How are we going to solve the supply problem? How are we going to get rid of rent control because rent control is a function of supply? The private sector will not participate in supply programs as long as there are rent controls and things such as Bill 128.

The private sector has gone on strike. Capital is on strike in the housing sector. The government knows that. The government knows this industry better than any other body, yet it refuses to follow the logic of its own policies. The government put policies in place because of serious, crippling problems within the housing market which were driving people out of their homes. It then put policies in place that drove the private sector out of the supply business. It has sat there for nine years waiting for somebody to come up with a housing supply policy. It is preposterous.

There is obviously only one solution. If the government feels it is so necessary to hamstring the private sector, the only alternative is to provide supports to the private nonprofit sector, the municipal nonprofit sector and, most important, to the co-operative nonprofit sector to develop housing. Yet Ontario has a complete vacuum with respect to policies in this area and has been taking a piggyback free ride since 1978, coasting along behind the federal programs and paying approximately four cents on the dollar for the support of nonprofit social housing programs since 1978.

It does not make sense. I suspect the minister understands very clearly -- much better than I do -- that the chickens will eventually come home to roost. We can see the housing crisis is getting worse and worse. Waiting lists for low-income housing are now astronomical.

Nobody can put housing on the market in my community in Toronto for less than about $800 a month for a one-bedroom apartment, which is above the luxury cutoff line for purposes of rent review. This is how preposterous the economics of free-enterprise housing have become. The industry itself is now talking about the urgent necessity of a universal shelter allowance to make its product affordable not just to low-income people but to the average Ontario family in many of our large urban centres.

The day of reckoning has already come and gone. The day of reckoning was the Cadillac Fairview fiasco, which forced this government to take certain essential measures to protect the residents of the Cadillac Fairview complex. We wait with bated breath to learn about the ultimate disposition of those buildings. In the meantime, we support these kinds of measures, such as the one before us, that the government has been forced into, obviously against its will. We wait with a kind of morbid curiosity to see whether the government will --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: How can you wait with bated breath and morbid curiosity at the same time?

Mr. McClellan: It is a really pathological condition, I know.

We wait with extreme interest to see whether the government has the wit to deal with the housing supply crisis in which it finds itself up to its eyeballs. This little bill before us is simply the tip of the iceberg with respect to what is happening in the housing sector in this province and this country. Quite frankly, the government must recognize that we do not need the private sector to provide decent, affordable housing.

I will conclude with a very fundamental observation which I believe very deeply is based on a simple observation of what is happening in our society. We have in the nonprofit sector the institutions in place which will provide all the rental accommodation our people require. The staff and nonprofit developers are in place; the experts, track record and apartments are there; and the satisfied customers are there. All that is missing is a government policy which could seize this opportunity and free us from the historic necessity of relying on the private sector and its seemingly insatiable need to be able to extract speculative profit out of people's homes.

I hope that in the not too distant future we can have the opportunity to see this government move off its dime with respect to housing policy and come forward with some initiatives that will begin to make some sense.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting with bated breath.

I just want to say a word or two because, as the member for Ottawa Centre, I have a lot of tenants in my riding who have been affected by the kinds of scams and other unusual events that we have seen in the housing sector over the course of the last year or so. They have been affected over a long period of time by rent increases which have been the result of the trading of properties, the capitalization of speculative gains and the obligation being passed on to tenants to pay for those profits that are going into landlords' hands.

I was the housing critic for our party back in 1975 when the rent review scheme was first put forward by this government. As my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has pointed out, at that time our party warned that the matter of capital profits and the passing on of these increases in costs had to be faced by the government or else a fatal flaw would be left in the plan. Eventually, this could lead to either severe threats to or the actual undermining of rent review.

Over the last few days I have had a chance to reread the Morrison report with respect to the types of property trading that were taking place, financed by trust companies and that kind of thing. People were kind of flexing their muscles, trying out prototypes and pilot projects for the eventual transfer of property in which the Cadillac Fairview properties were written up from $70 million to a supposed $500 million in the course of just a few days. That was not new.

4:20 p.m.

It happened that was the summum of it, the quintessence of the scheme. It was so gross and outrageous that the government finally felt compelled to act. Perhaps they felt compelled to act because of the number of people, traditionally supporters of the Conservative Party, who were living in Cadillac Fairview buildings and the number of Cadillac Fairview buildings that happened to be located in Conservative ridings in the area of Metropolitan Toronto.

One of the reasons I wanted to contribute to this debate was to tell the minister and those six members of the government party who are present -- five, not counting the minister -- that we have these same problems in Ottawa as well. We have a vacancy rate in Ottawa, according to the most recent figures from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., of three tenths of one per cent. We have tremendous pressures on the rental market in Ottawa-Carleton and we have ineffective protection.

We have a situation where landlords, financiers and speculators have been taking advantage of the squeeze in the housing market and finding all kinds of ways to try to run around the act. That kind of capitalization of gains should have been done away with a long time ago. What we have instead is a temporary measure that is being extended now for another year. It was brought in only because of the political circumstances of last fall and, in fact, it should have been there a long time before.

The representatives of the Ottawa-Carleton Federation of Tenants have been asking me for some time, "What the devil is going to happen with Bill 198?" I was pleased to be able to tell them an extension is coming through the Legislature and they can rest easy, at least over the course of the next few weeks. None the less, we have yet to hear a commitment from the government.

I would like to ask the minister whether he would make a commitment now that, whatever else is done as a consequence of the Thom commission report, the government will make what is in this bill, the extension of Bill 198, at least the bottom line; this will be the worst tenants will be exposed to. At least there will be that modest bulwark of protection against the jacking up of rents on the basis of increases due to trading of properties at speculative values.

The minister should know, because it has happened here in Metropolitan Toronto, that some landlords have seen the writing on the wall and have simply decided to trade buildings. They took the buildings that were worth $1.5 million and traded them to each other for $3 million or $4 million apiece and then turned around and started to apply the increased costs to their tenants in the form of rent increases. They will be able to do that even under this bill and they will be better off doing that than keeping the property in their hands.

Those kinds of things are liable to continue unless the government is prepared to indicate that it has a commitment to protecting tenants which goes beyond the commitment of doing barely enough to save its political skin in those ridings where there are a substantial number of tenants.

I want to pay tribute to organizations like the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations and the Ottawa-Carleton Federation of Tenants for the work they have been doing in terms of continuing to organize and to work with tenants. In my area over the course of the past four or five years, tenant organizations seemed to be almost a dead issue. The tenants felt they had adequate protection, and perhaps that led to some of them deciding to opt out of the last election in 1981. Over the course of the last six or eight months, that has changed. Tenants recognize that protection is not guaranteed and that they have to organize. There has been a great deal of organizing of tenant groups and associations in different buildings.

