Hansard Transcripts 1981-Oct-15 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder if you could report to the House the results of your investigation with the Premier (Mr. Davis) or the Premier's office on the lack of the tabling of a compendium in support of his statement on Tuesday of the government's intention to purchase 25 per cent of Suncor Incorporated with $650 million of our funds.

I know, sir, you are aware of the rule in this House, standing order 26(c), that calls for the tabling of such a compendium after a statement from the ministry. This is one of special importance, since other members of the House will surely be called on not only to respond with their own views but also to be able to prepare an opinion based on the facts that were available to the government as they moved to a decision.

It is extremely important in this instance as well as in others that the rules be followed, and you undertook to investigate that. Two days have now gone by, and we anxiously await the tabling of a compendium of the information that led the Premier and at least some of his colleagues to come to the conclusion that that course of action was proper.

Mr. Speaker: I have to tell the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) that I do not have that information as yet. However, as soon as I do have it, it will be made available.

CONSTITUENCY OFFICES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege dealing with your memorandum to the members of the Legislature, dated September 22, 1981, and dealing with constituency offices. I congratulate you for having forwarded this memo to all the members. It is an issue that I had raised back in February 1981.

I read from your memo that you are suggesting that all activities in relation to constituency offices should be strictly nonpartisan. Then you go on to talk about constituency office signs. One of the things you say is that the sign must not display the name of a political party.

This memo came out on September 22, 1981, and I know you have had correspondence with some members in relation to the application of this memo. It was suggested in some of your correspondence that the purpose of the memo was especially to advise new members to make sure not to have any party association or party activity related to the constituency office.

It has come to my attention that one senior member in this House -- and who would you guess it would be, of all the members in this House? -- the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), still has a billboard up on Bank Street, one of the main streets in Ottawa, next to Lansdowne Park. I will send you a photo of the billboard, which clearly reads: "Claude Bennett, MPP, Ottawa South, PC" -- with the PC logo in large letters -- "Constituency Office." And then it gives the phone number.

In my opinion, this act by a senior member of the government, and he is certainly a senior member in the House, is a clear breach of the guidelines of the Board of Internal Economy. I trust that you will give the message to the member for Ottawa South, and give it very clearly; possibly the most effective way of doing it would be to send him a notice with his first cheque for accommodation allowance for his luxurious home in Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for Ottawa East for drawing this matter to my attention.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, can I ask speak on the same point of order?

Mr. Speaker: I think it has been dealt with. Do you have a specific matter?

Ms. Copps: I have a specific point of order regarding another minister.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre with a point of order.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order raised by the member for Ottawa East: I would like to bring to the attention of the Speaker that he might also contact the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and advise him that his constituency office is not the office of the government, as has been translated in Portuguese and several other languages. In fact, his is a constituency office, which is duly translatable in Portuguese, Chinese and other languages.

If you go and take a look at his constituency office, you will see that he calls it the office of the "governo," which it is not, and I would like to advise the Speaker that that also should be altered.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for Hamilton Centre for drawing this matter to my attention.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENERGY EXPLORATION

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Ontario Energy Corporation announced its intention to explore for oil and gas offshore in Hudson Bay. Today I would like to provide the members of the Legislative Assembly with a few details of the agreement.

Under the terms of an exploration agreement issued by the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Ontario Energy Resources Limited, a subsidiary of the Ontario Energy Corporation, and two other partners, Canadian Occidental Petroleum Limited and Sogepet Limited, have undertaken a five-year seismic and possible drilling program offshore in Hudson Bay. The first 18-month seismic program will begin next summer at an initial cost of $7.6 million. The total project could involve expenditures of up to $50 million in 1981 dollars. The partners to the joint venture each hold a 33.3 per cent interest.

The area to be explored is enormous -- 72 million acres -- and is as large as the North and Baltic Seas combined. In fact, it is believed to be the largest single exploratory parcel of land ever granted in Canada.

This is Canada's best-situated offshore frontier area in a logistic sense. The exploration area is very accessible and a favourable site for exploration or drilling. Ice conditions are seasonal. The average water depth is only 600 feet.

2:10 p.m.

The region is accessible by two railway systems and a seasonally functioning deepsea harbour with a sea route to the North Atlantic. South coast ports for any offshore fluid hydrocarbon production would be within 600 miles by pipeline distance to Lake Superior ports and approximately 1,000 miles to Toronto. Any significant finds made in Hudson Bay would offer considerable comparative advantages in terms of shorter development time and delivery to market time, and for lower capital costs than the other offshore frontiers in Canada.

Extensive geological and geophysical work already has been conducted in the bay, and geological evidence suggests that the hydrocarbon reserves could be substantial. The Ontario Energy Corporation and its partners, however, do not expect to begin drilling until the fifth year of activity.

In terms of job creation, only a few people will be employed during the initial seismic surveys as the manpower requirements are minimal. With encouraging seismic results, however, the fifth year will see a takeoff in manpower requirements as wells are drilled and onshore services are required.

The exploration licence issued by the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources incorporates strict environmental controls regarding seismic work and exploratory drilling. Other environmental protection is provided under the regulations followed under the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act. The fifth year of the agreement also provides for more than $1 million in studies, including environmental impact assessments.

Finding a significant and dependable source of oil or natural gas in Hudson Bay could open up a new energy supply for Ontario and Canada generally, reducing our dependence on costly imported fuels.

Mr. Foulds: Are you taking equity on any findings?

Hon. Mr. Welch: We are a partner.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

RURAL ELECTRICITY RATES

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have another announcement. I wish to advise the House that later today I will be introducing legislation which will take a further step in keeping with this government's commitment to reduce the differential in residential electrical bills between rural and urban service.

With this legislation, which amends the Power Corporation Act, Ontario Hydro will be authorized to reduce the differential between the average rural residential bill and the average urban bill to 15 per cent, effective January 1, 1982.

Mr. J. A. Reed: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If this is a ministerial statement, is there any reason why the energy critic does not have a copy of the statement?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It could be because the honourable member's leader has it.

Mr. J. A. Reed: My package might have been packaged in error.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Did the member get a copy of the one on exploration?

Mr. J. A. Reed: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Welch: This is part of that statement.

Mr. J. A. Reed: It is not there.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member should just read on. It is part of that statement. While we are having this exchange, there it is in the envelope. His leader has found it.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Although the cost of distributing electricity in rural areas is much higher than in urban areas, a reduction of the rate differential to 15 per cent is both necessary and reasonable.

The action we are taking today is consistent with an Ontario Hydro report I tabled last November which was prepared at the request of the Premier. The report recommended the differential be targeted to 15 per cent.

Members of the House know that the first step in meeting the Premier's commitment to bring rural bills more in line with urban bills was a special $20-million grant to Ontario Hydro for 1981. With this action, Ontario Hydro was able to reduce the annual cost of electricity paid by year-round rural residents during 1981 by approximately 540.

Members of the House will recall that this grant was an interim step pending further action for the year 1982. Today, we are taking that action with the introduction of this legislation.

Each year, more of the densely populated parts of rural Ontario are becoming part of our municipalities. Therefore, the rural cost burden is being shared by a decreasing number of people in our more sparsely settled areas. This is evident in data which show that some 95,000 rural customers became customers of municipal utilities during the last five years.

The percentage of Ontario electrical consumers served by municipal utilities is steadily increasing. This government is committed to the continuation of the municipal utility philosophy which has served this province so well over the last 75 years.

In order to lower the electrical bill of the rural resident, the legislation will allow Ontario Hydro to collect approximately $34 million in 1982 from all of its customers, increasing bulk power costs by one per cent to 1.5 per cent.

All members of the House will be interested to know that approximately 530,000 rural residents across Ontario will have their hydro bills reduced.

INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES' MUNICIPAL PAYMENTS BILL

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure this afternoon in announcing that I will be introducing a bill entitled the International Bridges' Municipal Payment Act, 1981.

The proposed legislation establishes long-run provincial policy on payment in lieu of property taxes to be made by the international bridge authorities and commissions to municipalities in which these bridges are situated.

The proposed legislation will require all bridge commissions or authorities named in the act to make full payments in lieu of property taxes, excluding educational levies, on all real property excepting the bridge spans themselves.

Also, the formula as set out in the bill provides for a lump sum payment by each authority or commission in addition to payments in lieu using assessed value of real property and prevailing mill rates in each municipality concerned. This payment is in place of any assessment on the bridge spans themselves.

Both the lump sum payments and the payment in lieu will be phased in over a three-year period, and the provincial government will assist with the financing of the total payments in lieu during this phase-in period.

Existing legislation governing the Blue Water Bridge Authority is repealed and replaced by this legislation, which will also govern all financial arrangements covering bridges operated by the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission.

I believe this bill offers a comprehensive policy for the payment in lieu of taxes to be made for the international bridges named in the act.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS BILL

Hon. Mr. Bennett: This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I will also introduce the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Bill.

As members may recall, on November 18, 1980, my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) moved first reading of Bill 197. That legislation was the product of a policy review begun in the year 1978 in response to briefs submitted to the government by spokesmen for both urban and rural municipalities. These briefs called for an alternative to what had often become costly and bitter confrontations between the Ontario Municipal Board over annexation and amalgamation.

The government responded to these briefs on August 1979 by presenting a proposal for a new procedure modelled on labour-management bargaining techniques. This negotiated process was then successfully pilot-tested in the Brantford-Brant area and later employed in discussions between the city of Barrie and the township of Innisfil.

Legislation to implement the comprehensive agreement reached in Brant was passed by the Legislature last June. It will be my pleasure to introduce a bill to the House in the next few weeks to implement a similar agreement between the city of Barrie and the township of Innisfil. I hope that legislation will end years of discussion and controversy in that part of our province.

The members may recall as well that, before introducing Bill 197 last fall, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs released a position paper setting out a refined version of the new procedure. This paper reflected the experience gained in the Brantford test as well as the discussions held over the summer of 1980 with a working group representing Ontario's three municipal associations.

The revised version of the bill which I will be placing before the members incorporates further suggestions from this working group, along with suggestions from individual municipalities and municipal associations. The draft was extensively reviewed with the working group on October 7 of this year and met with general support at the meeting of the Municipal Liaison Committee on October 9.

The bill simplifies the strengths and negotiated procedures set out in Bill 197. It also renders --

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister will share a copy of his statement with the critics. I have a compendium here on the boundary thing, but I do not have a copy of the ministerial statement.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that copies of both the compendium and the statement were being issued to the opposition parties.

Mr. Speaker: Will you make sure the member for Waterloo North is supplied with a copy?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will, sir.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Epp: If we did not get one, I am sure the New Democratic Party did not get one either.

Mr. Speaker: It would appear nobody got a copy. Mr. Minister, will you see they are distributed immediately, please?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Fine, Mr. Speaker. I will defer it until tomorrow if that is what they wish.

2:20 p.m.

GAS FURNACE VALVES

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise members of a general warning letter being distributed to all gas furnace customers in Ontario -- about one million gas furnace customers -- beginning today.

Recent investigations by the natural gas industry, in co-operation with the technical standards division of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, have shown that residential gas furnaces equipped with certain White-Rodgers valves may intermittently malfunction. While the likelihood of failure is extremely rare, we are concerned about the potential of these furnaces overheating and causing fires.

The White-Rodgers valves in question are in the model 36B series -- not unlike the one I have in front of me -- and they have been used on gas furnaces manufactured by several companies. These companies and their product names are listed in the letter being mailed to gas furnace customers with their next utility bills.

The general warning letter explains how consumers can quickly check whether their furnaces are equipped with a White-Rodgers valve.

If the valve is date-coded 7630 to 7752 -- which means the valve was produced in 1976 or 1977 -- the consumer is urged to contact a local heating contractor, the furnace manufacturer or the White-Rodgers company. White-Rodgers will replace these valves at no charge to the consumer.

If the valve is a White-Rodgers but outside the 7630 to 7752 date codes, the manufacturer will replace the valve at a special price of approximately $37 plus labour. It should be noted that we have no evidence that valves outside the 7630 to 7752 date codes are prone to malfunction.

The general warning letter also explains how the home owner can determine whether his gas furnace is likely to overheat.

We have already notified heating contractors, furnace manufacturers and gas utilities of this potential problem so that they can respond promptly to consumer inquiries.

I wish to stress that we are committed to the basic principle that any costs imposed on the unsuspecting consumer should be borne by the responsible business or industry. Consequently, we expect the industry, through its own arrangements with White-Rodgers and as part of good customer relations, to absorb any furnace inspection charges and long-distance collect calls for consumers who have White-Rodgers valves in their gas furnaces.

JEUX CANADA GAMES

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, this past summer the city of Thunder Bay and Ontario had the privilege of hosting for the first time the Jeux Canada Games. The 1981 Summer Games were a tremendous success, and today in your gallery we have with us some of the men and women who did so much to make them so special.

As all honourable members can appreciate, an event as big and complicated as the Jeux Canada Games, involving some 3,000 athletes from 10 provinces and two territories in 17 sports, takes years of dedication to plan and stage.

In Thunder Bay, thousands of volunteers pulled together under the guidance of the Jeux Canada Games Society to make these games happen. They set out to make the games the best ever and they succeeded.

The society's efforts revolved around two men in particular, and together they represent an extraordinary community effort that deserves the congratulations and thanks of every member of this House. It is therefore my pleasure to present to honourable members Mr. Bruce Walker, the president of the 1981 Jeux Canada Games Society, and Mr. Taras Kozyra, the society's general manager.

These gentlemen and the remarkably dedicated group with whom they worked set a magnificent stage in Thunder Bay, but it was the competition played out on that stage that was the very heart of the games themselves. When that 14 days of competition was finished, our very own Ontario team was at the top of the standings, the winner of the coveted Canada Summer Games flag.

Ontario athletes and teams were contenders in every sport and the winners of many. But in swimming some achievements were of world-class standing. When the members of the Ontario women's four by 200 freestyle relay swim team won the gold medal, they set not only a Canada Games record but also a new Canadian senior women's record, and they set what was then the second fastest time in the world for that event.

Adding to this single outstanding achievement, these four young ladies in the gallery stacked up an amazing number of gold medals -- a total of 22 -- for swimming events during the games.

Jennifer Campbell set a record for the number of medals won at a Canada Games competition, with seven gold, one silver and one bronze.

Michelle McPherson won one of her gold medals with a performance that turned out to be the fourth fastest time in the world for the 400 individual medley.

In personal achievements, Cheryl McArton and Kathy Bald were not far behind. Kathy took five gold medals and Cheryl took four.

These young women represent all that is outstanding in competitive athletics in our province and in our country; so it is with great pleasure that I now introduce to this House the members of Ontario's world-class women's four by 200 freestyle relay swim team: Kathy Bald of Ottawa, Jennifer Campbell of Copper Cliff, Cheryl McArton of Toronto and Michelle McPherson of Toronto.

Applause.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the whole House extends congratulations to these young people.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time in the proceedings later this afternoon, I will be introducing bills amending three of the acts under the administration of my ministry.

The first will be the Environmental Protection Act, and these amendments will greatly enhance the effectiveness of this particular piece of legislation.

The honourable members have been provided with extensive briefing documents, both on Tuesday and agaifl today, just to make sure that if they happened to have left their copies in their offices they would not be upset this afternoon. I would like to mention a few of the amendments and the logic behind them.

