Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

UNFAIR SALES PRACTICES ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East had the floor.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Sudbury, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Sudbury, I am sorry.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, prior to the dinner break, I was reading into the record a case whereby I cite a weakness in the bill, in that the legislation doesn’t provide or authorize or direct the director who would be responsible for enforcing this legislation to take class action against a merchant who may have offended against thousands of people. We might never know how many thousands could have been offended against, but the degree of damage to each individual person is such and the financial loss is such that this person is not likely to take action through the courts.

It is my contention that unless an amendment is made to the bill which would provide, direct and authorize the director to take this action on behalf of many citizens, then the bill to a large degree will be pretty well useless unless there is a major offence against one particular consumer. I’ll continue reading into the record the letter of complaint which I had filed with the minister, dated Aug. 22, 1974, and I’m quoting from the letter, Mr. Speaker.

“Upon returning to my office at 252 Victoria St. in Sudbury with my package, I encountered my secretary, Mary Palakovich, and without telling her what was going on I induced her to have a slice of the meat from the package. After having eaten it, I asked her what she thought it was. She replied that it was some kind of artificial chicken.

“Just about this time, Phil Hall, whom I don’t believe you know, entered the office and also sampled the product. His decision was an emphatic bologna, or was it baloney? Roger Couvrette also happened on the scene and refused to make an evaluation as to what he had eaten. I am also undecided as to what it was, but it does not appear harmful to humans.

“You will note that of the three independent tasters, none of them ventured to guess that this was ham as it is commonly known in our society.

“Acting on the vague premise that you might want to analyze this product and determine if indeed this is a case of false advertising, I have deposited about one-quarter pound of fine ham in my freezer at 494 Byng St. in Sudbury. This sample is available to your department should you see fit to conduct an inquiry. You can advise whether you want me to deliver it to any specific location, or one of your agents could pick it up at my home. Even if you decide not to press charges, I’m sure you will agree that it would be an interesting exercise to determine to what degree Woolworth’s has adulterated the word ‘ham.’

“I am sure that if you solve the big ham caper, you will be endeared in the hearts of all Ontario residents. I expect an early reply to this letter as I am not sure of the life expectancy of the sample I have in my refrigerator.

“I remain yours truly.”

It was signed by myself.

This gave the minister a pretty clear idea of what the nature of the complaint was and the total value that is involved in this individual case, which happened to be my case. It was myself who bought the half pound of ham. It was only 74 cents. It is not very likely that I or any other constituent or resident of Ontario is going to take court action against a company like Woolworth’s to recover or regain 74 cents.

So you see, Mr. Speaker, without the enforcement by the government of its own legislation, then the legislation, as far as it concerns a specific item such as that which I’ve recited, would just be hopeless.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): What legislation should we move under? What statute do we move under for that prosecution, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Germa: Well, I’m coming to that, Mr. Speaker. I did get a response from the minister.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Misleading advertising.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Under what statute? Let the member tell me, Mr. Speaker.

Mi. Stokes: Then the minister had better come up with one.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There it is right there. Look at it.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely what we’re talking about. The minister interjects that this legislation is going to solve the problem which I have recited. I maintain that it is not going to solve the problem, because who in his right mind is going to take court action to recover 74 cents, when he buys ham and it turns out to be bologna?

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Oh, come on!

Mr. Germa: This is precisely what the man bought. No one is going to take action to recover 74 cents.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Germa: The response I got from the minister was precisely what I had expected. He had said in the House before that he has no legislation to enforce.

Mr. Drea: That’s not what he said.

Mr. Germa: But I’m also surprised at the gobbledygook and the curves that he throws into a letter addressed to myself, dated Aug. 30. I quote from paragraph 2. The minister writes: “As you are no doubt aware, this ministry has no authority to regulate food prices in Ontario.”

Well, at no time in my letter of complaint had I mentioned food prices. We were not complaining about the price; we were complaining about having been sold a product labelled ham which, in fact, was not ham, but something else. Ham, as we know it in this society, is smoked pork, and it is quite identifiable as far as I am concerned.

But then the minister gives me this curve about food prices in Ontario. I wasn’t complaining about the price. It was probably a good price as pork, but it certainly wasn’t a good price as ham. This is what we are talking about.