If the minister has a commitment to creating new social institutions that will help to resolve tenant issues and to ensuring that decisions are made at the local level by the people who know what is going on, rather than have them overloading the regulatory apparatus, he should be prepared to consider now, long before the Thom commission reports, a means by which tenants can have their rights to bargain and to negotiate recognized and can deal directly with their landlords.

In the case where a tenant organization has the legitimate support of its members, they might he able to do things and arrive at consensuses or agreements with their landlords without necessarily having to have every dot and every iota certified by the Residential Tenancy Commission. It might be a healthier situation, because people could then determine what their priorities were and see that those priorities were looked at by the landlord or in conjunction with the tenant.

If the government felt, and I suspect the government does not, it was important that, however people live, they should have as much power and control over their own living and working arrangements as is possible, then it would look very favourably upon the proposal I am making. I would see it as a means of ensuring that people who may not necessarily own property could none the less exercise some of the rights pertaining to property instead of maintaining the inequalities that exist right now between people who are owners of some kind and those who are put in the status of second- or third-class citizens as tenants.

That is all I wanted to say about the bill. While I, too, welcome the fact that the bill is here, I do have to reflect concern over the fact that we now seem to have a permanent series of sunsets coming over from the government wherever any legislation that helps ordinary people in this province is concerned. I would like to see something more than a commitment to keep this in place for a few more months.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief, because it is clear from the speeches of the three members that there is general support for the principle that in the absence of the Thom report, part 1, it would really be inappropriate to deal with it in any fragmented way.

From the government's point of view as well as from the opposition members' point of view, I feel that even if portions of the report were to be delivered to me next week or the week after, I do not think it would give this Legislature or the government the appropriate time to review it and come forward with a comprehensive package. So I look forward to bringing whatever proposals may flow from the Thom report to the Legislature some time in the spring, if that is at all possible.

In thanking the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) for his support, I do want to indicate, though and I do not think he intended to be critical or to imply that there was any intentional delay on the part of Mr. Thom --

Mr. Boudria: No.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The honourable member has confirmed that he did not. Mr. Thom is someone for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I think the landlord and tenant groups who appeared before him shared that respect for him.

Mr. Boudria: I appeared before him as well.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Yes, I can assure the member that there is no lack of interest or diligence on the part of Mr. Thom.

I do not want to be provocative, because I have been warned that if I am, this debate will go on for 16 hours. So without being provocative at all, I do want to make it very clear that I do not think any criticism with respect to the timing of the submission of part 1 of the Thom report should be seriously taken or seriously given.

The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) in part of his remarks -- and I am not sure whether I heard him correctly -- suggested it was possible that some owners of buildings were placing mortgages on those buildings, passing the costs of those mortgages on to the tenants and then using the funds for other purposes and that some owners were indeed doing so.

If he was seriously suggesting that, I think he should bring the specific cases to the attention of the commission, because that would not be an allowable cost pass-through. If he has such information about any specific cases, I do wish he would bring it to my attention; if not to mine, then to the attention of the commission.

Although I know it is nice to say the Cadillac Fairview transaction forced the government to move, I have to point out that this is not really quite accurate. The guidelines of the commission already had in place mechanisms that allowed the commission to phase in any financing costs passed through over a period of up to three years.

Even before the Cadillac Fairview transaction, as members will recall from committee hearings last year, the chairman of the Residential Tenancy Commission indicated that he and his commissioners had been discussing alternatives aimed at perhaps extending that principle even more.

4:30 p.m.

I think it is a little bit unfair and inappropriate to suggest that the government was forced to move. What it did do was to feel that it was important to move in this Legislature, not only through guidelines, in response to a particular situation.

Mr. McClellan: It was just one of those things. It was just a coincidence.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Yes. I know the member, being a man of great faith and great understanding, will appreciate that we all have the capacity to continue to be great and we have shown for 40 years that we can offer that kind of greatness to the people of Ontario. I want all six members of the New Democratic Party who are here to hear that remark.

Mr. Charlton: That's what we like, government by coincidence.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No. I am wrong -- five and a half.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I want all five and a half members here to hear that remark, because I think it is important that even the other half should know what the truth is.

I must say there was an interesting discourse on housing supply although it was not really relevant to the issue we have before us. I think it was an important discussion that took place, but we are dealing with the Residential Tenancy Commission, which relates to private sector rental accommodation and not to the other types of accommodation that were dealt with.

The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) asked for a personal commitment from me that the essence of this bill would be fundamental to any new rent review legislation. If he is listening in the gallery or outside, I want him to know that if he will read the terms of reference for the Thom commission, the commission was to review any changes Mr. Thom considered relevant with respect to the equity of landlords and tenants. We will be looking at that report before we reach a balanced determination.

Mr. McClellan: A balanced view.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The philosophy of balance is one the member will come to understand one day. We are looking for balanced proposals to bring before this Legislature which respect all without singling out a few.

Mr. McClellan: Tell that to the people on the OHC waiting list.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: In any event, if the member for Ottawa Centre has any specific examples of the trading of buildings -- there was a little bit of loose talk about people in the marketplace shuffling buildings back and forth and passing the costs on to tenants -- he should bring the specific charges he is making about specific instances to my attention or to the attention of the chairman of the Residential Tenancy Commission. If there are indeed such cases, they should be reviewed.

In general, I am pleased with the support the bill has received, understanding full well that the members agree it would have been inappropriate to bring in anything by way of fragmented proposals. I look forward to doing that in the spring.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 95, An Act to amend the Public Vehicles Act.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement on the introduction of the bill a few weeks ago. I really have nothing further to add to that.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the bill. It does not have very far-reaching ramifications, but I know of the minister's continuing concern with the Public Vehicles Act and his predictions that in the next two years we are going to see some far-reaching changes. It may well be that the government will have changed by that time and a Liberal administration will have an opportunity to bring this whole matter into modern reality.

I am glad the minister has taken the initiative so that rural areas can be served by vehicles designed to transport physically disabled passengers without requiring public commercial vehicle licensing. I am not sure whether that was as a result of certain problems with the commercial transportation of handicapped passengers. Certainly the problem had not arisen in my particular rural area, but if we are correcting a situation that did not need fixing, I suppose we should do it beforehand rather than wait for the problems.

The other matter that did interest me from my own area had to do with the repeal of the section that for many years has given city councils a right to pass bylaws requiring public vehicle licence holders to pay a fee. We are aware that the tax base of municipalities has been constricted and restricted over the years so they have nothing but the property assessment and a few licence fees left to support municipal endeavours. Beyond that are the grants that come from the minister's colleagues in support of programs that have the approval of the provincial government. We find more and more that freedom of action is being hindered at the municipal level.

I was also interested to see in the notes accompanying the bill that the city of Brantford -- and I have the honour to represent a part of that city -- was one of the few municipalities that still levied a municipal fee on PCV licence holders. I have no doubt that the minister's officials have checked with the municipal authorities in the cities and towns that still levy such a tax and that they are familiar with the matter. It is apparent that this has not been a large source of revenue and, frankly, I think it does make eminent good sense to remove that special taxation from municipalities.