First, we have moved to clear up legal uncertainty regarding the ownership of waste delivered to and accepted by the operator of a waste disposal site. The amendment makes it clear that waste becomes the responsibility of the owner.

What about waste deposited without authority on a site? The proposed amendments transfer ownership of such waste to the site operator without extinguishing the legal liability of the previous owner; in other words, there is shared responsibility under those circumstances.

The incentive is increased here to prevent indiscriminate dumping. It is clearly in the best interest of all parties to maintain such a level of security in the disposal operation as to prevent unauthorized deposits.

We are taking further steps against the fly-by-night operator who gets in the waste disposal business simply by obtaining a vehicle and dumping waste in a remote area without incurring the cost of treatment and of disposal at an approved site.

Under the amendments, designated officers will be empowered to seize immediately the permit and number plates of such a vehicle and, at the time of prosecution, to apply for a court order suspending the permit and plates for a period of up to five years. That will certainly make an operator think twice about engaging in that type of activity for easy profits.

Where a vehicle was registered outside Ontario, the court is empowered to order the return of permit and plates to the authority that issued them.

We have clarified and reinforced the powers of the Environmental Appeal Board. It is now abundantly clear that the board has the authority to go beyond a decision of the director and to substitute its own decisions for that of the director or to require him to reconsider a decision in accordance with the board's decision. If there is any doubt, this amendment now clarifies the power of the board.

The present wording provides for an appeal on a question of law from a decision of the board to a local county court. The proposed amendment provides that an appeal should be made to the divisional court of the Supreme Court of Ontario. We feel that this will reflect properly the importance of the issues and the fact that questions of law raised in appeal are often of general importance in the administration of the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Finally, the act as now constituted does not prescribe a limitation period for prosecutions. As a consequence of that, the general limitation period of six months, as set out in the Provincial Offences Act, applies.

2:30 p.m.

My ministry has been experiencing difficulty in bringing prosecutions to court within the prescribed limit. Pollution offences are often very difficult to detect and often take place in remote areas. A contaminant may mix with or disappear into the ground, the air or the water, and adverse effects may only arise after considerable time has passed. Laboratory verification of contaminants in a manner suitable for use in court is often complex and time-consuming.

A two-year limitation period would greatly increase the ministry's capability for prosecutions, particularly for those involving hauled industrial waste and hazardous waste. Therefore, we are providing for such an extention of the limitation period.

In addition to that bill, I will also be introducing --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask all the honourable members to please refrain from private conversations while the ministerial statements are being made.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I was appreciating the high level of interest across the House in these important amendments.

In the proposed amendments to the Ontario Water Resources Act, we will be dealing with the matter of water wells. This will represent the first complete revision of these provisions since they were enacted in 1957.

Once again, the members have been provided with the background information. What we will be proposing will ensure the adequate installation, maintenance and closure of water wells for the protection of well water supplies and ground water and for public health and safety.

Under the terms of the third bill, there will be a relatively minor amendment to the Pesticides Act providing for the introduction of a two-year period during which prosecutions may be brought for similar reasons as I outlined in my first statement respecting the Environmental Protection Act.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling two documents dealing with the management of our forest resources.

The first document, Forest Research 80, is a report on the accomplishments of the Ontario Forest Research Centre at Maple and of the four field stations engaged in various aspects of research work.

This report describes the research done on a wide range of topics in forest biology, all of which is aimed at improving forest production, be it for fibre, poles, logs or biomass.

An important task of any research organization is, of course, to make its findings known to those who could or should use them, what is often referred to as technology transfer. I am confident this report accomplishes that task as efficiently and concisely as possible.

The second document I am tabling, Aerial Spraying for Forest Management -- an Operational Manual, is a detailed how-to set of instructions for a highly complex operation.

Aerial spraying, as I am sure the honourable members are aware, is an essential technique for the control of insects and unwanted vegetation in Ontario's forests. Indeed, in most cases, it is the only practical method of applying pesticides.

This manual offers complete directions to field staff and deals with every aspect of spraying, from the initial public information exercises to the actual handling of spray material and the selection of aircraft and pilots.

The forestry experts in my ministry are well aware of the concerns often expressed about aerial spraying, and this manual is in response to our insistence that all such projects be conducted with a high degree of operational control and maximum regard for the safety of all those involved.

I believe these two publications will offer the honourable members a good overview of our recent efforts in forest management.

WEST PATRICIA LAND-USE PLAN

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a document dealing with the use of land in the West Patricia area of our province. This deals with a planning area covering 223,500 square kilometres in the northwestern Ontario administrative districts of Red Lake, Sioux Lookout and Geraldton north of the Albany River.

The growing population and improved standard of living in Ontario are placing more and more demands on our land and water resources. In order to meet those demands it is essential that the uses of the land and water resources are co-ordinated. That is why we need land-use plans.

Our comprehensive land-use planning program is our response to the challenges these increasing demands have thrust upon my ministry.

Land-use planning deals with the identification and allocation of land to realize specific benefits from the basic resources of land and water. These benefits could be well-known products of the natural environment such as timber or minerals, or they could be derived from the use of the natural environment for leisure-time activities such as camping, sport fishing or snowmobiling.

Of course, planning also deals with the social, economic and environmental costs of achieving these benefits. Since my ministry's land-use planning program is designed to serve, first, the residents of the planning area and, second, the people of Ontario as a whole, public participation is an extremely important step in the planning process.

To this end we have conducted a number of open-house sessions with the public regarding the West Patricia plan. These were held at Red Lake on July 28 last, at Sioux Lookout on August 5 and at Ear Falls on August 6. Our aim was to involve concerned citizens with every step of the planning process. Publications outlining the West Patricia land-use planning process included an introduction booklet, various papers dealing with the public participation program and a series of approximately 30 background information papers. These publications were made available to the public as they were completed.

My stand on public participation is well known, I am sure. I feel very strongly about the need to keep the taxpayers fully informed of the actions of my ministry and of the effects such actions may have on all sectors of our society. This West Patricia land-use plan publication is but another way to achieve this aim.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Pope: If you would send someone up, you would find out about it.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, does this mean that Timmins will not get a food terminal?

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. I would like to quote from his statement to this House one year ago, which can be found in Hansard beginning on page 3863. He says:

"I believe strongly that more of the nation's petroleum industry should be Canadianized, but I make a very clear distinction between Canadianization and nationalization. Nationalization along the lines the budget has proposed will simply export Canadian dollars without adding one barrel of oil to our supplies. Taxing the Canadian people" -- and this is the key sentence -- "to buy the existing industry is really a misallocation of resources and a waste of time."

In view of the fact that the Treasurer is a man of honour and integrity, who obviously holds very deeply views fundamentally opposed to the purchase of Suncor, will the Treasurer explain to this House how he can continue to pretend to be the man in charge of economic policy in Ontario when such a major decision as the purchase of Suncor has been made clearly against his wishes? Will he have the honour, the integrity and the self-respect either to resign his position or to ask to be transferred to a different portfolio?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I recall making that statement a year ago, Mr. Speaker. I believe it was in response to the federal government's national energy program, and it was the feeling of this government, not just myself, at that time.

I believe the ability to control the economy of this province still rests in the Treasury. I would point out that whenever a decision is taken in the cabinet of this government, it is endorsed by all members of the cabinet. That has been one of the main reasons we have stayed in power on this side of the House and the opposition has been divided on that side of the House.

At the same time I, like all my colleagues in the cabinet, took a pledge when I was sworn in as a minister and member of the executive council to express freely and in the confidence of cabinet my opinions on any matters. I have that opportunity and I would suspect if I had to resign each time I disagreed with the consensus opinion of cabinet, I or any other minister would be faced with resignation at least once a week.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, given that we are not speaking of just the average minister disagreeing with the average cabinet decision, but we are speaking of the Treasurer of Ontario being fundamentally, philosophically, deeply at odds with the most major economic undertaking announced in the past several years by the government of Ontario, does the Treasurer not recognize that for his own self respect, given the depth of his feeling on this matter, he owes it to himself and to the concept of honour in politics to at least ask to be in a different portfolio, if not to resign outright?

While he speaks of this as a decision and opinion he held some time ago, he must surely recall his interview in Le Devoir only seven weeks ago, while the very negotiations were going on with Suncor presumably -- I remind him the Premier said it was the support of the Canadianization program that led him to purchase Suncor -- in which the Treasurer said the national energy program of the federal government was among the principal causes of the economic difficulties of the country and he claimed the reason high interest rates were necessary in this country was because of a lack of confidence in the dollar which the national energy program had engendered.

Under these circumstances, once again I call on the minister, as a person for whom I have personal respect, to have the honour in politics to resign his post on this occasion.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I really have no further answer.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the Treasurer tell the House what precise documentation was provided to the cabinet and to him, along this passage through the Red Sea, to persuade him that it was in the government's interest to reverse his policy and obtain 25 per cent of Suncor, and why the government and cabinet were persuaded not to go to the 51 per cent to provide full Canadianization of the company?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think other ministers might answer that better than I. The member may wish to address it to another minister later on. I can assure him that at the time the negotiations began, that was the amount available. The Premier commented the other day that there were certain option periods or points during which the province had an option or the right to buy certain percentages up to 51 per cent.

Mr. Foulds: I would redirect it to the Minister of Energy for an answer.

Mr. Speaker: He said you may ask another question at a later time.

Mr. Foulds: He said redirect.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure he said you may ask another question at another time.

Mr. Smith: Given that it must surely be the Treasurer's first priority to improve the economic climate of this province and this country, and given that there can be nothing more fundamental than the statement he made -- which says that our economic difficulties, our high interest rates and the lack of confidence that is seen in the Canadian dollar are due to this nationalization or Canadianization program -- given that those are his fundamental beliefs, can the Treasurer think of anything more basic upon which a difference of principle with the government might involve his resigning from the Treasurer's post?

Given that his own words have said this is a misallocation of resources, a waste of time and it is undermining confidence in the dollar and is responsible for high interest rates, what worse has to be done before the Treasurer would feel he should give up his post?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Smith: I have a second question, Mr. Speaker. Excuse me. I was quite dumfounded by the fact that the Treasurer did not rise. I am disappointed as well.

I have a second question for the Treasurer. Is the reason for his unhappiness about the Suncor purchase that he believes Ontario should be using what scarce financial resources it has for other purposes and should not be increasing the cash requirements or deficit by over $300 million for a deal which will not create a single job in Ontario, which will do nothing to help the businesses in Ontario or our manufacturing sector, which will do nothing to help those hit by inflation or by high interest rates, which will do nothing to ensure the quality of health, education and social services and will do nothing to reduce our dependence on oil?

Is it because all those priorities are held higher by the Treasurer that he is reluctant to give $300 million of additional debt over to this Suncor purchase? Is that the reason he is against the purchase?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has woven into his question a number of assumptions. The first was that I had stated somewhere that I disagreed with this decision. I did not. The comment of a year ago that he read is not related to this specific deal.

I pointed out to the Leader of the Opposition in the beginning, when I began this, that regardless of a private position in cabinet a minister of the crown supports the decisions of the cabinet. Second, he has made the assumption that it may not be a wise investment or that it has no productive or direct benefits to the province. He said there would not be a single job brought to the province in his question on that particular deal.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That was last year's statement on another subject altogether. I am simply pointing out that at this point I cannot predict what direct employment results, if any, will occur in Ontario on the basis of the purchase of 25 per cent of Suncor. I suspect the member jumped to that conclusion in his question. I am simply saying that is --

Mr. Peterson: On what basis?

Hon. F. S. Miller: On the basis of whether the deal was a good purchase. The answer is unquestionably yes. The price paid by the province, the viability of the company -- all those things stood rigorous and rigid examination by many people in the course of many months of tough negotiation, which was mainly concerned with the price and the value of the assets. That part clearly stands on its own merits.

Mr. Smith: The Treasurer is too intelligent a person to truly believe that what he is saying constitutes an answer to the question he was asked. I therefore ask him again: Does he not recognize that the Premier has said this will not create jobs in Ontario?

Would the Treasurer please explain to us how, aside from the fact that this might turn out in the long run to be a good investment --

An hon. member: It will.

Mr. Smith: It might. Buying stocks on the stock market might turn out to be good. Buying land assemblies could have turned out to be good. It turned out to be bad, but it could turn out to be good.

Given the fact it is not the primary job of the government of Ontario to go around seeking interesting business deals around the country but rather to tax the people of Ontario to provide better services for the people of Ontario, and to do only those things that the private sector is unable or unwilling to do, would the Treasurer admit that he is reluctant to suffer an increase in his cash requirements of over $300 million for something that does not help depressed Ontario industries, does not provide employment for our people, does not ensure the strength of our services and does not reverse the economic decline in our manufacturing sector?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I wish I had the time to go back and get a copy of a speech the member gave in Kingston. It does not seem to me that the things he is now enunciating as if they were right-wing Liberal policy were the things he stated as his objectives for a government.

I find it difficult to believe that a person who would try to direct his party to the left as he did in Kingston would be suggesting that this kind of involvement in determining the security of the oil supply of the citizens of Ontario is wrong.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I do not think I have seen a minister as uncomfortable in defending a government policy since Bert Lawrence was defending his trip to Cuba seven or eight years ago in this Legislature.

Since the reason we do not get jobs in Ontario from the deal, the reason we get only technical Canadianization, the reason Sun Oil in the United States will continue to control the company, is that Ontario is only taking 25 per cent and leaving control in the American company's hands, could the minister explain why Ontario shied away from taking 51 per cent so we could run that company for the interest of Canadians and Ontarians?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is in the interests of those of us who live in Ontario, including the honourable member -- and I believe he has roundly supported this purchase, unless I am wrong -- to see that 51 per cent of the company is held by Canadians. Through that will flow a number of benefits, as I understand it, to the company and, therefore, to the shareholders including ourselves and, perhaps more important, to those of us who depend upon new sources of oil from within Canada.

There is a period of time during which, it is my understanding, the owners of Sun Oil Incorporated in the United States will actively be looking for other purchasers for the balance of the shares to Canadianize that company. It is also my understanding that the arrangements concluded permit this province at certain stated points to purchase more shares.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part supplementary question. First, I want to ask the Treasurer how he intends to finance this purchase, particularly given the fact he has tabled supplementaries for an additional quarter of a billion dollars and now, on top of that, there is another $325 million out of this year's budget?

Second, does this purchase, which obviously was under negotiation for some period of time, account for the fact the Treasurer and the Premier were mum on energy prices after the conclusion of the federal-Alberta agreement on energy prices, particularly since they paraded as the champions of low energy prices before the election; and does this recent acquisition not put them into an intolerable position of conflict of interest on the energy pricing question in this country?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question, the financing is reasonably straightforward: $325 million will be paid by Ontario to, I believe, Ontario Energy Corporation, which in turn --

Mr. Peterson: Where are you going to borrow it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That would be borrowed from the normal pension funds of this year. That will increase my cash requirements by $325 million. The second $325 million will be borrowed through devices as yet to be finalized. When those are finalized, I believe the member will find the moneys required to handle that $325 million may well be generated, hopefully, by dividends or cash flows during the 10-year period. That will be finalized before the closing date on the deal.