However, the minister did get out of the action by saying: “This is not within provincial jurisdiction and I am forwarding your letter of complaint to Mr. Ouellet and the federal consumer protection branch.” I appreciate that the minister did direct the complaint to the feds. Now the feds seem a little confused as well.

But before we go to the feds, in order to give Woolworth’s a chance to respond I copied Woolworth’s to let them know that I had lodged a complaint. This is where the individual citizen is going to be reluctant to go after these large merchants, because they don’t take lightly or kindly to someone interfering in their business; they think it is their own private affairs the way in which they rip off the public.

Woolworth’s reacted in the expected fashion and they passed the buck. Their letter tells the minister that they have contacted the producer, the person who made this great huge sausage which I saw labelled as ham. It turns out that the producer is Northern Produce of 308 Notre Dame Ave. in Sudbury, and he has asked Northern Produce to attest to the quality of the merchandise of this ham; “fine ham,” they call it. They also indicate they will co-operate with the minister.

Now Northern Produce, after they have received this letter from Woolworth’s asking for a letter which would adduce that this was indeed a fine product, are offended as well. They don’t believe that a person such as myself, or any consumer, should interfere with their selling of bologna under the guise of ham. A letter is addressed to F. W. Woolworth Co. from Northern Produce, and signed by Mr. Paul Soucy, one of the owners. The last paragraph reads:

“We have noted that Mr. Germa feels he bought a chicken-based product instead of ham. I certainly hope he knows more about the political atmosphere in our area than he seems to know about meat produce.”

Now, what kind of a citizen can stand up against people who come back at you like that? I am wise enough to know the difference between chicken and ham, but when he puts bologna or pork sausage in and tries to tell me it is ham, it indicates what is going on in the marketplace. These people will go to any lengths to rook a customer, even to disguising pork sausage with huge placards and huge newspaper advertisements which get people to go downtown to buy an item advertised clearly as ham which has been proven not to be ham.

Anyway, this thing went to the federal minister. Now here is where the gyrations really start. The file on this thing is about an inch thick by now. Since the minister washed his hands of it the thing has been going on between myself and the feds, and I would like to just read some of the gyrations that went on at the federal level when one constituent tried to get to the bottom of a case. It seems that these free enterprise governments of ours rely on the old theory that “b.s. baffles brains.” Most people, after they get baffled so long, just walk away from the complaint and say: “Well I am a little poorer, but I am a little wiser.” That’s a very expensive way to get an education, but unfortunately many consumers have to get it that way.

I would like to read into the record a letter I have here addressed to F. W. Woolworth Co. of Sudbury, dated Sept. 19. It’s signed by Ms. D. H. Moore, food specialist. She is with the field operation services for the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It reads:

“This is to confirm our conversation on Sept. 10, 1974, when a consumer complaint concerning advertising the above-mentioned product was discussed.

“At this time it was suggested that in future this product be advertised as fine ham sausage to prevent complaints of a similar nature occurring again.

“Your co-operation would be appreciated.”

So, they have been issued a sort of half-hearted warning, because these governments haven’t got their heart in controlling these merchants. They believe too much in the old free enterprise system, and they are not willing to fiddle with it.

We move now, Mr. Speaker, to Oct. 29 and we have another letter on file. It’s addressed to F. W. Woolworth Co., 45 Elm St., Sudbury, attention of Mr. Lemieux, and is regarding advertising and labelling of fine ham sausage schinkenwurst. You see, we’re making progress, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): There’s a name for it now.

Mr. Germa: We’ve got away from fine ham, now. We’re into schinkenwurst.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I thought it was chicken.

Mr. Germa: I thought it was chicken, too, but it’s schinkenwurst. Anyway, we’re defining what we’re up against. The letter is to Woolworth’s and is signed by Ms. Moore, food specialist with the federal consumer protection branch. It reads:

“Further investigation of the aforementioned product indicates that this product is not made from ham but, instead, from pork and pork trimmings.

“In light of these findings to label or advertise this product as fine ham sausage, or schinkenwurst, is in violation of section 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act.

“No objection will be taken to labelling and advertising this product as naming the source of meat, e.g. pork sausage. Further advertising and labelling should incorporate the modified common name. We would appreciate receiving in writing your intentions in this matter.”

The letter was signed by Ms. Moore and that was Oct. 29.