I say that having already brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker, something that you know about, being a taxpayer in Mississauga, which is that our cities have little or no freedom of action in financing their programs. Before they even draw breath, they must get approval from senior levels of government to get the financing that goes along with the program.

However, the bill does not have any far-reaching changes that we are objecting to, and we are prepared to support it.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, following the remarks of the Joe Barnes of the Liberal caucus, I want to say we will support the bill. It is a commonsense bill, and we especially support the provisions for the transportation of the physically handicapped in rural areas.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank the honourable members for their support.

In reply to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), there has not been a serious problem as far as the PCV or PV licences for the handicapped transit are concerned.

As members will recall, a few years ago I brought in an amendment to remove vans for van pooling purposes from the act. That has accommodated a lot freer movement of that type of vehicles used for commuter pools. There have been some requests and some correspondence from municipalities with regard to the use of their special handicapped vans for transporting a handicapped passenger to a hospital, a doctor's office or a place of education, where it does cross a municipal boundary. Technically, they need a PV licence for this. We do not feel this is necessary and we are proposing, in this bill, to exempt them from that purpose. That is the reason for it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

4:40 p.m.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading Bill 96, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, as on the other bill, I made a statement of the basic contents of this bill, a number of housekeeping items in the bill. One of the main items of the bill is the fact that we are correcting or covering something that has been omitted from the bill for many years since it was passed. It now brings streetcars under the Highway Traffic Act for various offences, the same as any other motor vehicle. That takes up a great many sections of this bill that deal strictly with amending existing sections so that they apply to streetcars.

I have a few minor amendments to Bill 96, so I will be asking that this bill go to committee briefly to make those amendments. Again, they are technical things. Although all these amendments relating to streetcars were discussed and fully agreed upon by the Toronto Transit Commission, which is the only body that operates streetcars in Ontario, after the bill was introduced and printed there were some minor things that came up the TTC asked us to amend during committee. So I will be placing those amendments before the House in the committee stage.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I may have missed the minister's statement on first reading of the bill, but I would be interested, perhaps in any closing remarks he might have, if he would tell us the story of what happened to the streetcar driver who was involved in the incident that precipitated this great clutch of amendments.

An hon. member: I understand that he was fired.

Mr. Nixon: I can remember hearing on the news about some streetcar driver -- wasn't it down on the waterfront somewhere? -- and I was quite interested to hear that while the local police were going to charge him under the Highway Traffic Act it became apparent that such an act did not apply and they were looking at some federal statute having to do with railways.

My curiosity was piqued. I had a concept of some chap who had been out on a big party getting control of one of those mighty multi-ton streetcars and roaring along the tracks of outer Queen Street or King Street. I would like to hear from the minister just what the circumstances were, if he has the time, and I think we may have it, before this debates ends. The time is available.

It is interesting that he chose this way of bringing streetcar drivers under the provisions of the act. One would have thought that just an amendment including streetcar drivers in a general way might have been possible. But when I see the quality of the people under the gallery who are advising him on this bill, there is no doubt in my mind that this rather cumbersome procedure is the very best way it could possibly have been carried out.

Interjection.

Mr. Nixon: If they want a raise, I certainly think they should get it because they have done a lot of work on this and the other bill.

I was also interested to see that the minister is finally bringing in a provision whereby licences cannot be renewed as long as there are outstanding parking infractions against the vehicle. I find that quite interesting. I wonder if his computers have been perfected to such a degree that all of these outstanding infractions are readily available and that his licensing authorities need only punch up the appropriate codes, names and numbers and it will become apparent whether or not there are outstanding parking infractions to be paid.

We know over these many years of people we are personally acquainted with who have really laughed at the provisions of the parking infraction procedures and usually, when they see them on the windshield of their car, just tear them up and throw them away or stuff them in their pockets. We hear of instances where people with hundreds of these infractions finally are brought to book and have to pay many thousands of dollars.

As a matter of fact I know an individual -- I hesitate to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that he is a member of the Legislature -- who keeps one of those yellow parking tickets in the glove compartment of his car, and whenever he goes to a restaurant or something where the parking is somewhat inadequate he just pulls right up beside a fire plug, sticks the yellow ticket under the windshield and goes in. When he comes out, the yellow ticket is still there and he puts it back in the glove compartment and drives away.

I of course do not condone that sort of action, but I found it quite interesting that the whole procedure is treated so lightly, particularly by city people. We people in the country, of course, have a much greater respect for the law and for law enforcement officers, and I find it really quite interesting that some of our urban compatriots have allowed their attitudes to disintegrate to that extent.

I would be interested to know whether the minister can indicate that such validation is going to be a fairly mechanical thing now and that when we renew our licences on a regular birthday basis the computer will check to see we have met all our legal requirements under the Highway Traffic Act and ancillary acts.

I was also interested to see there is at least some reference to vehicle inspection. For example, the minister has tightened his control of certain materials used in car maintenance, in this instance hydraulic brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil.

From time to time over the last 20 years there have been proposals that our automobiles ought to be inspected for safety measures on a regular basis. Mr. Speaker, being a traveller yourself, I am sure you have often been in jurisdictions where each automobile has a sticker on the windshield indicating that it has been checked for safety purposes by a state; usually it is a jurisdiction in the United States of America where this is required.

It may well be that the minister, who has been concerned with safety over so many years -- what is the minister glaring at me like that for?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There is nothing in this bill about that.

Mr. Nixon: The minister is talking about hydraulic brake fluid. He should test that every now and then.

I certainly do not want to waste the minister's time, but he has often indicated that his ridiculously low speed limit has saved many lives. We are all concerned with saving lives, but in that instance it seems to be a fetish that he has added to his list of fetishes with which he seems overly concerned. It has been proved without any reasonable argument to the contrary that quite often the speed limits have led to a good deal of disregard for the laws of the province.

He need only observe what has happened as he is brought here in his chauffeur-driven limousine along the James Snow Parkway and all these elaborate new roads. He will find nobody on these highly engineered highways, which we as taxpayers of the province have developed, obeys the speed limit unless there is one of those black and white cars coasting along with an officer glaring at everybody. Even they can hardly keep their feet off the accelerators to the extent that the speed limit is obeyed under most circumstances.

The minister has been following the saga of my difficulties with speed limits over the years, and the Speaker and the minister would be glad to know that I have no points against me. I never fear, whether we are supposed to be building them up or getting them down, that I am not at the good end of the scale with absolutely nothing against me. That is because I continue to obey the traffic laws as carefully as I possibly can, except in cases of emergency.

The minister's approach to safety is an on-again off-again thing. He tends to set a good deal of store by certain readily saleable public positions that tend to have some political kudos in them rather than being realistic about safety and the approach particularly that might be considered with safety inspections.