The second part of the question --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was asked of the Treasurer; let the Treasurer reply.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is a bit difficult, Mr. Speaker. The second part of the question was, "Does this suddenly take us to world prices?" The answer is, of course not. Listen, I do not know what share of the Canadian markets Suncor has, but if it is thought that for the relatively small total refund Ontario will get through the dividend process, we suddenly want to see the price skyrocket, I think that is an absolutely ridiculous conclusion.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, we used to be accused of being wild-eyed Socialists, but now we have wild-eyed Tories and just wild Liberals in this House.

I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The estimates by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that were disclosed in Ottawa yesterday stated that 85,000 Canadians will lose their homes by the end of this year because of the high interest rates and having to renew their mortgages. Since 40 per cent of the home owners in the country are in Ontario, that means some 35,000 Ontarians will lose their homes by the end of this year because of the high interest rates on mortgages when they come to renew. Has the ministry investigated just what the situation is and would the minister give us his estimate of how many people in this province will lose their homes because of the increase in mortgage rates?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not sure the statement that CMHC released the report in Ottawa is correct. It is my understanding it was the leader of the NDP in Ottawa who released that particular remark. I do not recall having heard the minister reporting for CMHC in Ottawa concurring with it, but the figure of 85,000 has been used.

Let me very carefully indicate what we see in Ontario in relationship to those who will use 30 per cent or more of their gross disposable income in relationship to housing. In doing an assessment in this province our indications are that if a 22 per cent rate on mortgages prevails, some 35,000 home owners will be spending more than 30 per cent of their disposable income on housing; at 20 per cent there would be 30,500 and at 18 per cent there would be 27,500. But, very clearly, we are not saying, nor is the federal government, that all those people we happen to be referring to are in jeopardy of losing their homes.

Let me add one other remark. In the discussions we have had with both Mr. Cosgrove, through CMHC, and Mr. MacEachen we have suggested to the federal government that if some assistance is to be afforded to give relief in relationship to mortgage rates, it would be given to those who use more than 30 per cent of their disposable income for housing.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the minister says, and I am sure it is a rock-bottom estimate, that 35,000 people will find themselves paying more than 30 per cent of their gross income -- and a lot more of their net income -- when they come to renew their mortgages at today's interest rates, will the minister say why Ontario is not prepared to recommend to the federal government, or to take action itself, to impose a moratorium and ensure that mortgage renewals are made at the existing rate for the next six or 12 months, in order to ensure there is pressure on the federal government to bring the interest rates down and to spare people from having to get into that kind of ruinous situation with their mortgage renewals?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I do not accept it is a rock-bottom figure. In the calculations of my ministry, through substantiation of figures from both Statistics Canada and CHMC, the 35,000 was at 22 per cent; the interest rate in some cases is lower than that in the market rate today. I have no idea what happened to the bank issue this afternoon. If there has been a further reduction of half a per cent or better we could see mortgage rates drop even a point or so at this time. I am not predicting that; I am only saying if there is an adjustment I think mortgage rates will adjust accordingly.

Regarding the second part of the question, I believe that is more in the Treasurer's field than mine.

3 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How can the minister accept a subsidy from the province so that he can own a second home in one of the most chic neighbourhoods in all of Toronto and at the same time not be willing to lift a finger to help the average working man stay in his home? How can the minister responsible for housing in Ontario feel morally correct in a position such as that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There is one very simple answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I believe the Board of Internal Economy dealt with a policy for the members of this House, not specific to the housing minister. To advise the member --

Mr. Breithaupt: No, no.

Mr. Nixon: You have a responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I said a policy position. I trust the former leader of that party will go back and see what they do in various other jurisdictions in Canada. But let me just indicate --

Mr. Nixon: Our responsibility is right here and we are worried about you.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is fine. The member should continue to worry about it right here. That is exactly what I do as well -- worry about responsibilities in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the question does not really relate to my ministry but the question has been placed to me. First of all, since 1977 I have not drawn any living allowance, as most of the members from outside the jurisdiction have. Second, at this point the government has never paid me a cent towards the private residence I have. So I do not consider my position in life is being subsidized any more than some of the members from the opposition who think they are lily-white. They have also drawn their position.

Mr. Nixon: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to know what the minister means when he says some of the other members here are not lily-white because they have drawn a living allowance. He has to withdraw that. He is the only one who wants a house and wants an allowance for it. Nobody else does.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Nixon: He cannot say that about the members --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I will take a look at Hansard and see what the minister did say.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware of a study done for the Honourable Paul Cosgrove which indicates that rents in modern buildings in this country will virtually double in the next 18 months under the present system? As the minister responsible for rent-geared-to-income housing in this province, what is he going to do to pick up the slack for those people who cannot afford to pay rent in the private market?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the first part of the question.

Mr. Philip: I would be glad to repeat the question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister like me to repeat the question?

Mr. Speaker: Please.

Mr. Philip: I am asking him if he is aware of a study that was done for the Honourable Paul Cosgrove that indicates an average renter in a modern building will see the amount he pays each month virtually double in the next 18 months. As the minister responsible for rent-geared-to-income housing, to house those people who cannot afford to make it in the private market, what is he going to do to pick up the slack of those people who can no longer afford to rent in the private market?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the first part of the question about the report, because I think we have shared most of those that have been done for the Honourable Mr. Cosgrove. In both his ministry and mine we share studies both in the fields of ownership and in rental accommodation. We are aware there are going to be some rental increases -- there is no doubt about that. I think we all recognize that mortgage money is at a very high rate, as is the price of fuel and energy and other costs of operation.

In all the studies and reports we have done within the ministry I am not aware we are going to see a doubling of rents in the 18-month period for a big portion of the market. That is not what all the reports to my ministry indicate, and indeed the ministry work from inside.

As for the last part of the question, we continue, as the member knows, to encourage municipalities, private organizations and co-ops to continue to build structures, rental structures or otherwise, with a percentage being made available for rent geared to income. Indeed, under the Ontario rental construction loan program, there was a percentage of those units that will be made available to the various housing authorities in which the units are located for use under the rental subsidy program.

Mr. Epp: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Epp: We just want a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: That was the final supplementary.

Mr. Epp: We only had one.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that is right.

USER FEES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister explain why he has been sending up trial balloons about the government imposing user fees on people in Ontario? And will he assure the House that universal medicare in this province will not be undermined by imposing user fees either when people go to see the doctor or when they go to hospital?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any threat to universal medicare at this point. I would have to say --

Mr. Breithaupt: When will there be?

Mr. Foulds: At what point?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have told the federal minister and the federal government repeatedly that if they are going to tinker substantially with the transfers to the provinces, they are going to put all the provincial governments in a very difficult position in choosing their means of living with those changes. That could substantially affect the shape of medicare.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Justice Hall said that was wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is no threat to medicare. There is not now and there has not been. My colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), reminds me of Mr. Justice Hall's report. Mr. Justice Hall found that medicare was in good health, if you will -- that the inequities, the shortages and the impediments to service he had found in the early 1960s when he did his first review of health service in the country had been overcome. So there is no threat to medicare.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister quotes the Hall report. Is he not aware Mr. Justice Hall found that user fees impede accessibility? Is he also unaware Mr. Justice Hall found the user-pay concept is "contrary to the principle and the spirit of the national health program" which was brought in in the 1960s as a consequence of his original report?

How are we to believe this minister when he says, "It is something we might do at some time because of federal action," when Ontario has not been keeping up its share of medicare costs but has been leaving that to the federal government, and when Ontario has already imposed user fees with respect to both chronic care and ambulance fees? When he has imposed user fees in those areas, how can we trust him when he says it is not going to come at this time? Will he guarantee we will not have user fees with respect to physician charges and hospital beds?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First, Mr. Speaker, it is blatantly untrue to say that Ontario has not been keeping up its end of the cost of medicare. In fact, Mr. Justice Hall found just the contrary, and the federal minister who had been mouthing certain things in certain federal election campaigns had to eat her words. Further, the parliamentary task force report which was tabled in September, known as the Breau report, confirmed the conclusion that the provinces have not been diverting funds from medicare to other purposes -- that we have indeed held up our end of the deal.

Second, it is true that we have had in Ontario for a number of years, in certain areas, certain user fees. The honourable member refers to user fees for chronic care, which his party supported in a famous report --

Mr. Foulds: That is blatantly untrue.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is basically blatantly true, my friend. The member had better read the report his members signed.

Mr. Foulds: The minister had better read the report. He had better also read the Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is true we have had certain user fees such as that. I would remind the member, in case he is not already aware of it, that Saskatchewan, the great Valhalla of his party, just introduced identical user fees for nursing homes and chronic care on July 1.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the Minister of Health intends to move ahead with this user fee idea, either using the so-called possible federal cutback as the reason or some other reason. The minister said his real belief was that a user fee was necessary -- if I remember his words correctly -- because there had been an increase in the number of services being provided by physicians and this was a way of keeping the lid on that. Given that, would the minister admit that the idea of user fees is not to raise revenue, but is basically put forward by people in his ministry with the notion that people will not accept their physician's request that they come back for repeated services if they have to pay, and physicians will otherwise continue to reuse services and create more utilization? Otherwise, can he tell us what the possible rationale is for user fees and why he raised the issue in Ottawa at all?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all the honourable member has not even quoted me. What he alleges to be my remarks are words that I have never used. I have never tied the concept of user fees, as it exists today in this province and in most of the 10 provinces and the territories, to utilization. I do not believe in deterrent fees. I do not believe that deterrent fee systems work.

The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has pointed out that we do have user fees and have had for many years: in nursing homes for almost a decade, in ambulance systems for more than a decade and in chronic care for almost three years. And in none of those areas of the system has the existence of reasonably-tailored user fees impeded the growth in utilization. Indeed, you can point to the growth in the numbers --

Mr. Cassidy: It makes one law for the rich and one for the poor: one medicare for the rich and one for the poor.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Pardon me. I have the floor, if I may finish.

Indeed, if the member looks at the growth in the use of the ambulance system, which has grown by about 25 per cent in the last five years as compared with a five or six per cent growth in population, he will see there have been no deterrents there due to user fees.

If the member looks at the growth in the numbers of nursing home beds in nursing homes and homes for the aged and the growth in the numbers of chronic-care beds, where user fees do apply, he will see they have not deterred utilization.

I would be remiss, though, if I did not say this: When this question arose it was a very minor component of an alarm I was trying to sound to the Ontario people about the fact that the federal government is contemplating some very large reductions in their transfer payments to the provinces. The federal Minister of Health and Welfare says, "Don't worry. I have been able to convince the federal cabinet not to cut into the health care field." I say it is all well and good there will not be any direct cuts. But if large amounts are cut from any of the transfers to the provinces, the ministries of health of the 10 provinces and the two territories -- which on average spend about 30 per cent of their respective budgets -- cannot help but cope in some way with those reductions the federal government may be imposing on us.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If, as the minister says, user fees are a small component in the realm of future contemplation, can he explain to us why it is the strategic research branch of his ministry, directed by Mr. LeBlanc, has already hired contract consultants on a confidential basis to analyse contingency plans that have been developed for the imposition of user fees? Specifically can he tell us why plans have been developed to introduce the carrot of increased funding for health service organizations in exchange for the club of hospital user charges? If the minister is simply contemplating user charges why is it that he already has so much interesting work in progress?

Hon Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the connection to HSOs is, because there is no connection. But certainly in preparing for the federal budget, which we are told will come down before the end of October, in order to serve the people of Ontario properly we must be in a position to analyse and be ready to speak to the various policy options open to us if indeed the reductions of federal transfers are of the magnitude referred to repeatedly by the Minister of Finance of Canada and by the Prime Minister. First and foremost --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First and foremost our aim must be to maintain the quality --

Mr. Smith: You are using the sick and the poor as hostages.

Hon Mr. Timbrell: Now we understand why the member is leaving.

If the honourable member would just once step aside from his usual sarcasm and cynicism and look at what has been done in this province in the last 10 to 15 years for the poor and the aged he will find there is not a jurisdiction on this continent that has done as much for those people as Ontario has, let alone more.

WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE WATER QUALITY

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. I wonder if he is as concerned as we are about the recent findings of organic halogens in the private wells in Stouffville. Those tests were done by an independent US laboratory which had previously conducted tests at the Love Canal.

In June, if the minister recalls, he stated there had been very comprehensive testing of the water supply in that area. However we have noticed the sampling came from the north, south and east of the landfill site whereas he himself admitted, on June 4, that the aquifer moved in a westerly direction from the landfill site. The results yesterday came from wells to the west of the site, the area his people failed to test.

I wonder if the minister is doing his job, when he can see the results of not doing his job in Niagara. Why did his people not take tests in the area where the known aquifer was moving?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member realizes that tests have been taken in all directions from that site.

Mr. Kerrio: Now?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Now. That is absolutely correct, I mean not what the member is saying but what I am saying.

Mr. Kerrio: The minister was right the first time.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Of course, one is always concerned when one hears this kind of information being talked about. We try to check it out as promptly as possible, but if some of the individuals involved were as candid with us as we are with them I would not feel so much as if I was playing a game of hide-and-seek.

The first information I received about these tests was by way of a telephone call from a newspaper reporter; up until this morning, in spite of the efforts of my staff, that was still the only source of information we had. The individuals who had the testing done had not told us, nor could the newspaper reporter because apparently they did not divulge that information to him or her. We were not given the information as to where the tests were done. It was not available to us. We were not told which wells and in which directions they had done the testing; how the samples were taken; whether they were done carefully so as not to contaminate samples and that type of information.

My staff may have succeeded in getting that information since I have been in the House this afternoon. But it is very difficult for me to stand in the Legislature, knowing the very real responsibility I bear for dealing with these kinds of things, and respond on the basis of information that has not even been shared with me or my staff up to this point.

According to the information we received via the person from the news media, apparently in one well near the site -- I do not know which direction it was in -- they allegedly found 50.2 parts per billion of an organic halogen. We do not know what type of organic halogen it was. We do not know what techniques were used in doing the tests. What is also very significant is that we do not know whether any of the water that was tested had been chlorinated. I'm told that all chlorinated water has organic halogens ranging from 10 to 100 parts per billion. They might be testing perfectly good chlorinated water and getting these results.

In another well -- again I do not know the location although I understand it is in the west -- they report 30.4 parts per billion of an organic halogen. Once again I do not know the type. I do not know how the testing was done, but I think it is also important to realize we are talking about 50 and 30 roughly, if this information is correct.

I would remind the member that the federally-established guidelines for trihalomethanes in drinking water is 350 parts per billion. Depending upon what this is, it could be well below the drinking water standard guideline for Canada, so I really do not know what it is I am dealing with.

3:20 p.m.

I hope by tomorrow I will have received some information from these individuals and will know where the testing was done so we have some understanding of the reliability of the laboratory. That could be significant. It makes a big difference whether it is tested in somebody's basement laboratory. The results of the 2,000 tests I have shared with this House and with the public in this province were done in what is probably the most sophisticated laboratory by some of the most competent and well-trained individuals anywhere in North America. I do not know what I am responding to in this instance.