The plot goes on, Mr. Speaker. On Oct. 30 there was a letter to Northern Produce. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that Northern Produce was the butcher shop or factory which put this sausage into its skin. This letter was also signed by Ms. Moore and it reads:

“Re: Fine ham sausage, schinkenwurst:

“Recently, we have received consumer complaints concerning the nature of the above-mentioned product. Investigations into this complaint indicates that ham is not being used in this product. Continued distribution of this products as schinkenwurst, or fine ham, violates section 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act. No objection would be taken to calling this product cooked pork sausage.

“Please advise of your intentions in this matter.”

Now, the backtracking starts. We were going along pretty good there. Two warnings were issued. One went to Woolworth’s: “You can’t call this stuff schinkenwurst because it’s got no ham in it, and you can’t call it fine ham because it isn’t schinkenwurst.” But on Nov. 22, a further letter signed by Ms. Moore, food specialist with the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, was sent to Northern Produce:

“Re: schinkenwurst: Thank you for your letter dated Nov. 5, 1975, concerning the common name of your schinkenwurst. We have received the facts and feel that if the meat content of this product does contain 50 per cent fresh pork ham and does conform to the traditional recipe for schinkenwurst, then no objection would be taken to selling this product labelled as such. We caution you, however, on translating the common name on any label, advertisement or bill of sale. German sausages are usually sold by their German names and people in Canada buy these products according to past experience, never really knowing what meats make up each sausage. Trusting this will solve problems arising in the past.”

So we don’t know where we are going on the schinkenwurst problem. If it’s got 50 per cent ham -- and there’s a big “if” there; we are not sure now. We’ve had two letters which said there is no ham in it. Therefore we’ve abrogated section 51 of the Food and Drugs Act and now the feds are starting to back off.

Another letter in my file was written prior to the last one. This one is dated Nov. 14, it’s addressed to myself and it’s signed by André Ouellet, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. When I received this letter I was quite happy to see that the minister had agreed with me. I’ll read this letter into the record:

“Dear Mr. Germa:

“Officials of my department have now completed their investigation of the advertisement which you brought to my attention concerning a product described as fine ham, which appeared in the Sudbury Star, Monday, Aug. 19, 1974.

“It has been confirmed that the product in question was actually pork sausage and not ham, as described. Both manufacturer and retailer have been advised that the label and advertisements were in violation of section 51 of the Food and Drugs Act both have received official warnings.

“André Ouellet.”

I think, Mr. Speaker, you can see that the federal government is being quite lenient. We don’t know how many people Woolworth’s hooked on that Aug. 19 day when it was selling sausage under the guise of ham. There could have been 10,000 Sudburians who bought this, thinking that they were buying ham.

This is where the bill is weak, where it doesn’t provide for the government to take action on behalf of a class of people who will not; and they should not, because we are all familiar with the cost of court proceedings and hazards of going through the courts. People just don’t have that kind of money to police these merchants. We know they are doing it every day of the week. For every one that’s brought to the minister’s attention there’s another 100 that go unnoticed.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, the cases that come to our attention. Unless prosecutions take place and these people are penalized as an example to other persons in the business, then it’s going to continue on and this bill, which the minister is so proud of, will have very little or no effect on what’s going on in the marketplace. I’m disillusioned by the bill, but I have to vote for it, because there is a modicum of protection there that we didn’t have before. But it’s very, very little as far as an individual case like that is concerned.

The latest action on the fine ham caper is that I have written to Mr. Ouellet, the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs, and have demanded that he take court action against Northern Produce, the manufacturer of this sausage, and against F. W. Woolworth Co. Ltd., and until such time as he takes that action, I just don’t think that our governments are doing the proper thing by the consumers in the province. I would implore the minister to consider making an amendment to this Act which would cover a case such as I have recited here. No one is going to take action when he is only offended against to that small financial degree. We need an amendment to this Act to provide for the director to take action in the courts.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I just want to express one idea to the Ottawa minister, through you, in connection with consumer protection, which I find is not explicit in this bill. That is in connection with the whole problem of packaging. The minister knows, as we all do, how packaging has been built up over the past few years to buffalo the consumer. Weights and measures -- instead of pound packages or packages of certain dimensions, we find that those packages are all kinds of sizes and weights. Soapflakes are a case in point. There is no way that the consumer can compare prices adequately on these particular boxes.