There is a peripheral reference to this in the act in that we are applying the Highway Traffic Act to streetcar drivers. In this connection he reminds me of his colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), who is always struck by the Christmas season in a strange way. He always feels constrained to make speeches against drinking and driving.

Most of us in this House are against that combination year round. We think it is a terrible thing that in this instance the government has not taken a concerted position that is going to be designed to reduce the carnage associated with drunk or impaired drivers on the roads. The statistics indicate clearly that in almost every incidence of serious highway accident and death, it is not a matter of high speed and not a matter of the other things the minister talks about, but it is often associated with alcohol.

4:50 p.m.

The government is in a very strange and ambiguous position in that regard since this year they expect to have revenues of close to $700 million from alcohol. On the one hand, they are pushing it with everything they possibly can, building liquor stores and that sort of thing. On the other hand, the Attorney General is going around with his hand on his heart, sitting in the backseat of his chauffeur-driven limousine and worrying about the implications of impaired driving.

It was just a few years ago that the Attorney General hauled an old wreck in front of Queen's Park so that those of us who drive our own cars up University Avenue would have the object lesson of this terribly smashed car just at the top of University Avenue. However, he has changed his tune a little hit, because when I drove up here the other day somebody had anchored the big blue Labatt's balloon at the top of University Avenue. It was not entirely clear what the object lesson for drivers -- many thousands of us, day by day, as we come around Queen's Park -- was meant to be.

Having made these apropos comments, I would say we are prepared to support the bill and await the minister's amendments with eagerness.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, we on this side will also support the bill. I must say we are truly inspired by the news that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has been rehabilitated as we enter the yuletide season. It is almost an annual ritual that we get an update on how many points he has and how close he is to the brink. To hear that the honourable member is down to zip, zilch, zero, is truly inspiring for those of us who are on the roads of the province.

We certainly support the principle of extending the Highway Traffic Act to operators of streetcars in Toronto. It makes good sense, especially in view of what happened. We also support the lengthy list of provisions pertaining to that.

I do want to express some reservation about the question of fines contained in the bill. I support the principle of increasing the fines, and I have reservations about the fines for someone who is caught driving in Ontario without a licence. This is not someone who is necessarily suspended or who has forgotten his/her licence at home, but someone who deliberately decides to go out on the highway and says: "To hell with the law. To hell with everything else. I am going out there." That person will be subject to a minimum fine of $100 and a maximum fine of $500. I realize that puts it in the same proportion as the Highway Traffic Act and the general penalties involved.

I do not think that is adequate for someone who deliberately decides to flout the law and go out on the streets, highways and byways of this province. It flabbergasts me that someone can do that and the maximum fine will still be only $500. It is a blatant, total disregard for the whole concept of laws in society and any concept of safety whatsoever. I feel very reluctant to endorse that aspect of the bill.

We welcome the initiatives contained in the bill dealing with the question of motorcycle helmets. The recent statistics are not encouraging. The minister is well aware of the ongoing trend, of the increase, which stands in stark contrast to the progress being made in the general accident statistics as they relate to passenger cars.

I am not sure this will be enough. I think we have to go well beyond this. We have to make some changes in the whole testing procedure for people who drive motorcycles in this province. I still think we should consider the idea of a two-tier licence system for people who are allowed to drive motorcycles in this province. Maybe we should consider some form of educational programs, in conjunction with the private sector, specifically for drivers of motorcycles. I would like to see the private sector get much more involved in safety programs dealing with motorcycles, as did the Charlton family in Hamilton.

We will also support the increases in the general penalty from a minimum of $20 to $40, and from a maximum of $100 to $200. I know the minister will say this represents a sizeable increase, doubling the penalty in fact. However, I am concerned about how long those figures will stay in effect. If these changes represent the first change since 1968-69, using that precedent these figures will not be changed until 1996-97. I would hate to think the minimum fine for the general penalties in the 1990s would be $40 and the maximum $200. I have some reservations about that.

I should also ask, when we get to section 33 dealing with police cadets, that the minister afford us a definition of what a police cadet actually is versus a police officer, meter maid or green hornet. What is the actual definition of a police cadet per se, according to the act?

The overall thrust of the bill is one that we support.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot report to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) the details regarding the TTC driver who had the accident with the streetcar. I am sure there is a report available. There was perhaps an internal TTC investigation of that and there is probably a police report as well. Unfortunately, I do not have those reports with me at this time. I do not believe I have them, period. I am sure I could get them, but I do not have them.

I was informed by the TTC that although it does not require a streetcar driver to have a licence and they are exempt from the Highway Traffic Act, it has always been the policy of the TTC that all their streetcar operators be licensed. The one who had that unfortunate accident had a valid licence.

Mr. Nixon: What was he doing?

Hon. Mr. Snow: What was he doing? I hesitate to say. I would presume he was not paying proper attention or he would not have run into the streetcar ahead of him. That is what happened.

Mr. Cunningham: Blame UTDC's brakes.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I do not believe it was an Urban Transportation Development Corp. car that hit the car, was it? There was a UTDC car and an old car and I forget which one was which. In any case, one hit the other and it was an unfortunate accident.

The amendments we are bringing in here today would certainly not have prevented the accident, if they had been in. But this matter brought to our attention that there has never been any reason for having the Highway Traffic Act apply to streetcars before. At this time when we are making these amendments, I wanted to clear up that issue.

I spoke to the management of the TTC and they were in full agreement. They really did not feel it was totally necessary because they dealt with it as a matter of policy. But they had no opposition to us bringing in these amendments.

The honourable member also asked about the computer and the operation of the parking tickets. The parking fine computers will actually be in the Attorney General's department. Unpaid parking fines will be accumulated against the vehicle in the Attorney General's computer. Then we will have access to that computer file so that when we send out a notice for renewal of a vehicle licence, we will then be able to say on that notice that Mr. Nixon or whoever has X number of unpaid parking fines against that vehicle. Those fines must be cleared before the vehicle licence can be renewed.

The member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) mentioned the amount of the fines for driving without a licence. Currently, I believe that fine is $20 minimum and $100 maximum. In this amendment we are proposing to increase that to $100 minimum and $500 maximum.

5 p.m.

That is a 500 per cent increase. I am sure it is somewhat above the five per cent guideline, but I think it is an appropriate fine. During the briefing on this bill, it was suggested that the fine should perhaps be higher. Both the Attorney General and my ministry are reviewing the overall rate of fines because, obviously, on account of inflation, a $20 fine that was appropriate 10 years ago, or whenever it was set, is now about a third of what it was. I think all our fine schedules should be reviewed in the Highway Traffic Act and perhaps other legislation as well that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is looking at.

I do not expect this proposed fine we are setting to sit on the books for 10 or 15 years before it is reviewed again because it will be part of the overall review.

With regard to the question of the definition of a police cadet, I am told that section 73 of the Police Act permits a chief of police to appoint police cadets to undergo training and they are deemed to he members of the police force, It is not really good, productive use of valuable constables' time to have them enforcing parking regulations and writing out parking tickets.