Mr. Kerrio: Let us get back to the basic question. What is very important is that we do proper monitoring. My question is, are we doing proper monitoring and did the ministry test those areas, particularly where the known aquifers are moving? It is a question I raised with the minister before. Is it not time we tested all the dangerous sites so we know whether there is movement of dangerous toxics before they reach our water supply? In this instance I wonder if the minister would reply as to whether he would have his people go out and test the westerly side where the aquifers are moving to be absolutely certain there is no movement in that direction?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can assure the member testing has been done in that direction. If, on the basis of this information, there is any indication there ought to be heightened activity, I would not hesitate for one moment to ensure that is done. By the way, as an additional precaution, we have already recently increased the frequency of the testing to once every two weeks from the previous level of once a month.

What I cannot tell the member is whether in our testing we have also tested the wells from which these samples were allegedly taken. No one has seen fit to share with us the information as to the location of the wells we are talking about. I hope by the end of this day someone will.

Mr. Charlton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: The minister constantly refers to whether or not the levels of substances that have and are being found are dangerous according to national and/or provincial standards. Could he please tell us what that has to do with it? What relevance does that have to the concerns being raised by the people in Stouffville?

The question is not whether anything being found is now at a dangerous level. The question, as the member for Niagara Falls has put it, is whether anything is at present moving out of that dump site. That is the question the minister should be looking to answer -- not continually throwing up this smoke screen that the levels may be safe.

We had reports earlier this year from his own ministry of lindane in one well which later disappeared, so they wrote it off. All those things should be followed up by the ministry in terms of determining what is moving out of that dump site. That is what the minister has to determine. When is the minister going to start dealing with that?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the honourable member thinks we have been doing. It is just nonsense that a person who allegedly is a responsible citizen of this province, representing a constituency, could act so irresponsibly as to suggest that is not precisely what we have been doing.

If he is honest with himself and the others in this House, he knows very well there has probably been more intensive testing done of well water, ground water and of that site than in any other area in the history of this province. It is continuing to be done.

He should also know that as a result of some recent drilling that did locate the PCBs, which for some time were believed to have been deposited there more than 10 years ago, a company under our supervision is now engaged in intensive further testing of the site to determine whether there is any mobility.

Mr. Charlton: Why did it take 10 years with all this intensive testing? Why did it take 10 years?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Oh, listen you twerp, calm down. Surely the one qualifying factor for standing for election in this Legislature is that you ought to have already grown up.

Mr. Stokes: Will you add that on to your list, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, there is a twerp over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Oakwood.

Mr. Martel: What kind of crap is that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Laughren: Why don't you make him withdraw that remark?

Mr. Cassidy: Is it parliamentary?

Mr. Laughren: He can't really say those kinds of things.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member did not raise it.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, for God's sake.

Mr. Nixon: Twerp is okay.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. I will take a look at the record and see what Hansard has said and I will get back. In the meantime, the member for Oakwood has the floor.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Grande: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I wonder if she could please be so kind as to tell me whether this document I have in my hand, the statement by the Honourable Bette Stephenson, MD, Minister of Education, Minister of Colleges and Universities, introducing the final estimates for the year 1981-82, is the document she will be reading at her estimates beginning Monday of this coming week?

Hon. Miss. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it was the document prepared for estimates which were to begin on Tuesday afternoon of this week. As a result of the efforts of the two opposition parties they did not begin. I think there may be further developments within the ministry before estimates do begin next week, so therefore I cannot promise that document is precisely what I will be reading as an introduction to estimates.

Mr. Grande: Would I then be correct in looking forward to the statement in this report which says, "The government is going to continue on its restraint program for the coming fiscal year." If that is going to remain in her statement, does it not mean that she has rejected the recommendation of the report of the committee on the future role of universities, and in essence that she is saying to the universities, "Close down."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The logic of the honourable member totally escapes me at the present time, Mr. Speaker. I do not understand how he could possibly come to that conclusion from that one simple statement. I believe it is an understood policy of this government that we try to live within our revenue limits as best we can and I believe that policy will continue.

Mr. Wrye: Since the minister has suggested that between now and next Monday when she may be giving us her opening statement she may be making some changes in that opening statement, perhaps one of those changes may be -- and I would like to ask if the rumours making the rounds of the universities are true, especially the universities I have been touring -- that tuition fees for Ontario's 12,500 visa students are going to be dramatically increased -- specifically doubled to approximately $4,000?

Is the minister now prepared to confirm in the House that the government's first response to the Fisher report which chronicles the persistent underfunding of the post-secondary system of this government will in fact be a money-grab from visa students amounting to some $25 million?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know what the question was. The honourable member was obviously making a statement. I think there was a question at the end about whether I was prepared to say something at this point about a subject which he sees as something which is imminent. At the moment it is not imminent.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Minister of Colleges and Universities uses logic when she does speak because obviously she does not understand the logic I am using. We come from two different points of view, obviously.

3:30 p.m.

But is the minister not aware that the committee on the future of universities has stated in its report that unless the increases to the university at least match inflation plus $25 million for facilities and labs that need to be redone, the alternative will be that universities will close down? And if they continue their government restraint program the level at which the universities will be funded will be less than a 12 or 13 per cent increase -- hence the closure of the universities. Does the minister not agree that is logical?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No it is not, Mr. Speaker.

MEASLES

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Data released by the Canadian Paediatric Society in September this year indicated that the incidence of measles in Canada was 10 times greater than in the US and that 61 per cent, or 8,253, of the total of over 13,000 Canadian cases were in Ontario. Could the minister tell us what he is planning to do about this shocking state of affairs?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, from my involvement with the subject I recall that the incidence of measles is a cyclical problem. Now, depending on one's point of view, we are at the high point or the low point of a cycle.

This fall we introduced, for new school entrants, what we think is a significant improvement to our immunization program. Measles vaccine is provided free of charge through the ministry to family physicians or to the health units. Under this new program, which began this fall with the new registrants in our school system, the parents are asked to provide us -- when I say "us" I mean the health unit officials working through the schools -- with the immunization histories of their children. Obviously, if there is no history at all then there is work to be done. That is then drawn to the attention of the parents, and they are usually given the choice of either improving the immunization status through the health unit clinics in the school system or directing themselves to their family physicians.

In this way, we believe, we will be able to improve significantly the immune status of Ontario, which in the main -- I think the member was quoting Canadian statistics -- he will find is much higher than in most other Canadian provinces.

That program was introduced just this year. But in addition we are looking specifically at the measles question to see whether we need to go further -- with respect to that and perhaps one or two other communicable diseases -- beyond the voluntary stage.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Approximately one per cent of all children getting measles require hospitalization and one in every thousand children contacting measles is left with encephalitis, which can kill or permanently injure a child and leave him or her mentally retarded. One child out of every 10,000 contracting measles dies. In view of these statistics will the minister follow the example of the United States, which has implemented a mandatory immunization program and which has a relative incidence of about 10 per cent of what we have here in Ontario?

In other words, voluntary immunization seems not to be working; mandatory immunization is what we need. Aside from the American experience, medical specialists here in Ontario, such as Dr. Gold at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, who is a disease specialist, say that we should have this in place now. What is the minister going to do? Is he going to wait for a real disaster to take place? When is he going to act on it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first, it is not compulsory, to the best of my knowledge, in all of the United States. It is a state matter, and it varies from state to state.

Second, the member is comparing the lowest of American figures -- I think in the same report -- to some of the highest Canadian figures, not Ontario. Ontario, relative to most jurisdictions in North America, has a very good immune status in its population -- not just with respect to measles but also with respect to mumps, diphtheria, polio and so forth.

In certain parts of the province where the rate of immunization is up in the 90 to 95 per cent range, there are areas where even a compulsory program probably would not improve the immunity status an awful lot. We believe one of the reasons for this has been a lack of consistency in the approach across the province. That is why we introduced this feature to the immunization program for new school entrants, and in that way to strive to raise the level of immunity.

In addition to that we have under review, in the ministry, specifically the question of measles, but there are others. It may well be that a compulsory program, even forgetting for the moment that individuals could have some problems with that, could have significant impact on measles as well as in the areas of fluoridation, polio and so forth.

In looking at measles, I am not going to forget that there is a broader policy question too. I hope the member will not forget either.

Mr. Van Horne: Given that I cannot have a final supplementary, I would raise a point of privilege with the minister. The figures are not my --

Mr. Speaker: You do not use one in place of the other.

Mr. Van Horne: While I am on my feet, I would like to point out to the minister that the figures I was quoting were not mine but were figures from the Canadian Paediatrics Society.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE NORTHERN ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. How is the minister going to respond to the charges made by the Grand Council of Treaty 9, and others, that the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment should be scrapped because it is a waste of money and is irrelevant? They charge that it has given false hopes and that, after four years of study, actually nothing has developed.

The only communication we have had from that body in the last two years is that they are waiting on this government to indicate what kind of policy they have for economic development in the north. In fact, it was their mandate to do just that for this government.

How will the minister respond to those charges that the commission is now irrelevant?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Positively. Would the honourable member like me to say enthusiastically? I, personally, have not been in receipt of those remarks, but I can assure the member that the operation of the royal commission is very much on my mind at the moment. As soon as I have had an opportunity to discuss it further with my colleagues, I will be prepared to respond further on that.

REPORTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS

Mr. J. A. Taylor from the select committee on pensions presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief statement to make, if I may.

As chairman of the select committee on pensions, I am pleased that the interim report tabled today represents a consensus of all committee members on those issues that can be addressed with a minimum of cost and effort by employers and employees.

This report represents an important first step towards pension reform that should be taken if we are to ensure a brighter financial future for those who retire. However, more complex issues must be examined by the committee, and will be in the new year.

3:40 p.m.

I know all the committee members are looking forward to the completion of their task in 1982. In the meantime, it is hoped that this interim report will assist the government in the preparation of a legislative pension reform package.

In accordance with standing order 30(c), I now move that the debate be adjourned.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not disagree with anything the chairman has said but, as a member of the committee, I do feel obliged to bring to your attention the fact that the committee report was transmitted directly to the printers without the members of the committee having had an opportunity, not only to sign the report or to decline to sign it but also to read the final draft.

I simply raise this as a procedural point. I think it is important to the proper functioning of select and standing committees that, before reports are forwarded to the printer, let alone tabled in the House, all the members of the committee should have the opportunity to read the final draft.

I would say as well that my experience on select committees always has been that the members have the opportunity to affix their signatures to any report prior to its being sent to the printers and being tabled here in the Legislature.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if I may respond to those comments, I appreciate very much the concern of the member for Bellwoods. As a matter of fact, he has made a great contribution to the work of the committee, and I was delighted to have him on the committee and to review the report with us. As he very well knows, we did review and read the draft report prior to printing.

I also inquired as to the necessity of each and every member signing it. I think that is the issue the member raises, and rightfully so. I raised the same issue myself, if I may say that, and the instruction I had from the Clerk's office was that the rule now is that the chairman of the committee signs the report and it is not necessary for each member to do so.

In accordance with that, I presume that the draft, as reviewed by the committee members, was forwarded to the printer for printing, and I am assured it manifests precisely the wording of each paragraph as settled on by each and every member of the committee.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order: I find what my friend has said very interesting. I do not know where the Clerk got the idea that he could give that type of instruction. Surely that is up to the committee to decide.

On all the select committees I have been on, the practice has been that every member is given an opportunity to read the final draft and every member affixes his signature to that report. In the past, where a member of a committee has gone to cabinet, there has been a blank left.

I do not know why this has changed without the authorization of at least the committee or this Legislature. I resent it, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that you make sure it does not occur again.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much; and I want to thank the member for Bellwoods for raising the point.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, if I may: First and foremost, I want to say, and I am sure all members will not disagree on this one point, the chairman has done an excellent job in the work of the committee up to this time, and I am sure he will continue to do so. He has given excellent leadership and direction to the committee.

However, I must regretfully support the concern that has been expressed here this afternoon, because it was my understanding that some opportunity would be provided to review the final draft of the report before it was tabled in the Legislature.

I think the members will concede that, while it would appear to convey a consensus of thinking of the committee members, there were several recommendations in that report that created quite a bit of controversy and debate during its preparation.

If we had had an opportunity to see those recommendations in the final form before being tabled, it might well be that there would not have been that consensus of thinking and there would have been dissenting points of view appended to that particular report. It is unfortunate that opportunity was not provided so that clearly it could have been a consensus of thinking. At this point in time that remains a clouded issue.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, as a member of that committee, I want to associate myself with the comments made by the member for Bellwoods and the subsequent comments by the two members. I felt that I would have an opportunity to see the final draft and to add my signature to the preliminary report. I did not have that opportunity.

I regret very much that this advice has been given to the chairman by the Clerk's office or by whoever it was from the Clerk's office. I believed there was a convention here that members should have the opportunity to sign a report of this nature; and if somebody takes it upon himself to change that, it should be either the committee or the House that makes those changes rather than an individual in the Clerk's office.

Mr. Martel: I just want to ask, Mr. Speaker, if he will refer this matter to the procedural affairs committee for its consideration.

Mr. Speaker: I just wanted to thank all those members who --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Did you want to --

Mr. Stokes: I am not going to interrupt you, Mr. Speaker. You are on your feet.

Mr. Speaker: I just want to say thank you to the members who spoke and to the member for raising that point in the first place. It was news to me.

There seems to be some confusion as to why it happened. I would like to assure all the members that I will take immediate steps to ensure that it does not happen again, either through misinformation or confusion or whatever happened -- I do not know.

Certainly everybody on the committee should have an opportunity to read the report prior to its being tabled, in my view. I hope this report will not come forward for debate until such time as all members have had the opportunity to make themselves more familiar with it.

I will be glad to take your point under consideration. Thank you very kindly.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion in my mind. With respect, may I point out in regard to the sequence of events that in my experience it has been the custom for members of a select committee to individually sign a report. I had fully expected that custom would be carried forward.

However, I want to make it abundantly plain that the information was conveyed to me that apparently that was not the procedure; not only was it unnecessary but, on the contrary, it was not done any more. That was the information that was conveyed to me.

I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no confusion in my mind as to the events.

In regard to your comment, sir, concerning the contents of the report, I do not think there should be any confusion in the public's mind that the individual members of the committee are not acquainted with the contents of that report. I think members can confirm that fact themselves, because they were very involved, studiously involved, in the drafting of the report.

What is really being debated now is a reading of the report in finished form prior to its printing. I wanted to clarify that, Mr. Speaker, for you and the assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Taylor; that was the very point I was trying to make. But I will take a very close look at it.

On motion by Mr. J. A. Taylor, the debate was adjourned.

3:50 p.m.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Assembly be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

Office of the Assembly program, $27,347,600;

And that supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Ombudsman be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

Office of the Ombudsman program, $3,493,000.

MOTIONS

HEALTH ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the time allocation for consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Health be changed to 16 hours.

Motion agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the supplementary estimates presented Tuesday, October 13, be referred to the same committees to which the main estimates have been referred for consideration within the times already allocated.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitution be made: on the standing committee on procedural affairs, Mr. G. Taylor for Mr. Piché.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved, seconded by Mr. Ramsay, first reading of Bill 141, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Mr. Ramsay, first reading of Bill 142, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that the census now taken annually under the Assessment Act will be taken in full only in municipal election years. In other years a limited census will be conducted.