I know some progress has been made at the federal level, and perhaps the minister can co-operate with his federal counterpart in this regard. I’m thinking of cheese packages, for example. It used to be that a pound of cheese was a pound of cheese -- 16 oz. Then it became 15 oz. and 14 oz.; and now it is 12 oz. Of course, as the weight went down, the price went up, or remained constant. That’s one way of raising prices. Cookies used to be in pound packages, too; now we get 7½-oz. and 15-oz. packages and that sort of thing. When you get into the halves, it’s almost impossible for the consumer to compare prices in any meaningful way.

The reason I raise this is that we will be going into the metric system before too long and, it seems to me, there will be an opportunity for the minister, in co-operation with the feds, to do a meaningful job. A great deal of the canning and packaging in Canada is done right here in this province; so we have a lever to work with. It seems to me that as we enter the metric age, we can mandate that packages should all be a certain weight, a certain quality or whatever it may be. There is no reason why a certain number of litres shouldn’t be standard, or a certain number of grams, or whatever the case may be. These packages could be standardized in such a way that the consumer could look at them and compare the prices of various brands.

I throw this out to the minister as a possibility, that as we change over to the metric system, it seems to me to be the logical and proper time to face up to this whole problem and to do a real job in the whole field of packaging. I ask the minister to take that under consideration and to incorporate it at the proper time into legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take part in the debate?

The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, my hope is that legislation of this sort will be effective without having a tremendous bureaucracy involved with it. I share the concern expressed by my colleague that although the principle of this bill is one we have to agree with, it isn’t the most effective and efficient way of implementing protection-for consumers. There is also going to be duplication, and I have brought to the minister’s attention the concerns of people in industries that are already regulated.

My feeling is that basically the most effective legislation is that whereby we have a group that includes industry, consumers and those people given the legislative power to actually protect the public. Most of industry is usually legitimate, and industry itself I flows the tricks of the trade. It’s how to deal with those who are not dealing fairly with the public that is the major problem; it’s a problem to those in business who are anxious to keep the standards high.

I think this method of enforcing it is going to be cumbersome and ineffective. I say “cumbersome and ineffective” because, in connection with new car sales I have brought to the minister’s attention the case of a man who has been trying for years to obtain satisfaction in connection with an undercoating job to his truck. He dealt as best he could with the company, without success. He went to the ministry for help, but the ministry was completely ineffective in helping him deal with the company. This man didn’t have the resources himself to sue. What bothers me is that we have a government mechanism here that won’t be nearly as effective as a mechanism where it’s incumbent on the industry to perform or be subject to the minister’s response in some other way. I think that is far more effective. It is also evident in connection with the securities industry, where the major responsibility has been assigned to the industry itself, and the public has representation -- although at this point I don’t think it has adequate representation -- on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the investment dealers’ councils.

But I feel that is the way to go because it’s in the interest of the legitimate people who are in a majority in these situations that industry do a job. It’s much easier for the minister to correct the situation when the minister has a knowledgeable group to work through. So, although I support the principle of the bill -- we all do as a matter of fair trade practice -- I just cannot see that this is going to do the job that is hoped for. It will be very costly and if the previous legislation of this sort is an example --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): He’s got a lot more faith in industry than I have.

Mr. Deacon: I may have a lot more faith in industry than the member has, but I find that industry is not much different from any of us in any walk of life, whether we be in politics or the church. We have a lot of people in life who would like to take shortcuts.

Mr. Lawlor: The member’s position is incredible. How does industry administer a bill like this? It covers the whole range from farmer to consumer.

Mr. Deacon: What’s that? Sure, it covers the whole range.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Deacon: But the fact is that the major problems that we have can be covered through industry policing with legislative backup to ensure that it is done, and it can be done far more efficiently and effectively than it will be through another bureaucracy. As for most of these darned bureaucracies, all they do is frustrate the ones who are trying to do a decent job, and those who want to cheat can always find a way around it.

Mr. Lawlor: The member’s got a Pollyanna complex.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill but I must confess that I express some of the concerns of other members of the House of all political parties insofar as the shortcomings are concerned in terms of merchandising and packaging in the current era.

My colleague from Thunder Bay was concerned about getting the lead out of his gas and I can appreciate that concern.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The member must be careful how he says that.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member for Sudbury, of course, was concerned about schinkenwurst, and the member for Yorkview about the size of the packages.