I think this amendment clarifies the fact that police cadets -- and I presume that includes meter officers and so on -- will be able to perform those duties rather than policemen and municipal bylaw enforcement officers. These are people who are appointed by the chiefs of police under the Police Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 96, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

On section 1:

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 1.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that subsection 1(3) be amended by striking out paragraph 37a.

Mr. Cunningham: Perhaps the minister could explain why the government is deleting paragraph 37a from that section. Is there a difficulty in the legal definition of the word "traffic"? What is the purpose of this?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The explanation I have is that reliance will be placed on the dictionary definition of "traffic." A special definition is not necessary and should not include animals for purposes of vehicles yielding the right of way. We are just eliminating that section. It is not felt by the drafter that it is necessary.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask the minister why we have this whole series of amendments at the last minute? The bill was drafted a while ago and we had a briefing session. Why all of a sudden are there these amendments at the last minute? It is not that any of them are particularly controversial, but I am just interested in the basis for the process of these last-minute amendments?

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I mentioned during the previous remarks, most of these amendments relate to the streetcar situation. I had personal discussions with the chief general manager of the Toronto Transit Commission regarding these amendments. The amendments were drafted in consultation with the legal branch of the TTC and my ministry. After the amendments were drafted and after the bill was introduced, the TTC came back to us with the request for these few minor amendments. I got them this morning just as the member did. That is when this request from the TTC came to our attention.

Mr. Samis: I will just make a point very briefly. This hardly strikes me as very satisfactory or very efficient when the bill was introduced about five weeks ago. I presume the minister had all sorts of discussions prior to the formulation and writing of the bill and prior to the actual introduction of the bill. The TTC had time to assess its position as well. The way it has been done just does not strike me as an adequate process.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that subsection 10(1) of the bill he amended by striking out "or" in the second line.

Mr. Cunningham: I find myself in a similar position to that of the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) in so far as we only got these amendments this afternoon. I appreciate the briefing we had several weeks ago. I like to be favoured with some explanation or rationale as to the purpose of these amendments. For instance, I am reading section 10 right now and I do not know the purpose for the deletion of the word "or."

Hon. Mr. Snow: I guess it would be called a drafting error or oversight. The word "or" should not appear in the midst of the list of types of vehicles.

Mr. Samis: Very briefly, since this underscores the point I made, this is obviously a major, ideological modification to the bill and should have been introduced a long time ago.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 11 and 12, inclusive, agreed to.

5:10 p.m.

On section 13:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that section 13 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"Section 38 of the said act is amended by inserting after 'vehicles' in the third line 'or of streetcars'."

Hon. Mr. Snow: To explain the amendment to section 13; in the original drafting of Bill 96 we failed to add "drivers of streetcars" to the demerit point system, and this amendment will achieve that purpose. In other words, one will be able to collect demerit points for offences under the act.

Mr. Cunningham: We most certainly would support this amendment. The reality of its passage would require that an individual guilty of an offence would lose points as opposed to losing his job.

Mr. Samis: We will support the amendment, even though it is another major ideological divide.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 14 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 20:

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I see the note about length. Instead of 14 metres it is being lengthened to 14.65 metres, which by my figures would be a difference of about 2 feet, 6 inches. What trailers are you lengthening? What is the purpose of that? Is this trailers, trucks or what?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The present maximum length for an individual semi-trailer -- the trailer box itself -- is 14 metres or 45 feet. Most of the jurisdictions in the United States -- all of them now -- have gone to a standard 48-foot trailer, and practically all new trailers are being manufactured 48 feet in length.

The Canadian operators want to use the same trailer, plus there is the problem of many of these US units showing up at our borders with their 48-foot trailers, which technically are illegal in Ontario. This does not change the overall length of the trucking unit at all, which is 68 feet, 10 3/4 inches, or 21 metres. All this does is allow a 46-foot long trailer.

It does not give any extra weight. It does give a little extra cubic content for the haulers of light and bulky freight, but it does not change the overall length of the vehicle. We have been dealing with the problem in the interim until this bill becomes law by giving some special permits for these 48-foot trailers to accommodate the movement of goods between the two countries.

Mr. Cunningham: I wondered if the minister could tell us if this would have a negative effect on Ontario-based carriers who would operate in Nova Scotia?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sorry, I do not understand what the honourable member is asking. I do not know.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 21 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 26:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that section 26 of the bill he struck out and the following substituted therefor:

Subsection 119(1) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"The driver or operator of a vehicle or streetcar about to enter or cross a highway from a private road or driveway shall yield the right of way to all traffic approaching on the highway."

Section 26, as amended, agreed to.

On section 27:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that subsection 122(8) of the act, as set out in section 27 of the bill, be amended by striking out "streetcar" in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof "a streetcar equipped with turn signals or brake lights as the case may be."

Hon. Mr. Snow: Just a word of explanation. This amendment has been requested by the TTC because the old streetcars they still use in Toronto, which will be phased out in the not too distant future, do not have turn signals and brake lights. It would not be appropriate to require them to retrofit those old vehicles to meet this requirement. The new vehicles meet this requirement. When the old ones are all gone, there will not be a problem.

Mr. Chairman: Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 26 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 43:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that subsection 181(4) of the act, as set out in subsection 43(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out "motor" in the second line.

Section 43, as amended, agreed to. Sections 44 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Snow, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

5:20 p.m.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have one subject I would like to raise on this occasion. I did mention it during the course of the estimates, but my feelings on the subject matter have intensified since then.

I want to draw the minister back to the discussion we had during the course of the estimates about the Interprovincial Pipe Line application that is currently before the National Energy Board and the Federal Court and to the attendant problems we may have with safety on Highway 6, in the township of Flamborough, if that application is granted.

The minister will know, as I have mentioned and as others have made him aware, that this application is at variance with all our local planning; indeed, it is at variance with the local plan and the regional plan and with the spirit of both. It is a subject area, I should tell the minister, where four or five applications for far less controversial land use have been denied, including the establishment of a restaurant, I believe, a residence and a gas station.

If this application were granted, it would see anywhere from 80 to 140 truck movements per day on to that section of the highway, which in my mind causes great potential danger for people travelling on that highway.

Tragically and ironically, two years ago on that particular section of Highway 6, almost at the identical spot where this proposal would become reality if the approval were granted, we had a tragic collision between a gas tanker and a snowplough, the result of which cost the operator of the gas tanker his life. He burned to death. Fortunately, the two occupants of the snowplough being operated on Highway 6 were both saved, as a result of the bravery of two local residents, Mr. Ron Wakley and Mr. Frank Czukar.

The impact as a result of this collision was incredible. I hesitate to think what kind of disaster we could have in that part of my community should we have a collision between a car or a truck and a propane vehicle travelling on Highway 6.