This bill will also transfer the responsibility for determining school support to the regional assessment commissioner from the clerk of the municipality.

Further, this bill will postpone to December 1982 the return of assessment rolls at full market value across the province. The bill will allow us to continue with the section 86 reassessment program, which has been successfully implemented in 247 municipalities to date. Approximately 120 more municipalities are considering reassessment under section 86 for implementation in 1982.

In addition, in this bill I am proposing administrative amendments to further clarify and update certain operating provisions within the Assessment Act.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 143, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 144, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Motion agreed to.

PESTICIDES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 145, An Act to amend the Pesticides Act.

Motion agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES' MUNICIPAL PAYMENTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 146, An Act respecting certain International Bridges.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before I introduce the next bill, may I apologize to the opposition parties? My understanding was that the statement I made earlier today was to have been communicated to them as it was to the press gallery but, unfortunately, for some reason or other communication seems to have broken down.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 147, An Act to facilitate the Negotiation and Resolution of Municipal Boundary and Boundary-Related Issues.

Motion agreed to.

4 p.m.

TOWN OF LINCOLN ACT

Mr. Andrewes moved, seconded by Mr. Barlow, first reading of Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the Town of Lincoln.

Motion agreed to.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved, seconded by Mr. Stokes, first reading of Bill 148, An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, the effect of the amendment is to have part XI of the act, dealing with rent review, apply to rental units -- such as housing, apartments and mobile home parks -- operated by municipalities.

TERMINAL OPERATORS SAFEGUARD ACT

Mr. Kolyn moved, seconded by Mr. Pollock, first reading of Bill 149, An Act to Safeguard Terminal Operators.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to set out standards for terminal and equipment use, with eye care for terminal operators and education of operators concerning hazards involved. Rest periods are made a requisite, and reimbursement for costs of required eye care is provided.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL SUNSHINE ACT

Ms. Bryden moved second reading of Bill 132, An Act respecting Public Access to Meetings of Municipal Councils and Local Boards.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve any time that I do not use in my opening remarks for final comment.

Mr. Speaker: I was just going to point out that the honourable member has up to 20 minutes and may reserve any portion of that time she may see fit for windup.

Ms. Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question that people may ask is, "Do we need a Municipal Sunshine Act in Ontario?" Such laws have been enacted in some jurisdictions in the United States, but this would be a first for Canada.

I believe there is a growing consensus that effective democratic control of public bodies is possible only if those affected by their decisions have knowledge of how the decisions are reached. There is also a feeling that elected persons must be more accountable to their electors.

As we move to decentralize many functions of government to local bodies there is need for the persons affected by legislation at the local level to have more opportunity to participate in the process. For these reasons the need for sunshine legislation becomes more apparent.

The Ontario Royal Commission on Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy concluded in its 1980 report that "the existing law of Ontario is inadequate to ensure that members of the public are able to attend and observe the deliberations of municipal government institutions in Ontario." It recommended that all meetings of local government bodies and their committees, including executive committees and committees of the whole, be held in open session, subject to certain specified exemptions.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, in a brief to the royal commission in 1978, stated it would support legislation "which would establish clear rules concerning the conduct of public business in municipalities by stipulating that all meetings of council, committees of council and local boards shall be open to the public, subject to certain specific exceptions required to protect the public interest and the rights of individuals."

The Ontario Press Council discussed the question in April 1981, when it dealt with a complaint from the London Free Press against the Elgin county council regarding secret committee meetings. It agreed with the royal commission that "public business ought to be conducted in public as much as possible and that the only sure remedy lay in legislation setting minimum standards of openness for all municipal bodies."

At the provincial level the sittings of the Legislature and most legislative committee meetings are open to the public. At present under the Municipal Act, municipal councils and local boards are required to hold open meetings, but the law is silent on meetings of committees of the whole and standing committees. A great deal of business is transacted in these committees.

While many municipal councils and local boards do open their committee meetings to the public, there is no obligation on them to do so. This bill will make it mandatory for councils and local boards to open all meetings except those dealing with certain exempted matters listed in the bill. The exempted matters include the purchase and sale of property, litigation, personnel matters, contract negotiations with employees and certain policing matters. The closing of meetings dealing with these matters is permissive, so councils and boards will have discretion to open any meeting dealing even with these exempt items if they so choose.

Local boards are defined in the bill to include school boards, police commissions and all special-purpose bodies such as utility commissions and library boards.

Recently the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) conducted a survey of the practices followed by Ontario municipalities with regard to the openness of meetings. They asked about meetings of standing committees and committees of the whole. The minister kindly supplied me with a report on the survey when I requested it. The report indicated that about 59 per cent of the approximately 400 municipalities which responded to the questions, held standing committee meetings open to both the public and the press, and only a little over 41 per cent opened committee of the whole meetings.

About half of the 832 municipalities covered by the report did not answer the question. The reason may be that many of the smaller municipalities do not have standing committees and many of the larger municipalities do not use committee of the whole. Also, the figures probably understate the extent of closed meetings, as those municipalities engaging in the practice are least likely to reply to the question.

4:10 p.m.

It is interesting to note that open meetings of standing committees are more common in cities, boroughs, regions and villages than in towns, townships and counties. About 90 per cent of the cities, boroughs and regions have open standing committee meetings, while only about one half of the towns, townships and counties do. Two thirds of villages reported open standing committee meetings, but a great many villages do not have standing committees. Only about one third of the local bodies and districts in the north open up standing committee meetings. With regard to committee of the whole meetings, between 71 and 83 per cent of cities, boroughs and regions open them up. Only about one third of towns, townships and villages and a little over one half of the counties do.

In actual fact, the study found 168 municipalities that closed standing committee meetings to the public and the press, and 266 municipalities that closed committee of the whole meetings. Unfortunately, the report did not identify those municipalities. I think the public is entitled to know which ones closed committee meetings. I am asking the minister to table a more complete report on the survey showing this information. In my view, the need for sunshine legislation exists if any local bodies spending public funds exclude the press and public from any meetings at which public business is discussed and decisions are made.

I would like to stress that my bill will not ensure full opportunity for the public to follow the decision-making process, until we also have a freedom of information act on the statute books of this province that will be applicable to both provincial and municipal documents and reports. I am very disappointed that the government has again stalled the process of getting such a law on the books by piling yet another study on the mountain of studies and reports we already have on this subject. It makes me wonder how serious the government is about a freedom of information law.

I should also point out that an open meeting law cannot be effective without adequate notice to the public as to the dates, times, places and agendas of meetings. My bill calls for reasonable public notice, but it leaves the details of implementation to the municipalities. Some municipalities now publicize their meetings by placing notices and agendas in public libraries as well as in municipal offices. Others use the local press. I would hope newspapers might publish a regular weekly listing of all meetings scheduled as a public service. It would be up to the municipalities to provide them with a listing.

We have an example of the kind of legislation my bill represents in the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which was passed in 1976. A very wide swath of local publicly funded bodies is covered. It even includes public colleges and universities, community colleges and public hospital authorities. It provides for an enforcement procedure whereby any citizen can challenge in court the validity of a decision of a public body made in violation of the Open Meetings Act. It also permits citizens to request that their names be put on a mailing list so that they are notified in advance of any class of meetings. As far as I know, the act is operating satisfactorily.

We must recognize that provincial legislation in this field provides only a framework within which the decisions about openness are to be made. Local bodies will still decide whether to close meetings in the exempt areas. They will also decide what is reasonable notice of meetings. There will be fears that more open meetings will lead to more political grandstanding. There will also be concerns about the costs of advertising meetings and printing more agendas. Some local bodies may not be able to accommodate observers and press without renting or building bigger meeting places.

However, there are many offsetting advantages. Residents will have a greater opportunity to participate in shaping their own community. This is particularly true if deputations are allowed. Elected persons and officials will be more responsive to the people they govern. Citizens may even help them avoid costly mistakes. People will develop skills in self-government as a result of being involved in the process.

Openness will also lead to greater understanding of decisions and, therefore, to more acceptance of decisions and necessary compromises. A sense of fairness will come about if citizens can see that everyone is receiving equal treatment and consideration as far as possible. Openness will also enable citizens to evaluate the quality of government and of their elected representatives. In my opinion it is essential that if people are to have effective political control over services provided by local bodies we must have open meetings.

For the press and media, open meetings will add greatly to the public accountability of elected officials. It will enable citizens who do not have time to attend many meetings to be informed on the issues and deliberations of public bodies. Press and media focus will reinforce the participation of residents in deputations and lobbying activities.

Media coverage of council and board decisions without access to all meetings will be less informed and may possibly be inaccurate because information has to be channelled through third parties or come through leaks and brown paper envelopes. It is sometimes difficult for the press to sort out fact from fiction.

I do not think I need to convince the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) of the value of openness.

Mr. Nixon: They are all listening very carefully.

Ms. Bryden: Yes, I notice neither of them is here to hear my comments.

Last May 1, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, replying to a question from me, indicated he was unequivocally in favour of provincial legislation to open up local meetings. However, we have had no action from him since then. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, heading up that new ministry, also endorsed the principle at the August meeting of the municipal associations when he stated flatly, and I quote, "The rule must be openness." To date, there is no sign of legislation from him to back up his lipservice.

I have pointed out to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that if he really wants to put the principle of open meetings into effect immediately he could throw his support behind my bill today. If there are details which he or other members do not accept, it can be amended in committee and put on the statute books this session. If he and other members instead stand up to block this bill, they will be indicating they really do not believe in open meetings and the essentiality of sunshine laws in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): You will have four minutes in closing.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Kells: Mr. Speaker, I particularly asked my party caucus for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I have a very personal reason, and there are two particularly important points from where I sat when I was a municipal councillor.

Out in Etobicoke, where I was comptroller before joining this assembly, we received private members' bills regularly, and most often from the NDP, in which they would ask the municipal council to endorse, if you will, a motherhood subject. We would find ourselves debating this endorsement at the municipal level at some length, and, particularly if it involved a motherhood issue, it would be duly passed and would involve the circulation of a great deal of paper across Ontario.

I often complained to my fellow members in Etobicoke that there was not enough backup information representing the other point of view and that it was rather clever manipulation on behalf of the NDP to appear to be speaking on a variety of issues at one time.

We also took this matter up at Metropolitan Toronto council, and many Metro councillors felt that maybe we should talk to our MPPs and ask that when these private bills arrive at the municipal level two sides of the subject be clearly investigated.

We discussed the subject of freedom of information at great length in Etobicoke. I was the first chairman of the freedom of information committee in Etobicoke, and I can assure members it was a long, drawn-out process.

Sometimes we hear people comment on openness in government to the point where we actually begin to believe that possibly some of the decisions we are making are made in too much secrecy without due regard for the wishes and concerns of the people we represent. I would like to point out that we sat over a period of six months. We made a rather exhaustive study. We asked every ratepayer group, every politician, every public interest group to appear before the committee. When it all boiled down we found that what we were doing constituted, in just about all cases, about as much openness in government as one can get.

The concern I had, and something I learned to appreciate in greater depth, was that as a politician I was possibly not getting the whole story from the civil servant or the public servant, and that concerned me at a greater length than the matter of the public understanding or knowing how decisions are made.

In the process of studying this subject I also decided that there is a certain amount of danger in what the member for Beaches-Woodbine is suggesting in relation to decisions that we have to make. I understand that she has exemptions when we are talking about property acquisition, union negotiations and other items, but we found in Etobicoke that in a case of arriving at decisions to purchase property it was not necessarily the amount, it was not necessarily the decision, it was an in-depth discussion --

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask you to check if there is a quorum in the House.

There are more members of the third party than there are on the government benches.

Mr. Speaker called for the quorum bells.

On resumption:

Mr. Kells: Mr. Speaker, I was at the point where I was reiterating the Etobicoke experience on the subject of freedom of information. Two major situations came to mind as we processed government in the borough of Etobicoke. They were in the area of purchasing land from the local school board. The deliberations surrounding the purchase of that land did not necessarily involve the decision. It involved very sensitive handling of that whole purchase. To my knowledge, possibly because of objections or potential misunderstandings, as a council we would have been unable to organize the purchase of the land, and we subsequently sold the land for a housing development and used the money we realized from the profit of the sale to build a new fire hail in our borough.

That pointed out to me very strongly the potential for two or three politicians or one ratepayer group to scuttle a decision that ultimately meant $1 million to the taxpayers of Etobicoke. I felt very strongly that if we had to have complete openness in all our deliberations, we would not have been able to make that major decision which worked so well for the taxpayer.

In the same vein, the situation cropped up again involving land in the north end of the borough. We were able -- because of the way we did business and they currently do business in Etobicoke -- to make the arrangements, which are again going to result in a considerable saving for the taxpayers in the borough. I would be afraid of any type of legislation that might inhibit the ability of a municipal politician to operate for the benefit of the taxpayers of the borough he represents.

4:30 p.m.

When we went all through the six months of hearings we put together a basic plan, not very much different from the way we had been operating. There were no major differences, but what we had been able to do was spell out the relationships between ourselves and the public servants and the relationships between ourselves and the public.

In this same regard the member for Beaches-Woodbine mentions the results of the survey. The cities or the towns and places are not identified, but she makes the observation that openness is most common in cities, boroughs, regions and villages. It would appear that openness is a fairly common thing in larger communities.

Of course, if one follows that through, it would be fairly simple to understand that where there are large media it almost guarantees openness and that possibly in areas where there is less media and less population, openness in government is not practised as often. Nevertheless, the ability to operate in the open is there, as she well knows. I think the percentages might be somewhat deceiving because some communities, for example, go to the committee of the whole House only when they are discussing sensitive subjects or subjects that might require a closed door.

I will not read the details of our policy in Etobicoke, but we evolved a written policy for council members; we evolved a policy for members of the public; we evolved a policy for agendas and their publication and we evolved a code for in-camera meetings, particularly in the area of triggering going into camera. When it was all said and done, everybody agreed. It was passed unanimously and accepted but we did not pass putting it into bylaw form.

In general terms, we know how we operate, the system works, we did not feel the need to put it in bylaw form, nor do I today feel the need to put openness in government into legislative form. I think the minister's position whereby a municipality on its own can pass or have a way of operating that is open is the best way to go.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the parliamentary assistant is here, but I am very disappointed that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing -- who only a few months ago when he assumed the new responsibility said how much attention he would pay to this new portfolio -- is not here. Maybe one of these days he will show that he is serious about his portfolio rather than just speaking about it. I am glad to support --

Mr. Rotenberg: He is in another municipality doing a very important job with that municipality.

Mr. Epp: I am sure, I am sure. The parliamentary assistant is saying the Legislature is not important.

Mr. Rotenberg: The Legislature is important. Municipal problems are important too.

Mr. Epp: I am pleased to say I will support the bill in principle and I am sure a number of my colleagues will support it in principle. I believe it is something whose time has come.

We all know, and as the member for Beaches-Woodbine has indicated, a lot of municipalities -- small municipalities and large municipalities -- have had closed meetings to date. For many decades some of them have closed their meetings to the public. I do not think that is a healthy situation in a democracy. I believe the public has a genuine right to know what is going on in those meetings.

I am surprised that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has not taken a more active role in drawing to the attention of these municipalities how they are violating the trust of the ratepayers in their municipalities and in getting them to open up their meetings, be they committee meetings or council meetings, to the general public.