Mr. Lawlor: And “emphatic bologna.”

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The minister doesn’t believe in it. He told me that in his estimates.

I thought the hon. member for Yorkview made an excellent suggestion in terms of the current practice to convert to the metric system. I think it’s time that we had some uniformity in terms of contents of packaging so that the consumer will know precisely the quantity of what he is buying. It becomes increasingly more difficult every day. If you buy two, then you figure that you may get more or less than you get with a bigger one, and by the time you start converting and bringing out the calculators it’s just chaotic. I certainly have sympathy for the shopper.

Mr. Young: Sometimes the bigger ones are more expensive than the little ones.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s correct, that’s absolutely correct. When you start converting you find that when you think you are getting a bargain, you really are not, you are being cheated, Mr. Speaker.

I have a particular concern in terms of these plastic garbage bags. I remember many years ago when they first came on the market the manufacturers of these bags did everything they could to con the municipalities into permitting these to be used for garbage containers. In those days the municipal bylaws provided for garbage cans with tight-fitting metal lids. Once they distributed some of these bags free, and of course they were bags that were of sufficient strength that even Eddie Shack couldn’t kick his way out of.

But today, before you deposit any garbage in the bag, if your finger happens to touch it, it’ll poke right through the thing. Of course, so will the corners of boxes or anything else. To me it is just a sheer fraud perpetrated on the public to permit this very poor quality of garbage bag to be marketed in this day and age.

So these are areas that I think should be looked into so that the consumer is protected. We are getting more and more of this type of thing. I think it’s becoming even more important to be ever vigilant to protect the unwary consumer, not only in the matters I have mentioned this evening but, of course, in the whole field of consumer items.

Mr. Lawlor: What a wonderful thing the Ontario Legislature is to protect the consumer.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a few comments on the bill and point out to the minister some areas in which I am concerned. The first I would make mention of is the foreign automobile. The purchaser of that vehicle has no idea, or quite often has no idea as to the year of make. That automobile could have been made in Japan in 1971. It comes into this country; it’s a new vehicle and it has never been used. It has been parked in some parking lot either over there or back here. It would be sold back in Ontario as a new vehicle and really it is a new vehicle, meaning it has never been used. But there is no way of the individual telling whether that happens to be a 1971, 1972, 1973, or even a 1974 model.

Mr. Renwick: Is that important?

Mr. Young: Yes, he gets rooked on the trade-in.

Mr. Renwick: Is the member suggesting there are false representations made?

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, I am.

An hon. member: The same thing happens with a television set or an appliance.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville has the floor.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, it is very important from the misrepresentation angle, but also, as they progress, these models have certain safety features on them. The individual buying that automobile assumes that these safety features are on and doesn’t realize, even though it may be a new vehicle, it could be three years old, and these features are not included on the vehicle. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should expect or maybe even issue a mandate to the industry to date the model, in other words, that the date be on the appliance or at least the year of manufacture.

You buy a TV set in town here, Mr. Speaker, and, you don’t know quite often whether you are buying a 1974 model television set or a 1972 model that has never been removed from the crate. There could be substantial difference between the two television sets. That same thing could be true for almost any type of electric appliance. In my estimation, Mr. Speaker, there should be a dating procedure so that a purchaser of the appliance or the vehicle by looking at the vehicle can easily know the date of manufacture or the model date, if they don’t use the manufacturing date. I would prefer the calendar date for the manufacture of the vehicle.

Mr. Speaker, another problem does arise in the purchase of a new vehicle. It is guaranteed to perform in a certain fashion. In the meantime, if he is buying it on credit the individual’s note is immediately sold to a finance company. He can’t bring the car back to the dealer quite often because it’s the finance company that has the vehicle and, as a result, he finds himself having to pay for the vehicle. He can’t turn it back in. He is sort of trapped.

I have noticed one of the states in the US has a sort of an auto lemon bill. In other words, if you buy the vehicle and it turns out to be a lemon, then you simply have recourse right to the manufacturer rather than through a series of finance companies, Mr. Speaker.

These are the few comments that I wanted to make to the minister. I am concerned with this and I hope there’s some way of preventing this type of misrepresentation and fraud.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, excuse me, I have just had a note.

A hon. member: Who is it from? Who is she?