Last week I had the opportunity to review again a film that was produced by the United States National Fire Protection Association, based in Boston. It is a 20-minute film entitled Bleve. It is a film, frankly. that I think the minister should view himself so that he could see firsthand the very tremendous potential dangers to which we are exposing travellers of that highway should there be a problem either at the propane transfer facility on Highway 6 or with a propane tanker entering on to the highway.

The minister will know, having had a great deal of experience, that these vehicles themselves are extremely heavy and therefore move very slowly. At the same time, their length would require that they could be blocking four to five lanes when turning on to Highway 6.

The minister is also aware that as a result of concerns expressed not only by me but by others in the community, we have encouraged the ministry to improve the design quality of that highway. I should say right now that we are grateful and thankful for the improvements that have been made. Indeed, as far as I am concerned, it is a much safer highway, and I am reticent to use the language that would describe the highway in the past. That reference, of course, is to "killer highway." The statistics now indicate that the numbers of accidents and fatalities on that section of Highway 6 is either at or below the provincial level.

The point is, however, that it is still a four-lane highway with no controlled access whatsoever and no median division. The particular area of the township of Flamborough where that section of Highway 6 runs is prone to whiteouts, heavy mist and fog, particularly in the spring and in the fall. I think the minister is very familiar with the area and is mindful of that.

I am mindful as well that the ministry perhaps has taken the view in this situation that it is powerless to refuse Interprovincial Pipe Line access to the highway. At the moment, Interprovincial Pipe Line has an option to purchase the highway property conditional upon prerequisite approvals from the National Energy Board.

I am aware, through the application process and the testimony given by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications staff, that the ministry is requiring the adoption of its most stringent design requirements should this project become a reality. That simply is not good enough.

Where the ministry may lack the legal ability to deny Interprovincial Pipe Line its application, I am asking, and have asked on other occasions, that the minister use his power and the moral suasion of his office to encourage Interprovincial Pipe Line to seek a more intelligent alternative location, a location closer to the market, which is described by interprovincial in its application as the Toronto area, and one that would have municipal water. We do not have municipal water in this situation.

I am convinced that if a fire occurred at either of the two transfer facilities being proposed, we would be able to fight the fire for only two hours, possibly two and a half hours, which ultimately would result in the explosion of any tankers caught in the fire.

I hope the minister will take it upon himself to negotiate with these people and persuade them to avoid a lengthy court battle; we are into that right now and it is costing the taxpayers a hefty amount of money. I hope he will encourage Interprovincial Pipe Line to seek an alternative location.

There are two appropriate locations which could combine the facility in one location as opposed to two, which is the current proposal in Flamborough. One such location would be Burlington, on industrial land in the Appleby Line-Upper Middle Road facility. This would be near municipal water, far closer to the market and less than a kilometre from access to the Queen Elizabeth Way, a far safer highway to transport the product.

The minister might be aware that we are now in a jurisdictional dispute. We are in the Federal Court. The matter could drag out for a number of years only to have it reassigned again to the National Energy Board for consideration. An accident or a tragedy may not occur in the first several years of the operation of this facility. Unfortunately, with the extent and number of movements on and off the highway, it is certainly a very real possibility that we could have a collision between a propane tanker and some other vehicle on Highway 6.

If the minister had the opportunity to look at either of the films the Ontario Provincial Police have on this subject, to anybody involved in the management of these kinds of disasters, or to refer to the film Bleve, produced by the US National Fire Protection Association people in Boston, to which I have referred, he would be convinced of the potential danger that exists not only for the people living in my community but also for the hundreds of thousands of people who travel on Highway 6 every year.

5:30 p.m.

If we have what they call a "bleve," or the explosion of a propane tanker, the explosion could project the tanker up to 2,000 feet and fragments even farther. In the film entitled Bleve, one can very graphically see a fireman on an extension aerial ladder applying cold water in an attempt to keep the tank that is engulfed in flames from exploding. A bleve occurred and the man was just blown to pieces. They never found him. The same thing happened to the cameraman who was filming the disaster at the time. So the results of this can be very far-reaching.

The minister indicated to the company that the ministry took a very dim view of this application. While they were not able to stop the company in law, they felt very strongly that this was ill advised and that this proposal was at variance with the most basic principles of planning. It certainly enjoyed no local support in the community.

In the face of growing opposition and pressure in my community, I am not certain whether the people in charge of Interprovincial Pipe Line, which as of last month is now controlled by Hiram Walker Resources, might re-evaluate their position and locate either in Burlington, as I have described, or perhaps at the old refinery in Bronte, in the minister's own riding. It is certainly well equipped from every point of view, including safety, to accommodate the location of this product.

We are not opposed to the conversion of the line. We are being very mature about that. We accept and support it. We feel the completion of transfer facilities will minimize the extent to which rail cars must be shipped from Sarnia and the extent to which the material would he carried from Sarnia on the highway. We certainly think that would contribute to a safer Ontario.

We are very strongly convinced that this is extremely ill advised. Supporting us in this regard are the Halton Region Conservation Authority, which has been very helpful; the township of Flamborough; the Wentworth County Board of Education; the federal member, Mr. Scott; the region, which is doing everything it possibly can; and two very broadly based citizens' groups.

I can only say in conclusion that if this application is approved, I have a very serious concern that at some time -- it may even be 15 or 20 years from now -- some kind of tragedy could conceivably occur. I hesitate to think about the loss of life we could see in the explosion of a propane tanker on the highway in conjunction with a passenger vehicle or truck on Highway 6.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, while my ideologue on the right reads his imported journal, there are two topics I would like to touch upon briefly. One is a perennial topic we discuss in estimates, the question of the ministry, in co-operation with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), putting photos on licences for all drivers in Ontario.

Every year in the estimates, the minister always tells us he is in favour of such a proposal and the legislation is actually in place, yet somehow we never get any action. The usual argument is budgetary. While they blow $45 million on Minaki Lodge, they cannot find $3.6 million to spend on this very worthwhile proposal.

The interministerial task force on drinking and driving once again brought home the message that it would be an extremely worthwhile investment. The Metropolitan Toronto Police estimate about 40,000 drivers in this city alone are driving with suspended licences. The police have no adequate means of detecting them, even when they are stopped, because of their inability to identify them properly. Having a photo on a licence would greatly aid the police. It would get some of those people off the road and increase the safety of the streets in every city in Ontario.

I noticed on page 91 of the report they make some telling points statistically when they say: "The present system allows for licence duplication of alarming proportions. In 1981, MTC issued 607,000 licences on change of address requests, 70,500 on correction requests regarding hair colour, height, spelling, etc. and another 95,710 for licence replacements. Also, people arriving from other provinces are not obliged to prove they hold no other licences, and there is the additional problem of black market licences."