What has been happening in a number of situations is that they have been taking straw votes. They have had closed meetings, in camera meetings, secret meetings, and they have taken straw votes among the councillors or the aldermen of that municipality. Then the same vote is taken in the open later on, after they know exactly which way the decision is going to go and exactly which way the various representatives are going to vote.

As we all know, the London Free Press drew to the attention of the Ontario Press Council the difficulty they had in getting genuine information from these closed council meetings. I was surprised to learn from one article that one of the councillors had the audacity to say he was opposed to open committee meetings for the simple reason that "committee meetings are only recommendations to council."

On that basis, despite the fact that this was where a lot of discussion -- probably the major part of the discussion -- was taking place, he had the gall to say the public did not have a right to know what each of the individual councillors was saying on a particular subject.

Nevertheless, after 132 years in operation in Lambton county -- and it was an alderman in that particular municipality who was quoted -- the committee, by a close vote of 27 to 22, voted in favour of having an open meeting. That says a lot for democracy. At least 27 people thought the people had a right to know what was going on.

From my own experience in the city of Waterloo we always had the committee meetings open, except for the kind of exemptions that are built into this particular bill, both at the committee and at the council meeting. I do not recall that we encountered any real problems.

The only problem we did encounter was at one time when the meetings of the administrative committee, of which the mayor was a member, discussed various matters. At that time, more and more aldermen were participating in the administrative committee meetings; it was not originally expected that they would be there, but they started coming more often, because they were in various private endeavours. At one point we had to make the decision that no elected representatives could come to the administrative meetings, simply because it looked as if it were a secret meeting and decisions were being made before they went to council.

Before my time is up, I want to speak on a few reservations I have about the bill, and maybe the member for Beaches-Woodbine can clarify some of these situations for us or can clarify what she intended in the bill, because it is not clear from reading the bill what is really intended.

For instance, would executive committee meetings be closed? She does not refer to school boards but I assume, since they do not fall within the Municipal Act, that school boards would be exempt from this particular --

Mr. Breaugh: Has the member read the bill? It gives him a definition.

Mr. Epp: I have read the bill. She says --

Ms. Bryden: School boards are under the definition of local boards.

Mr. Epp: Another part is in section 3(b), where she is speaking about the purchase and sale of property. A municipality not only purchases property but often also purchases services. It is sometimes very difficult to make some of these facts public at a particular time. If a bill of this nature were to be implemented, it should exempt services in addition to the sale of property.

When we speak about personnel matters, it appears to me that if only the person most directly affected in a decision can decide whether that particular meeting should be open or closed we are getting to a kind of kangaroo court situation. I think the council or the body making that decision should have the right to decide whether it is open or closed, and not only the person who is affected.

4:40 p.m.

With respect to section 4(2), which states that everyone "directly affected by any matter ... shall be given written notice," I find that somewhat cumbersome. I presume the member is not saying this should be only an advertisement in the paper; I suppose she is saying everyone should receive written notice. I think she is nodding her head in favour of saying she is not saying that only an ad in the paper will suffice.

I draw to her attention that what one could have here is a council making decisions on matters that directly affect the public, such as in a budget meeting, and having to send out personal notices to every ratepayer in the municipality, saying, "We are going to have a budget meeting, and we are going to be discussing all the items at the time of that budget." That would be particularly expensive. It is an expense the public should not have to endure. In all fairness to the member, I do not believe she intended that to occur. Yet if one reads the bill the way it is stated, one could easily draw that conclusion from it.

I believe there are other examples whereby, if one is talking about changing zoning regulations, according to the Ontario Municipal Act, people within 400 feet are informed of a hearing with respect to zone changes. Maybe that would suffice in this case. I am not quite sure.

I know the time is drawing nigh when my time will be up. I would be glad to support the bill, but with the reservations I have indicated.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of Bill 132, and I welcome the comments of the previous speaker and his support for the bill in principle. We are all aware that the process on second reading is support in principle; the committee process thereafter could deal with some of the questions and concerns that have been raised, and any oversights perhaps could be dealt with through amendments.

For a few minutes, I want to refer back to the member for Humber, who spoke for the government party a few moments ago, because I think, unfortunately, the member missed the whole point of the bill.

Throughout the course of his speech, he referred repeatedly to a process that went on in the municipality of Etobicoke of researching the question of open meetings and to the openness in the operation of the municipality; he restricted himself exclusively to that municipality.

Simply put, the reality is that, no matter how well the municipality of Etobicoke may perform in terms of openness, there are some problems out there in this province, as has been related by my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine and by the member for Waterloo North. Those problems are real; they do exist.

How well the municipality of Etobicoke functions in terms of openness is of little real consequence to this debate. The next council in the municipality of Etobicoke may not be quite as willing to perform as nobly as the past councils to which the member refers.

He also made a point a number of times of stressing that there were certain decisions relating to money that council made in camera which he felt that committee perhaps could not have made quite as easily if those meetings had been open to the public.

I suggest the question here is where the greatest weight falls. Is it more important for a council to have the right from time to time to make perhaps a very good decision in camera, without consulting or providing information for the public, when that decision may work out well? Or in most cases on a continuing basis is the weight desired on the other side of the coin?

Is it not the purpose of the democratic process to ensure on every possible occasion that the public is fully aware of all the facts concerning decisions that are being made on their behalf, whether they be good decisions or, in some cases, bad decisions?

The public has the right, at the time of the decision, to lobby and generate public support for or protest against that particular decision so that at the time of elections, probably the most crucial part of the democratic process, the public is fully aware of the details, the rationale and the particular positions of people on that decision.

There is no way a voter can rationally vote if the voter does not know, on the one hand, the specific details and rationales and, on the other hand, who took which positions. How can a voter ever be reasonably expected to make an informed vote on questions about which that voter is not fully apprised? That is the kind of thing we have to protect.

The debate around open meetings, and even some other debates that emanate from that, has been going on in a number of municipalities across this province. Some municipalities are having difficulty in dealing with the question because, as the member for Waterloo North suggested, the votes are sometimes close.

There are still some very antiquated views about the openness of the political process out there in this province. We have been going through that debate in Hamilton-Wentworth and in the city of Hamilton itself, and they are having some difficulty in coming to a good, solid resolution of the question.

The debate even extends beyond open meetings. The debate also revolves around the question of availability and access to information, not only for the public but also, believe it or not, for the councillors themselves. For us to be in that kind of a situation in Ontario in 1981 is almost beyond my belief.

For the protection of the democratic political process we so treasure in this country and this province, and for democracy to operate at its maximum in terms not only of information but also of the public's right effectively to exercise its democratic power, it is imperative that there be openness in as many situations as it is possible to allow that to occur.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine has recognized in this bill that there are some circumstances which, at least in the initial instance, either have to be kept private or should be kept private. We recognize that. The member for Waterloo North has raised some questions about that, and I think the member for Beaches-Woodbine would be prepared to deal with clarifications and/or amendments to some things that perhaps were missed in the drafting.

However, it is extremely important for the future growth of democratic participation on the part of citizens in Ontario, at the municipal level and at all other levels, that the concept expressed in this bill be pushed forward in legislatures like this one and that we provide the leadership for the future of Ontario's municipalities.

4:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg), I believe, has a minute or two.

Mr. Rotenberg: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker, because I have so little time left. The member who called the quorum is no longer in his seat. That is what took up the time I normally would have had to speak.

I am sure the member for Beaches-Woodbine, when she quoted both the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), did not mean to misquote, but on May 1, when the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs made his statement, he did not say he promised or favoured legislation; he simply said he favoured openness with limited exceptions within councils.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing did tell the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that he favoured openness within council meetings, but he also said he wanted to rely on persuasion for the time being and not to use legislation at this time.

As well as favouring openness in local council meetings -- and some councils are not obeying the present law that requires open council meetings; they are obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit -- there is also such a thing as local autonomy.

There should be a set of rules for openness in council meetings, such as Etobicoke has. But I think it is better if each municipality sets its own rules to its own public, because the public in each municipality knows what is going on, whether those meetings are open or closed. Perhaps we in the Legislature do not know what is going on in every one of the 850 municipalities, but certainly the people in each municipality do.

There must be a set of rules in each council, and there must be openness in each council. That was the stand the minister took. He said he wanted to do it by persuasion and not by legislation at this time. It is my understanding that AMO were happy with the minister's stand at that time. Because of that speech and because the minister said, in effect, "If the municipalities do not do what they should be doing then legislation may be required," a number of councils have changed their stand within the last month or so.

This all arose partly because of Elgin county council. I quote a headline from the London Free Press of September 10: "Elgin council committee meeting open to public for first time." Elgin has changed. Smooth Rock Falls opened up its committee meeting in September. Elliot Lake, which had closed its doors previously, now is opening its council meetings. "Bid to keep press out of Nipigon council meeting fails."

The point is that the minister's stand before AMO, when he said, "We want openness; we want each of the councils that is not practising it to go back and do so," has been working. Councils are changing.

I apologize to the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), who seems to think that ministers have to be here. I think I can express the opinion of the minister, perhaps not as well as he can, and he does have other responsibilities besides being in the House. This is private members' hour, and it is better that private members speak and not cabinet ministers.

The stand of the minister is very plain. He wants openness in council meetings. He has given the municipal councils that are violating the principle time to clean up their act. He has said very plainly and publicly that, if that does not happen, then legislation is likely.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, while I agree that cabinet ministers have other things to do, I think the minister whose responsibility is municipal affairs should certainly be here for an important debate of this sort, especially when it is on a principle he has endorsed.

If we are engaging in actual quotes, I should remind the parliamentary assistant that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing did say in his speech at the municipal conference, "The rule must be openness." Surely "rule" means a law. Also, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on May 1 did say, "We are looking at this area for legislative change" -- he was aware that it might be necessary to bring in legislation -- and then he endorsed the principle of openness. So I think he is still looking at the possibility of legislative change.

I am disappointed that the government has not brought in a bill on this already, because the fact is that 266 local bodies reported that they closed committee of the whole meetings and another 168 reported that they closed standing committee meetings. A great many did not reply to the questionnaire.

The problem is there, the evolutionary process is not working and these municipalities, of which there are a considerable number, are still excluding the press and the public from their deliberations. As a result, the public is at a great disadvantage in exercising its democratic rights. For that reason, I think we must have sunshine legislation in this province.

With regard to the comments of the member for Humber, I notice that he stressed there are dangers in openness. That is always the defence of elected representatives who do not trust the people and who think the reasons for putting through a decision or making a deal may not be understood by the public. I am afraid it is the first defence of a dictator who thinks that he knows best and the public should not be taken into his confidence.

With regard to the comments of the member for Waterloo North, I am very glad to know he is supporting the bill, and I agree that there may be some wording that could be clarified or strengthened in committee. In particular, I refer to the suggestion that sales of services perhaps should be considered in the same way as sales of property and things of that nature; they could be dealt with in committee. So there is no reason for holding up second reading on the question of details of that sort.

Concerning the member's point about notifying people who are directly affected, I had in mind the way people are notified on a zoning bylaw: all those who are within 400 feet. I think the meaning of the phrase "directly affected" could be refined by the municipal councils, and it would then be feasible to have it there. It certainly does not mean everybody who is affected by the budget of a municipality.

I still hope the government party members will not troop in and block this bill because, if they do, it will show that they really do not believe in the democratic process.

SEATBELTS

Mr. Robinson moved resolution 14:

That this government take steps to amend the Highway Traffic Act and change the corresponding regulations dealing with the use of a seatbelt assembly in motor vehicles such that protection under the act be extended to children under the age of five years so as to ensure that children are adequately restrained and protected as passengers on the highways of the province of Ontario.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention and to the attention of the members of this House a steadily rising problem, that of motor vehicle fatalities among children under five years of age. These children and infants are not protected by existing seatbelt legislation and, while a large portion of Ontario parents have provided restraint devices for their children, the majority have yet to do so.

Unless legislation is enacted to provide for the protection of these children and infants, more than 300,000 Ontario children under five years of age will travel in motor vehicles this year without the protection of a child restraint device.

Those members who attended this afternoon's seminar learned how much we are capable of doing and the extent of the problem as seen by various branches of the medical profession. As has been the case elsewhere in North America, doctors have been very active in drawing attention to this problem and have often organized local programs to educate parents.

The government of Ontario has also taken an active interest in progress that has occurred in this field. Earlier this summer the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the Ministry of Health and the American Association for Automotive Medicine co-sponsored an international symposium on occupant restraint here in Toronto. One of the major topics discussed was the restraint of children and infants. Both ministers indicated a willingness to consider measures that will ensure child passenger restraints in Ontario.

I believe it is now time to proceed with the preparation of legislation that will protect children under five years of age and reduce the number of motor vehicle fatalities and injuries. It has often been said that children are our most valuable resource, and I believe the only way in which they can be given adequate protection is by extending the Highway Traffic Act to include children and infants under five years of age.

5 p.m.

A public information program such as the one now under way can do a great deal to convince parents, particularly at the maternity ward level, to accept and use child and infant restraint devices. But, as with all voluntary compliance programs, the use of child restraints in all likelihood will not reach sufficiently high levels.

We can all appreciate that the use of child restraint devices involves a greater degree of commitment from adults than does the use of even ordinary seatbelts. After all, child restraints cost extra money. They must be properly installed in the vehicle to be effective, and the child or infant must be strapped in for each individual trip. Unfortunately, some adults seem to feel that the effort involved is not worth it, despite the very real potential risk.

I am afraid this attitude will persist among a significantly large segment of the adult population until child restraints are made mandatory by law. Children and infants are not capable of looking after their own safety; this must be done for them. And if adults are somewhat reluctant to take on the burden of such responsibility voluntarily, I believe we are justified and acting responsibly in making this mandatory.

Some might argue that the government should not involve itself and that the parent should be left to face the consequence of any decision not to use restraints. In fact, the government is the public, and the government bears the cost of child passenger accidents. The financial cost to society in terms of medical care is huge, especially when the unfortunate children are disabled or rendered medically dependent for life.

But the greater human argument in favour of child restraints is that passenger deaths in accidents are the largest killer of children over one year of age. Today, for every child who dies of an infectious disease in North America, 50 children die as passengers in automobile accidents. Of course, this has not always been the case. It was not too long ago that measles, polio and other diseases killed far more children than did motor vehicle accidents.

Deaths and cripplings associated with automobile accidents have always been recognized and somehow accepted by motorists and the public, especially as the speed at which cars travel has increased. The chance of such an accident was also accepted by most as a risk one had to take consistent with living in our modern society, particularly over the last 50 years.

Safer cars were built. Seatbelts were introduced. On the whole, it seemed that car travel was becoming safer. But whatever the perception, motor vehicle fatalities and injuries continued to rise.

In January 1976, Ontario was the first North American jurisdiction to enact seatbelt legislation, and the following months showed significant decreases in both injuries and traffic deaths. Since then, the trend has continued to show a decline in motor vehicle passenger fatalities and injuries.

Unfortunately, though for some valid reasons, the legislation that was enacted did not include infants and children under five years of age. This apparently was due largely to the fact that virtually no information was available about the benefits to be derived from child restraints. We did not know then which models were best.