Mr. Renwick: Isn’t that terrific? I didn’t think anybody knew.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the bill and I am absolutely delighted that so many members have filled in the time until I could have --

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m not.

Mr. Renwick: -- the opportunity to comment about the bill.

Mr. Drea: Yes, but I am after the member.

Mr. Lawlor: Is that what the minister thinks we were doing, filling in the time until he got around to it?

Mr. Renwick: No, well, that’s my form of egotism.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, would the hon. member continue with this debate on the principle?

Mr. Lawlor: Well, narcissism in the Legislature has no place.

Mr. Renwick: May I, Mr. Speaker, say that I have seldom seen a bill that I have had as much difficulty with? The purpose of the bill, the theory of consumer protection, makes us all glow, if anything. We all think it must of necessity be good because the ministry brings in a bill dealing with unfair trade practices in sales to consumers. I am immensely concerned and I want, on one of the few occasions when I do it in the House, to talk in a sort of semi-legal sense. I think what we are doing in the consumer law field is compounding immense complexity upon what was an already unsatisfactory system, and not providing the kind of solution that we want to provide.

I think there is, in fact, something wrong about the motivations that lead government to introduce consumer legislation. I think there is an element of hypocrisy to it. I think there is an element of trying to respond to what they believe to be something called a consumer demand, without ever being able to isolate what the consumer wants or is concerned about.

Mr. Drea: It takes money away from lawyers.

Mr. Renwick: This is part of my problem. Part of my problem is I don’t think under this bill, that the minister is taking any money away from lawyers. As usual, that erudite profession to which the minister and I, and my colleague the hon. member for Lakeshore, and others belong is also an arcane profession, and the bill is replete with terms which are going to cause immense difficulty for the courts, immense difficulty for the manufacturers and suppliers of goods across the country, and immense difficulty for the consumer.

I want to talk a little bit about why I feel those difficulties are going to take place. I think the consumer is going to believe that this bill in some way protects him. But it is my guess that by the time any consumer tests the bill in a court or before the tribunal that is set up under the Act or through the director who is responsible for it in its application, he’s going to find that if he goes through the courts it’s immensely complicated, immensely erudite and immensely expensive for him to establish what he believes to be the kind of protection that he wants. So I think -- and I will come back to it -- it is an immensely elaborate bill from that viewpoint.

The second thing that bothers me -- and I’ll come back to each of these again -- is that the bill is replete with terms which already have fixed, traditional, legal interpretative use as to what the words mean. In a funny sense I’m not criticizing the ministry this time, but what I’m saying is that we are using terms which already have historic meanings which the judges are going to be impelled to use and compelled to use in interpreting what the bill is about. And we have constitutional problems with respect to the whole question of the doctrine of mens rea or the guilty knowledge intent. The confusions are immensely great in the legal field with respect to the provisions of this bill.

I’m one of the ones who believes that Ontario has to give the initiative in many of these fields and should not allow the federal government to play games in jurisdictions that we can deal with much more effectively than they can. And we must recognize that there’s a government in Ottawa very aggressive in encroachment upon the provincial system. We have to play our role in making certain that things of local concern and local contractual arrangements are not overridden by Ottawa. So we’ve got that kind of complex of legal problems.

Then I think the suppliers of goods and services in the Province of Ontario are entitled to think that somewhere there is enough wit and wisdom among the ministries of consumer and commercial relations across the country, by whatever name they are called, that there would be some uniformity in what they’re saying. And there is no uniformity. The minister would obviously have more expert information than I would have. The only bills I have looked at and tried to compare with the bill which the minister has introduced are the bill introduced in Alberta and the bill introduced in British Columbia. I don’t know whether there is another bill in Saskatchewan or Manitoba or in any of the provinces to the east, but in any event I have the three bills.

What worries me about the bills, when you try to read them, is that there is a certain similarity of language but there appears to be an inability of the ministries to reach agreement on the same bill, in the same terms, when they are directed to the same end. The similarities are many in the language of the bill in Alberta, which was introduced quite recently, in the language of the bill which I don’t think is law in British Columbia at the present time, and the language of the bill which the minister has introduced. There are immense similarities in wording, but they go at it in kind of a funny, different way, which provides an absolute field day for the courts, great difficulties for the consumers and an immense field for the legal staff of the corporations to spend their time trying to understand what the distinctions are between the federal legislation, which touches upon some of these areas, the Ontario legislation, the Alberta legislation and the British Columbia legislation. Those matters really concern me immensely.