If the Attorney General intends to take this report seriously and if the minister exercises his alleged considerable weight within the cabinet, I would strongly urge that we adopt that basic recommendation. It is something that people on all sides of this House would support. I would suspect, with maybe one or two exceptions, and it would make the roads of Ontario considerably safer. Maybe with a little bit of persuasion, even the honourable member would consent to that adoption.

As we approach the yuletide season, the whole question of drinking and driving will again come into focus. The amount of money being spent by this ministry and by the Ministry of the Attorney General to remind people about the dangers of drinking and driving will again be registered on the public consciousness. One really wonders how much impact that has compared to the tremendous amounts of money spent on advertising by the breweries, the distilleries and the wineries trying to convince people to increase their consumption at the yuletide season.

I notice the interministerial report estimates that the brewing industry in Ontario spends a maximum of $100,000 a year warning against the dangers of combining alcohol with driving. I must say I give credit to Labatt for the innovative advertising campaigns it has come out with. When one puts it in the context of what the ministry spends and with what all the other breweries, distilleries and wineries are spending, it is no contest. It would he like putting the Saskatchewan Roughriders up against the Argonauts or something of that sort -- absolutely no contest, even with the Joe Barnes of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

I noticed in the study they have dealt with the question of the ban in British Columbia and its effectiveness on the drinking and driving stats in that province. The evidence does not seem to indicate an outright ban has any appreciable effect on the driving statistics.

I would be prepared to accept that. On the other hand, I would argue that this ministry should be collaborating with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to get our existing advertising and the alleged restriction, if not ban, on lifestyle advertising considerably tightened. I think the present regulations are a farce. Most breweries violate them daily. I would almost say it has become so prevalent that it is hard to find a beer ad on television these days that is not a lifestyle ad.

I hope this minister will take a stronger stand in the interests of safety; first, to get the present law and regulations not just observed but strictly enforced instead of stretched and not violated as they are now; and second, to put more emphasis on the question of safety within the ministry, whether it relates to motorcycle drivers or passenger vehicles. It seems to me if we look at the dollars and cents involved there is no other choice whatsoever.

I hope the minister will use his full moral suasion to support any initiative as a result of this report, because I think it has a lot of interesting, stimulating and worthwhile ideas. I especially appreciated the discussion on the question of mandatory jail sentences and the rather inconclusive results in that respect of the studies done, especially south of the border.

I thought some of the other ideas -- especially on a data bank and the inadequacies of our present system of licensing and collection of information for use by police forces -- brought home some very telling points. They are things that should be acted upon in the upcoming year. I do not think we have to delay them that long. If we could get co-operation interprovincially and with the federal government, we could implement some of the recommendations on a national basis within the next 18 months. In truly safety terms they make really good sense.

5:40 p.m.

I also thought the study had some very interesting ideas on the drinking age, the driving age, lengthening of licence suspensions, advertising, administration of licence suspensions, lower blood/alcohol counts for new drivers and driving curfews for new drivers as well. Obviously some of those would be very controversial, but I think they are questions we have to address in view of the statistics. We have to take note of the change in the public mood. There is a mood developing out there that no longer tolerates the rather easy attitude we have had in the past.

The authors of the report make a comparison to the change in attitudes towards physical fitness and smoking. They bring out the point that those topics were considered rather frivolous and on the peripheries of society but, with a far greater community and sense of public involvement, they became central issues. In fact, the people supporting the change were able to make major legislative changes. Now, for example, the whole concept of physical fitness is deeply embedded in the culture, especially the middle-class culture of Ontario, if not of Canada.

As to the question of smoking, we just have to look at this city and other major municipalities to realize how much influence that lobby has had on the last three or four years. The strong feelings held by people in such organizations as People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere and Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and some of the decisions made by the courts and the publicity given to those, have created increased public awareness about the whole issue.

We as politicians have to respond to that, not in any simplistic, demagogic way. The answer is not simply mandatory jail sentences. Most of the studies referred to in the report refute the idea that this is actually effective. They also bring out the valid point that it creates a host of new problems. Their basic recommendations in the report about a community-based effort and the need for a permanent office to deal exclusively with drinking and driving are well worth action.

I am glad to see that the Premier (Mr. Davis) has responded by taking some action in appointing, if I am not mistaken, ex-Commissioner Erskine of the Ontario Provincial Police. Personally, I still adhere to the idea we have to look a second time at one of the issues dealing with the question of drinking and driving because we have not looked for a long time. It is the whole question of the minimum age for driving in Ontario.

It is my own personal opinion that it is inconsistent to say people can be driving at 16 years of age but they cannot drink until they are 19 years of age. They cannot vote until they are 18, they cannot assume full adult status until they are 18, but they are free to go out on the roads in some souped-up car or muscle car at the age of 16.

It would be more consistent to have a common age of 18 years. It would save hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, in terms of insurance rates, Ontario health insurance plan costs and general costs if they kept it at that age.

I think the original law was changed in 1917, when we had an almost overwhelmingly rural society. Our society today is now 80 per cent urban in Ontario; and I can see the luxury, I can see the pleasure. I can see the enjoyment, but I have yet to be convinced that it is necessary for the good of society to have 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds driving cars. It we look at the accident rates, it is the same story every year. The 16- and 17-year-old drivers have the highest accident rates.

I have not heard convincing rationale as to why we continue that practice. Every year I have raised it in the estimates and every year the minister says it is the policy of his ministry not to change the minimum age.

If we are going to look at all these other aspects of driving -- drinking, safety, licensing and penalizing or suspending violators of our laws -- surely we have to give attention to this question. In 1984, at what age do we want people driving motor vehicles in this province? I am not convinced that 16 is the best age.

I want to close by referring to the testing system we have in this province, more particularly the facilities, especially at the John Rhodes Driver Examination Centre. I had the privilege of touring that facility a couple of months ago and I must say the staff were very co-operative.

I am not convinced they are really putting a great emphasis on the best interests of safety. It may serve the interest of administrative efficiency, it may provide somewhat greater ease for the employees involved in the testing procedure, but that experience did not convince me that it served the safety interest of our society.

It is not a very difficult test to go around a quarter-mile track, do the things you have to do in that test and then be certified to go out on Highway 401, 427 or in any form of expressway traffic. I am just not convinced that mere test prepares one adequately for those driving conditions and the demands of modern city driving.

I think we have to balance the considerations of economy with those of safety. The John Rhodes centre, while it maybe a very admirable addition to the ministry's facilities for driver testing, still does not convince me that we are getting our best value for the money we are investing, because if we can keep unsafe drivers off the road at the very beginning we save ourselves all sorts of problems further down the line.

That makes the testing procedures and the whole question of testing extremely important. We should not be putting it in the context of what would save the ministry the most money or what would help us get the most tests done in the least amount of time. I just have a terrible feeling that those were the primary considerations at the John Rhodes centre.

With those remarks, I will terminate my comments.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments with regard to the windup of the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. I always have a few things I like to get in when the estimates are on, but this year we did cut the time down and we did not seem to have an opportunity to discuss some of them.