We also had to face the fact that, while cars came equipped with seatbelts, child restraints would have to be bought separately and installed by the parents. This could have created a problem when families could not afford the cost. In addition, enough restraints were simply not available on the market, and a serious supply problem would have developed if they had been made mandatory.

Because Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to adopt seatbelt legislation, we could not even be sure what effect such legislation would have on adult motorist fatalities. There were other problems to deal with as well.

Those members of the House who were present for the debate on child restraints back in 1975 may recall the controversy that raged over what were called "child carriers." Those were the devices that hooked over the car seat itself, the actual seat of the vehicle. The carrier might have had a toy steering wheel or something to amuse the child in travel. Almost 10 years ago, considerable furore arose over their use. Some of us can recall the uproar when early findings showed that in collisions these child carriers would act as launching platforms, sending children flying into windshields. Car seats were brought under the Canadian Hazardous Products Act, but even then the regulations of that act came under criticism from various groups. Therefore, with the only set of regulations under much criticism, there were no standards at that time by which to include child restraint in legislation.

Information on the effects of child restraint and on children in collisions largely did not exist in 1975. It has only been since 1976 that almost all the research on children in accidents has been accumulated. Today, that earlier controversy is virtually forgotten. There is understanding and agreement as to what constitutes an effective child restraint device and these devices have been available for some years. In fact, doctors from various centres have worked to educate the public and have encouraged the creation of various programs such as those which rent infant carriers and car seats to parents.

There are now those in the medical profession here in Ontario who have commented that the state of the art in child restraint devices has surpassed the state of our existing seatbelt construction. In this I believe they are correct and it is now time to bring our legislation up to date to correspond.

I think we can feel justly proud that Ontario set the pace for the rest of the continent and that our legislation served as a model for similar legislation elsewhere in Canada and also in the United States. I think there is also much we can learn from those jurisdictions which have adopted mandatory child restraint legislation.

In the United States, the Legislature of the state of Tennessee adopted legislation in 1977 making child restraint devices mandatory as of January 1, 1978. I am pleased to say it was a conservative Tennessee Legislature that pioneered child restraint legislation in North America. That is the only thing we will say about it. After two years, in June 1980, mandatory child restraint legislation also came into being in Saskatchewan which was not a Conservative Legislature.

It was apparent other jurisdictions had carefully examined the Tennessee model and the progress of enforcement there before proceeding with legislation. I am confident our own legislation when tabled will reflect the experience of those other jurisdictions where mandatory child restraint has been adopted and considered.

The most important point to keep in mind is that legislating mandatory child restraint is not enough by itself. For such legislation to succeed requires the support of physicians, legislators, the news media and police forces. Not only is it necessary to motivate parents, it is also necessary to motivate the police forces who will be responsible for the enforcement of such legislation.

Once Tennessee's child passenger protection act went into effect, a high quality public information campaign began in the radio, television and print media. The law enforcement sector was not actively involved in the preparation of the campaign, nor was there any specific information directed to the police themselves. As a result, it is not surprising to find that in one and one half years following the enactment of the legislation, only 75 citations for violation of the child restraint law were written.

Because they had received so little information, police officers did not consider the restraint program important and many believed the law had more to do with social engineering than with highway and road safety. To convince them otherwise, paediatricians were called upon to appear at police training sessions and to use what was often firsthand information to convince state troopers that many lives could be saved and the number of injuries lessened.

This interaction between the medical profession and the state troopers soon achieved a definite and positive effect. The highway patrol troopers were taught how to install various types of restraint and soon each patrol car packed in its trunk a simple child restraint device. From there on the drill was rather simple.

In Tennessee, when someone was caught not using a child restraint device in a motor vehicle the highway patrol would install its restraint device in the offender's car. The child would then immediately be buckled in to that device and a lesson would be given by the officer on how to maintain and use the device properly.

The officer would also write a violation and the patrol's restraint would remain in the offender's car until it was time for the violator to appear in court. Once in court, the child restraint device would be returned and, if the offender could show that he or she had obtained a device for their own child, the citation that had been issued at the scene would automatically be dismissed.

5:10 p.m.

A special program was also created for the donation of restraints to those people who could not afford to buy them themselves. By using the approach of the police being involved and demonstrating very visibly in a firsthand way the benefit and the proper use of child restraint, the police achieved a better image for themselves and the effect on the violator was a very positive rather than a punitive one.

In the first full year after the Tennessee Highway Patrol became actively involved in promoting and enforcing the restraint legislation, 1,402 citations were issued. This was quite a difference, as I mentioned earlier, from the 75 that were written during the initial 18 months of the program.

Other North American jurisdictions have built on the lessons of Tennessee and often the introduction of legislation has been preceded by an information campaign directed not only at the public in general but at specific groups such as public health nurses. The police have also been involved from the start in discussions not covering just the enforcement aspect of the upcoming legislation, but also the need to understand and to be able to deal with parent reactions.

It is interesting to note that in some instances the idea of mass media advertising was turned down. The main reason was the fact that much of the information is considered to be too detailed for mass public consumption. Instead, health care professionals, particularly in the public health field, were called upon to educate the public -- especially expectant parents -- and were dealing with them at the maternity ward level.

One important point and one that could be considered for Ontario, is in regard to who would be covered by such legislation. Here is where it tends to become a little awkward. In Ontario there are roughly 600,000 children under the age of five years. I do not think there are enough child restraint devices yet available in our province to equip even a small portion of the now approximately unrestrained 300,000.

Though this problem existed on a much smaller scale in Saskatchewan, where only 90,000 children were under the age of five, the regulations to the legislation there required that vehicles be equipped with restraint devices for children born after June 30, 1980. This did give rise to the criticism that children born before that date and still under five years of age were just as important as any others, but this method appeared to be the only practical one to bring the program into effect at that time.

Apart from the availability aspect, the gradual phasing in approach eliminated the need for most families to purchase more than one seat, because of the natural spacing among the children, and allowed parents the opportunity to budget for the purchase of additional restraint devices as they might become required.

Also, special consideration and exemption was given to situations where a vehicle had more occupants than seat belts. Therefore, the regulation stated that the child restraint devices were required only where: "A seating position filled with a seat belt assembly is available."

This is just some of the background to the experience of the first North American jurisdiction and the first Canadian jurisdiction to adopt mandatory child restraint legislation. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications has amassed much more information in the field and will be able to examine it in much more detail as they progress towards legislation making mandatory child restraint a fact in Ontario.

I did want to point out some of the highlights of the program in Tennessee and elsewhere because I think many of these aspects are worth considering in drafting legislation for Ontario.

Sufficient experience has been accumulated to ensure that our legislation will measure up to the current state of development and availability of child restraint devices. In particular, on the question of gradual phasing in of the legislation, I believe that special consideration should be given to infants in the birth-to-24- month category. This age group accounts for a disproportionate number of child fatalities. In 1980, one half of the children who died in traffic fatalities were in the age group from one week to 24 months. Given such figures, and they have been fairly constant over the past four years, some special consideration should be contemplated in order to deal with these fatalities. Perhaps the minister could consider in drafting the legislation the inclusion of all children born after a date given as one year prior to the date on which the act comes into being.

While not instituting mandatory restraints instantly for all children from birth to five years, the most vulnerable group, birth to two years old, would be covered. But even this would require the availability of a large number of restraint devices, and I do not know if even at this point there would be a practical alternative.

But I do know that we are now ready for legislation establishing mandatory child restraint devices. Last year there were 18 fatal motor vehicle accidents among children under five years of age in Ontario. There were 17 fatalities in that age group in each of the years 1978 and 1979. Last year in Ontario alone 1,697 children under five were injured in motor vehicle accidents. The combined total of injuries over the past three years is a staggering 5,087 in this one age group.

For those families to whom these figures are a grim reality nothing will replace the loss or reduce the pain of knowing that it might have been avoided or prevented. The reasons why legislation is required are numerous. Any legislation that can save lives in a major way is worthwhile; any legislation that can reduce the number and severity of injuries is also worthwhile, particularly if there is a resulting decrease in the health care costs associated with the treatment of these unnecessary injuries. I feel we as legislators share a special obligation to act on this matter so that we can eliminate much grief and much suffering. If our actions can save just one life I would consider them well worth the effort.

I ask all members of this House to support this resolution. I particularly thank the official opposition transportation critic (Mr. Mancini) for the support he offered in seconding it. I also hope the legislation soon to follow will enjoy this same unanimous support when it is introduced by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). That legislation is now in preparation.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Robinson. In theory you have one minute remaining. Would you like to donate that time to the other speakers or reserve it for the end of the debate?

Mr. Robinson: I would be happy to share it with the other speakers on this important issue, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini).

Applause.

Mr. Mancini: I hope, Mr. Speaker, you have taken note of the warm reception I have received.

The Deputy Speaker: And the attendance in the House.

Mr. Mancini: It is also spontaneous.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we as members of the assembly are going to have the privilege of supporting the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson) in a truly important initiative.

Before I take the time of the House to discuss the merits of the resolution I would like to inform the House that this afternoon at 12:30 this member was kind enough to hold a seminar, which all members of the assembly were invited to attend. I have been quite concerned about child restraint in automobiles, but the information that we were able to receive this afternoon and the film we were able to see certainly made it more vivid. It certainly showed the brutal physical damage that can be done to an unrestrained child in such a way that I do not think anyone who was there could have left the room without being moved.

Although the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has only been in the Legislature since March he has certainly learned how to promote his main concerns. Anyone who was there this afternoon will know this. I suggest that any other private member who wishes to introduce a private resolution or bill should speak with the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and find out from him just what it takes and how one goes about setting up these seminars. I know the transportation critic for the New Democratic Party (Mr. Samis) was there and he also was very impressed.

We were provided with an outstanding lunch -- not that this had any bearing on my support for the bill this afternoon -- and also the company of many members of the Legislature.

5:20 p.m.

As the seminar proceeded, at least two photographers were taking photographs of the members. We did try to put our best foot forward, and we certainly hope after the photographs are developed that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere can use them in his Queen's Park report satisfactorily. If we do not show up in his Queen's Park report we will understand fully the photos just did not come out properly. Not only that, but we had a moving picture camera there too. Mr. Speaker, it was Hollywood. That is all I can say. To the member, my congratulations. He did a fine job, and we were very impressed.

Once we moved into the main room, we were able to see the film I mentioned earlier. I cannot think of any other word except "brutal" to describe the physical damage that occurs in an automobile accident -- the brutal physical damage that unrestrained children receive from automobile accidents, even at 20 and 25 miles an hour. It is just a terrible thing to see.

During the film, three physicians explained to us their involvement in activity to encourage individual citizens in their parts of Ontario to use child restraints. We were told by one of the doctors that riding in the family car is the biggest threat to the life of a child. Certainly the evidence given to us by the medical practitioners, who go to the emergency wards of hospitals, who have to treat these children after they have been literally smashed up in these automobile accidents, and their endorsement of this resolution speak for the need for this kind of legislation.

I would note that 1979 was the International Year of the Child and the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) let that opportunity go by without taking action himself. It is difficult to understand why an individual minister, who has held a portfolio since 1975, making him possibly the longest-serving Minister of Transportation and Communications, would let an event like the International Year of the Child go by without introducing the legislation being recommended by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. I cannot understand how this was allowed to happen, and I would just like to say that possibly the minister is getting tired. Several things have come up recently that show maybe he is just not as interested in transportation as he once was.

Mr. Riddell: Did you not call for his resignation?

Mr. Mancini: Yes, I called for his resignation on two occasions for a very important reason. I think he is giving that matter serious contemplation. I would not be surprised, if the minister does not have the good grace to resign, if he does not get a phone call late one evening from the Premier's secretary saying, "Mr. Snow, we have other very important business for you to attend to."

That having been said, I want to emphasize that I wholeheartedly endorse this resolution presented by the member. The facts as he explained them to the House are clear. Automobiles are the number one cause of deaths of children between the ages of one and five years old, and we have an obligation in this assembly to protect people who cannot protect themselves.

I urge all members of the House to support this resolution, and I hope once it gets past second reading the minister will take the action that he should have taken in 1979. Then we would have protection for children under the age of five years who are riding on Ontario's highways.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I rise, as well, in support of the resolution, and I want to congratulate the member for having introduced it. Along with my colleague, the member for Essex, I congratulate him on the seminar he organized today. The Hollywood-media-billed aura to it was obviously a little extra for political consumption, but I think his initiative deserves recognition in his organization of the seminar, the quality of people he had there -- we do not know about the quality of his cameraman; we will find out -- and also the film he presented and his initiative in introducing the resolution.

My colleague, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), did introduce a similar resolution back in the fall of 1980 and then reintroduced the same resolution in June 1981, so this resolution is not something new. It has been introduced in different forms twice previously.

Like the member for Essex I was struck by the statement the doctor made that the single greatest threat to a child's health is riding in a car. Various figures have been presented, both in background papers today and in this debate. That is obviously a fact of life.

I think there is very little question about the need or value of such a bill and such a policy in Ontario. We can only wonder why the government has waited so long to really move on the issue, especially when the evidence in favour of such legislation is so strong and so compelling. Any time 1,600 people are injured in one year for any reason it is cause for deep concern. When one remembers that we are talking about children and talking about 18 actual deaths in this province, then the issue becomes a crucial one for government to resolve once and for all.

Among the various groups supporting this type of legislation one notices the Ontario Coroners' Association, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Ontario Motor League, the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Safety Council. All of these are directly involved with the problem in the first place, have accumulated a vast store of knowledge and obviously carry a lot of weight in the whole argument.

Some of the facts have already been outlined by the presenter of the resolution dealing with the background for the legislation. He noted that more children over the age of one die in car crashes than from any other cause and that the vast majority of child passenger deaths can be prevented by child restraints in automobiles -- somewhere between 75 and 90 per cent. He also noted that a 30-mile-an-hour crash into a barricade is equivalent to dropping a child from a three-storey building.

He has referred to Tennessee, which is probably the best example in the United States. Since 1978, they have had 60 unrestrained children die in automobile accidents and only one who was restrained. That child died in a nonsurvivable accident -- I believe it was a collision between a subcompact car and two semi-trailers. He referred to the fact that the only citizens in Ontario not protected by seatbelt legislation are the 600,000 children under the age of five. All those facts obviously militate for such legislation here in Ontario.

As to the use of seatbelts today, it is interesting to note the various figures that were bandied about at the seminar. It seems that between 15 and 20 per cent of children under the age of five are actually using any type of seatbelt or restraint today, which means 80 to 85 per cent are not protected by these devices. In fact, the study done by McMaster University suggests that no more than 14 per cent of children are being properly restrained in automobiles today. A study done in Saskatchewan indicates that only 12 per cent of children under five were being properly protected prior to the introduction of their legislation.

5:30 p.m.

A study was done in Massachusetts of 2,474 children. It was rather interesting to note that the older the children got, the less their parents resorted to any form of device for protection. As infants they would be protected, but as soon as they got to two, three and four the rates dropped drastically to the 15 to 20 per cent range. This is a problem faced in every province in Canada.

In terms of adults our record in Ontario is nothing to brag about. Sure we have legislation, but various groups now suggest that more than half our drivers are not using seatbelts in this province. That is a problem.

According to the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada, they estimate that in cities only 47 per cent of drivers of small cars are actually buckling up; for large cars they estimate the figure is 30 per cent of drivers. Dr. Don Huelke at the University of Michigan said that drivers who refused to secure children safely in cars should be charged with child abuse -- strong stuff, but there is a lot of truth to it.

So there is obviously an overwhelming body of medical evidence, safety and health evidence to prove the value of a seatbelt and restraint for children, and it is time we got on and legislated an end to the problem.

Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to talk to Carl Shiels in Saskatchewan, who is the director of their Highway Traffic Safety Council. This is the only province that has adopted this type of legislation. He made some rather interesting points. First of all he pointed out that they received virtually no opposition to the introduction of this legislation in comparison to the seatbelt legislation, where they received considerable opposition.

Second, he pointed out that the cost of a Durell convertible infant carrier in Saskatchewan is in the range of $45 to $55, which is less than the cost of a new tire, or equal to two or three tankfuls of gas. What parent would say that was not a worthwhile investment?

It was rather interesting. He pointed out that the Kinettes and other service clubs have become very actively involved in renting various types of child-restraint devices at $5 per carrier, and that the Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office has subsidized half the cost of them. Four service clubs were involved in it. They now have more than 1,000 safety seats available throughout the province and the figure is growing.

I was interested in what a doctor said today in Kingston. Her name is Dr. Janice McConville. She said the Jayceettes in Kingston are doing the same thing. I think they deserve to be commended for their program.

In Saskatchewan, apparently, the crippled children's association has become very active in the rental and repair business and is obviously assisting them in their activities. Another interesting feature in the Saskatchewan legislation is that it was passed in May 1980 but only applied to children born after June 1980. In other words, they phased in their legislation, as has already been referred to, and that obviously eased the burden for many parents in the province.

He pointed out the effects of the legislation on those children who were not covered by the legislation. Before the introduction of their law in Saskatchewan the usage rate was 12 per cent; six months after the introduction of the legislation it was increased to 27 per cent, and 12 months after the implementation of the legislation that figure stood at 35 per cent. So even though the Saskatchewan law does not directly apply to those kids between the ages of one and five the use of child restraint devices has been increased by 300 per cent. I think that speaks for itself.

Another point he emphasized was the need for dealing with public health, hospitals, medical schools, libraries and media authorities to convince the public, especially parents, of the value of these restraints. In Saskatchewan, apparently, they provide kits involving films, pamphlets, posters, slides and things of that sort. I think the doctor from Kingston emphasized the importance of that in their program in Kingston. If we are going to have legislation in Ontario I think that is something we have to do all across the province.

A final point he mentioned is a minor one: that the commonly known loveseat made by General Motors apparently is no longer made by General Motors; it is now made by a company known as Gendron Industries Incorporated right here in Canada.

I noticed that the minister expressed several fears. One was the problem of Canadian standards, but he also talked about the possible rush on manufacturers and retailers and the possibility of price ripoffs if we were to adopt legislation. Again, Mr. Shiels in Saskatchewan said they had no problem with a rush on manufacturers because they gave them some lead time to prepare for the increase in demand. They were warned, they came through and they obviously satisfied the demand.

He said price ripoffs were no problem, because there was very intense competition between Canadian Tire and Woolco for the new market, and that effectively eliminated the possibility of price ripoffs. The police were obviously instructed to deal rather gingerly with this and that seems to have worked.

Transport Canada has set standards for infant carriers starting in January 1982. Obviously the time has come for us in Ontario to adopt legislation to tie in with that. The arguments for these types of restraints are overwhelming; the arguments against are minimal. Now is the time to act. Now is the time to set an example for all of Canada.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to join this debate on behalf of the resolution of my friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson). I am sure all the members are happy indeed that all three parties will be supporting this very worthwhile resolution.

As the other speakers have already mentioned, the briefing session the member held for us at noon was very productive and instructive. I think it may be well to mention for the record the three physicians who took the time to assist in that presentation: Dr. Robert MacMillan, a past president of the Ontario Medical Association, Dr. Janice McConville from Kingston, and Dr. Peter Knight, who is chairman of the committee on road traumas.

I was particularly struck with what Dr. McConville had been able to accomplish in her own area in Kingston. With a number of volunteers in the community, she had initiated a program to work with mothers in maternity wards to encourage them to provide this type of restraint for their infants from the very moment they were taken from the hospital to the home. She feels -- and I think it was a feeling those of us there would certainly share -- that in educating the child to become used to such a restraint, it would be very productive to start right on that first trip from the hospital to the home.

I had an opportunity at the seminar to speak to a number of members involved in the discussions. I remember talking for a few moments to my friend the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt). As he will recall, we talked about the legislation that had been put into place in a number of the southern states.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, I recall that.

Mr. Gillies: As the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere noted, there was, I believe, in the state of Tennessee a clause under which the child would be placed in a restraining device or, as an alternative, in the arms of the mother, as if this were considered a similar and safe place for an infant child to be held. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The most dangerous place a child can be at the time of an automobile collision is in the arms of a parent. While a 20-pound infant will exert a force of about 600 pounds when involved in a head-on collision at 30 miles an hour, in the arms of a 150-pound adult, that same child would be thrown forward with a force of 4,500 pounds.

I think this was illustrated quite graphically in the movie at the seminar. As my friend the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), has already said, I was absolutely shocked at what we saw in that film presentation. The accidents shown in that film were at 24, 25 and 30 miles per hour, and the devastation wrought on the people inside an automobile at those speeds was quite staggering. I must confess I have been very fortunate in not having been at the scene of a serious automobile accident in my life and I hope I never am, but to see those films and to imagine what would happen at a more conventional highway speed of 50, 55 or 70 miles per hour was absolutely frightening.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has already spoken of the statistics attached to these incidents of children in accidents in Ontario. The fact I draw from the statistics is that fatalities are on the increase. In 1977, there were 13 deaths of children under the age of five in this province; in 1978, there were 17; in 1979, there were 17; and in 1980 there were 18. At the same time, since the seatbelt legislation came into force for the rest of the population in this province in 1976, fatalities have been on the decrease.

This is the impression that is left with me and it is why I think my friend's argument is so compelling; the impression that these accidents, these fatalities among infants are increasing while for the rest of the population they are decreasing. I would suggest that is a situation which we as legislators certainly cannot tolerate.

5:40 p.m.

I am familiar, as I am sure every member of the Legislature is, with the arguments about the use of seatbelts. I hear them in my own constituency. There are people who have a philosophical bent against the use of seatbelts. It is not one that I share. I see my friend the member for Windsor-Sandwich in the chamber.

Mr. Wildman: Riverside. You know, "Down by the ..."

Mr. Gillies: Down by the riverside, yes. I do not know if the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) saw, as I did, a program the CBC ran about four or six weeks ago on highway safety and driving habits in the province, but I recall they did a random survey of communities in our province as to the use of seatbelts.

The number one community for nonparticipation in seatbelt wearing was the city of Windsor but a very close second was my constituency, the city of Brantford. I believe about 80 per cent of the people surveyed in Brantford at that time were not wearing their seatbelts. I am not proud of that. As members, I think we could be doing more to try to educate our constituents, the people for whom we have a responsibility, in the wearing of seatbelts.

There are isolated incidents. The physicians we listened to at noon spoke of the isolated incidents in which seatbelts would not avoid a fatality. I do not doubt for a moment there are occasionally accidents where a seatbelt may contribute to a fatality, but we have to look at the overall picture and the raw numbers. I think the facts speak for themselves that the use of seatbelts has led to a reduction in traffic fatalities and traffic accident injuries.

Why children in particular? Other members speaking to this resolution touched on it but we do know the bone structure of an infant is much more fragile than that of an adult. We know the body proportions of an infant are such that the upper body has the bulk of the weight and, therefore, in an accident a young child is sent forward head first like a projectile. As people get older they develop more weight in the lower regions of their bodies.

Mr. Robinson: Thank you very much.

Mr. Gillies: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and the member for Kitchener may remind me in a few years, I am sure.

Mr. Breithaupt: I will be glad to.

Mr. Gillies: Correctly used, we are told these child restraint devices can prevent up to 90 per cent of the deaths and 70 per cent of the injuries resulting from traffic accidents involving children. The philosophical argument, as I have said, is not one that I think we need debate at any length in this Legislature.

I have already noted I am pleased indeed that the transportation critics for the two opposition parties are in agreement with this. We have also seen that the representatives of the Canadian Medical Association, the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Coroners' Association are in full agreement with this resolution and this initiative by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

I am pleased indeed that our Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) is in the chamber and I hope he will listen to the arguments put forward by all the spokesmen this afternoon and respond very quickly with legislation to see this resolution is entrenched in the law.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, my interest in this resolution goes back to 1973 when I introduced a private member's bill in the Legislature amending the Highway Traffic Act to improve the safety of children travelling in school buses. Oddly enough, the use of seatbelts in school buses was not made mandatory because at that time the arguments against seemed to outweigh the arguments for; one argument being that one adult in the bus could not possibly see that 40 young children kept themselves buckled up, the other being that the particular structure of the child would tend to have that child slip either over or under the seatbelt in case of an accident. They were a little worried the belt might catch the child across the neck in that kind of situation and more damage could be done than if the child was not buckled up in the first place.

I am pleased the Minister of Transportation and Communications saw fit to incorporate many of my recommendations in legislation. He did not do it all at one time. He phased it in over a period of years, but I think most of the recommendations I made have now been incorporated into the Highway Traffic Act.

I want to congratulate the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere for his initiative in trying to provide protection for those who cannot protect themselves. Obviously he was sincere and most anxious to have it included in legislation. Otherwise he would never have held a seminar so that those who were interested could have an opportunity to hear the views of three doctors and to see an outstanding film showing the tremendous injuries that can occur to young people if they are in a motor vehicle accident without some kind of restraint device.

It is unfortunate we have to pass legislation in order to give people the kind of protection they should have. It is unfortunate we cannot do it through an educational process. I am one of those people who think we tend to legislate too much, but I also know that if we leave it strictly to education we will not accomplish the things we hope to accomplish in matters such as this.

I was interested in the doctor's comment at the seminar that there are more child injuries and fatalities due to motor vehicle accidents than there are from such diseases as polio and measles. This may indicate the tremendous job done eliminating such diseases through programs such as vaccination. Still and all, there are far too many young people between the ages of one and five who are killed, injured or permanently maimed in car accidents by virtue of their not being properly restrained.

Unfortunately, parents simply do not realize the danger they place their children in when they allow them to travel in a motor vehicle without a proper child restraint device. A parent's natural instinct is to hold a young child in his or her arms or on his or her lap when travelling in a vehicle. Parents fail to realize that in the event of impact the child will be virtually crushed between the parent and the dashboard if the parent is not buckled up. Even if the parent is buckled up, a 20-pound child would exert a force of 600 pounds in a 30-miles-per-hour crash, which is more than any parent could hope to cope with.

The argument against this kind of legislation would be the pat argument that we are taking away civil rights. But surely we have to consider the rights of the child, who has no reasoning power to exert his or her own rights. So it looks like we have to do it by way of legislation.

The last point I want to make is that common law includes duty of care. Surely we owe a duty of care not only to each other but especially to our children. We have all probably gone through the old exercise of making sure that all safety precautions have been taken when someone visits our premises.

Mr. Speaker: I would draw the member's attention to the clock.

Mr. Riddell: We are subject to liability if someone injures himself on our property. I am surprised that some parents have not been taken to court on this very business of duty of care in connection with children.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: I am sorry my time is up. I thought I was making a very good point.

Mr. Speaker: You did indeed.

MUNICIPAL SUNSHINE ACT

The House divided on Ms. Bryden's motion for second reading of Bill 132, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Boudria. Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Kerrio, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie. Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan. McKessock, Miller, G. I.;

Newman, Nixon, Philip, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Stokes, Swart, Van Horne, Wildman. Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kolyn, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McLean, McNeil, Mitchell, Norton;

Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Taylor, J. A., Treleaven, Walker, Wells, Williams.

Ayes 38; nays 37.

6 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Order. There has been a change. Under new standing order 64(m): "Notwithstanding standing order 56(c) private members' public bills given second reading shall stand referred to the committee of the whole House unless referred to a standing committee or select committee by a majority of the House." So this will automatically go to committee of the whole House. Agreed?

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: We will deal next with resolution 14, standing in the name of Mr. Robinson. If any members are opposed to a vote on this resolution they will please now stand.

Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I had risen on a point just before you called for the vote.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: There is no point of order or privilege during a vote. Once a vote has been called, we should proceed with the vote.

Mr. Foulds: Bud is right for once.

Mr. Speaker: The member did indicate that he had stood before I had called it. Whether he had or not I cannot say.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I was just amazed that this bill was passed in opposition to the government. I just wonder, and I would like to ask you, whether this is a vote of no confidence.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I ask the member to resume his seat.

SEATBELTS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Robinson has moved resolution 14.

Those in favour will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Resolution concurred in.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS

Mr. Speaker: I would ask the indulgence of all the members. Due to the question of form which was raised by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and concurred in by other members of the select committee on pensions, and due to the procedure followed, I would ask the chairman of the select committee if he would agree to withdraw this report so that members may have the opportunity of reading and signing it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for this opportunity. The problem of procedure I personally have and which was subsequently shared by my colleagues in the House this afternoon, should be clarified. It certainly has been traditional and a convention in my experience for each and every member of a committee to sign a report of a select committee.

I know there has been variation from that procedure, but I seize on this opportunity to reinstate what I consider a traditional form. Being a traditional Conservative, I am delighted that my colleagues in the House raised the point. I am delighted to withdraw the report to enable each and every member to sign that report individually.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I would like to take this opportunity to point out again to all the members that there was nothing wrong with the form followed inasmuch as it is not mandatory for all members of a select committee to sign the report. However, because of the concerns expressed and raised, we have followed this procedure.

Mr. Martel: May I ask the Speaker, as I asked him earlier today, if he would consider sending it to the standing committee on procedural affairs so we can encompass it in some formalized manner?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I have asked that this be looked at.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn for supper, I would like to indicate to the House the business for the next week. This evening we are considering the standing committee on public accounts' final report of December 1980. Tomorrow morning we will deal with legislation, with second readings of Bills 79, 80 and 71.

On Monday, October 19, we will continue with any of the second readings of Bills 79, 80 and 71 not completed and will also deal with the committee of the whole, if necessary, on any of those bills if there is time.

On Tuesday afternoon, October 20, we will continue with any remaining second readings or committee of the whole on Bills 79, 80 and 71, followed by Bills 2, 47, 22 and 6. On Tuesday evening we will continue with any of that legislation not completed in the afternoon and then move to committee of the whole, consideration of Bill 68.

On Wednesday, October 21, I would like to indicate that three committees, the standing committees on general government, resources development and administration of justice, will be meeting in the morning.

On Thursday afternoon, October 22, we will deal with the private members' business standing in the names of the member for Haldimand Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) and the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande). In the evening we will debate the motion for adoption of the third report of the standing committee on procedural affairs concerning agencies, boards and commissions, and if time permits we will also debate a motion for adoption of the 1981 first report of the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments.

On Friday, October 23, we will begin consideration in the House of the estimates of Management Board of Cabinet.

The House recessed at 6:10 p.m.

October 15, 1981