I was listening to the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) speak about the 16-year-old drivers and I must say I have to disagree with him. Maybe he will change his mind as time goes on.

I started driving when I was 16. I have five children, four of whom started at 16 and one at 18. The reason the other one started at 18 was that he failed twice so he just waited until he was 18 and then got his licence. He was the first one to have an accident, so maybe that was a good sign when he went for his test. Twice he was turned down because one of his problems was travelling too close to the cars in front of him and that is how his first accident happened. Thank goodness none of them had any since.

I think there is nothing wrong with 16-year- olds getting their licences as long as they realize the responsibility they have. I suppose I should not look at my own case, but I see many that are similar. Also, when we are in a small-town rural setting and we have twins playing hockey at five o'clock in the morning, when they get to be 16 it is awfully nice to say: "You can take the car and go skating yourself this morning. I won't have to get up at 4:30."

Mr. Samis: You actually do that?

Mr. Ruston: Yes, that's right; and that was the best thing that ever happened, although on some occasions we borrowed the neighbour's 16-year-olds to drive our kids when they were 15 if we were too busy. However, those are personal things that I have always felt very strongly about.

I wanted to mention a couple of things to the minister with regard to the signing of bypasses. The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) brought this up in the estimates a few weeks ago. I think the member has some of the same problems I have seen throughout the province and in my own area, where bypasses are built around many of the towns, small towns some of them. There are different areas where we are building bypasses to keep the traffic moving.

Some of the signs they put up are so small you cannot see them, especially if you are driving -- of course, no one breaks the speed limit -- at 80 kilometres per hour. Some of these are what we call "finger signs." That is all the are. There is something pointing there, but it is very difficult to see many of them. From what I can gather, the minister said in some correspondence that they are reviewing this matter, but up to now I am not aware of any new ideas they are coming out with as to what size the signs should be on bypasses where they are designating sometimes only small villages or small towns; or whatever they might be, business places. Of course, there would have to be a place, a town, a hamlet or something.

5:50 p.m.

I am wondering if we should be looking at some type of better signing than we have for designated places to get off even the main highways, like 401, 400 and so forth. In some cases, I find people go by them almost before they realize it, such as those that are built off the roads at some of the overpasses. I think that is something we should b e looking at, and hopefully the minister will come up with some new suggestions. We have many suggestions, but apparently none of them have been accepted by the ministry.

I have a kind of local problem with regard to the construction and rebuilding of Highway 18 in Essex county. I know the minister is aware of it. It is currently a two-lane highway and they are making it into a four-lane highway. It is going to put the curb construction to within about 11 feet to the front of a living room. I do not know if anybody can live and sleep in a house within 10 or 12 feet of a car or truck going by at about 70 kilometres an hour, or whatever the speed limit will be, but I have a feeling that it might shake them out of bed.

Those are some of the problems I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister; they are quite serious. Regarding the reconstruction of this highway, I think he is going to have real difficulty in construction without acquiring some property and maybe having to move a few houses; not too many, but I have a fear that some of them are going to be very close. I do not think it is going to be feasible to leave them that close. That is all I have to say at this time.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister whether or not there is anybody in his ministry -- I think the third largest in government in terms of its expenditures and in terms of the number of employees, who by and large d0 an excellent job -- who plans on a long-range basis with municipalities, with other ministries, with resource-based industry for accessing communities, resources, and particularly the amount of dollars everybody, for whatever reason, spends on access.

Has this ministry ever sort of taken a step back from what is done very well by way of new construction and maintenance, to see how the funds are spent, whether it be directly by his ministry, on priorities set by the Ministry of Northern Affairs in those areas north of the French River; or the way in which funds are spent by forestry companies, mining companies and by some individuals accessing cottage-lot subdivisions? Literally tens of millions of dollars are spent annually.

We find situations where we have orphan roads in places such as Auden, Hillsport, Biscotasing, Pagwa River; a good many places throughout the province where, if it were not for the vigilance of his ministry, with the assistance in many instances of the Ministry of Natural Resources and in other instances by the Ministry of Northern Affairs, we would have people in those communities who perform yeomen service on our behalf in much the same way as many of his employees do in keeping the lines of transportation open.

I am thinking of those communities along the north line of the Canadian National Railway. The minister, along with other ministries, has co-operated in keeping those roads open and maintaining them. The people who spend money on roads do it in their own particular way, serving their own particular interest without any overall plan. The minister knows that at least 15 per cent of the forested area in northern Ontario is taken up with roads when a good deal of that area should be dedicated to the production of forest products.

It seems to me officials of this ministry, if they sat down and looked at that plate of spaghetti we get if we put all the roads in existence, whether they be secondary highways, access roads, roads that for whatever reason we spend taxpayers' dollars on, would see we have situations where there are a good many people who are responsible for keeping the lines of communication open between eastern and western Canada in northern Ontario, the heartland of the nation, yet we do not have the wit -- I think we have the will -- and we do not have the plan to provide a level of service that everybody down here takes for granted and absolutely insists on, that is access to existing essential services.

The minister knows we have many communities in the north that do not enjoy that basic level of service, indeed that basic right. It is not that we are not spending the money. Heaven knows I can show the minister areas where we are accessing timber resources. We have Great Lakes coming in from one direction, Domtar coming in from another direction and Abitibi coming in from another direction; yet there is no overall plan.

We have communities that are not served at all. Some of them are isolated and are accessed only by rail transportation. I am convinced we are spending more than enough money in total. Whether it is Domtar or whoever, the cost of them extracting the wood translates itself in the cost of the product to the consumer. So in a very real sense, whether it be by way of tax dollars under a federal-provincial subagreement to access those timber resources or however we do it, the cost ultimately comes down to the consumer, who is, in fact, the taxpayer.

I am convinced we are spending more than enough money to provide the basic transportation needs of everybody in Ontario, save the northern Indian reserves. I am convinced we are spending more than enough money to access every community south of the 50th parallel wherever people live in Ontario, yet we have this shortfall. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications, in concert with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Northern Affairs, has to come up with a year-to-year arrangement whereby we can provide access to those areas.

I ask the minister whether he has somebody within his ministry who monitors those expenditures and whether anybody in his ministry has taken the time to analyse the hundreds of millions of dollars we spend every year on road access, capital funding and maintenance. Yet if we did not have people in those out of the way places, Canadian National would not keep operating efficiently, Canadian Pacific would not be operating, Ontario Hydro would not be as efficient, Bell Canada would not be as efficient. For all of those agencies, whether they be in transportation, communication or some other service, we have to have those people in little out of the way hamlets to maintain those services on our behalf.

Will the minister address himself to that problem so that we can get the biggest bang for our transportation dollar and we can remove those people from the isolation they find themselves in at the present time?

On motion by Mr. G. I. Miller, the debate was adjourned.

The House recessed at 6:01 p.m.

November 29, 1983