I was asking my colleague the member for Lakeshore about the minister’s intentions with the bill, and I understand it is going out to a standing committee. I earnestly ask the minister to invite -- for one of the few occasions when I think they have a preponderantly important role to play -- to invite the professors from the law schools in the Province of Ontario to come and play an important role in the activity of that committee. I think we have the same sort of obligation in this field as we have in the securities field to front-run the standards of behaviour throughout the whole of the country.

I can’t understand why, if the minister has been in consultation with his colleagues in British Columbia and in Alberta, and perhaps in the other provinces, there isn’t a uniform bill. I think this matter is one of the fields of great difficulty that should be the subject of a uniform bill.

I don’t know all of the professors at all of the law schools in the Province of Ontario who could contribute to the standing committee, and I would ask the minister to seriously consider inviting one professor, like Prof. Ziegel from Osgoode Hall at York University --

Mr. Drea: I wonder why, I wonder why?

Mr. Renwick: -- and Prof. Trebilcock, from the University of Toronto law school. They must have counterparts at the University of Western Ontario, at Queen’s University and at --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Carleton.

Mr. Renwick: -- and at Carleton, who can deal with this type of question. We have the possibility, and I emphasize to the minister only the possibility, of introducing legislation that will help the consumer. Otherwise we are engaged in some kind of a trap operation, suggesting there are remedies when there really aren’t remedies because of the costs involved, because of the immense complication of the legal terminology which is used in the bill and because of the procedures which have got to be followed in order to emphasize it.

Now I don’t suggest I know the answers. I don’t think any of us know how one in fact provides a speedy, effective, inexpensive solution to consumer problems for those persons in society who in the ordinary way, as ordinary citizens, buy an article in a store or through representations made by sale, or through any of the so-called wholesale outlets that abound on the periphery of Metropolitan Toronto and elsewhere throughout the Province of Ontario, so that they can say: “I didn’t get what I wanted”; or “It doesn’t work”; or “It broke”; or one of the other things which are involved in it and get some satisfaction.

I think probably related to my concern about this is the fact that the minister has seen fit to throw this bill into the assembly, when we don’t have the warranty bill. There has been a green paper and immense input by all sorts of people on the matter of warranties, which can be sorted out because it is a different kind of thing. It is possible to devise the basic form of a warranty which accompanies goods and to establish where variations can be made and can be standardized. That’s possible, because people will understand and use that. But we’ve had the green paper on warranties and we’ve had the hearings across the province in connection with that, but we don’t see the bill.

I may have missed a beat somewhere along the line. I know of nothing of a public nature which led up to the introduction of Bill 55. As I say, I may be quite wrong. Maybe there was some kind of a document distributed to explain this bill. Maybe there were public hearings, although I don’t remember having heard about them. Maybe this is just a response which the government feels it must make to something called consumer pressure, without really having thought it through.

I am really concerned about everybody who is going to be involved in this bill. I’m concerned about the lawyers in the sense that while they will charge fees, they won’t be able to explain to their clients what it means or what they’re going to be able to expect when they go to court, which is the basic function of a lawyer with respect to lawsuits.

I don’t think it is possible for a supplier of goods in the Province of Ontario, or his employees or agents, to understand clearly what they are required to do except to be honest. The definition of the term “supplier” raises a very serious legal problem in the whole context of this bill.

I don’t think there is a single consumer, when he sees this bill and tries to understand it, who will possibly understand whether or not he’s got a legal remedy involved in it, without going to see a lawyer. I don’t think he will have any sensation that he is being presented with an inexpensive, efficient method of deciding a consumer complaint. I think we’re involved in a kind of marshmallow world of traditional legal conceptions that aren’t going to help the consumer at all.

In dealing with this government, we are always involved in the problem of the white Liberal approach of my friends on the right, who think, with reservations, that this is good legislation, and our view, which is as pure as the driven snow, that it’s generally suspect legislation which comes from the government because they don’t really have any fundamental concern.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): The NDP members don’t know what their views are.

Mr. Renwick: As my colleague from Lakeshore said on the building code, as a socialist you don’t stand and fight the government on the building code. And I guess I don’t stand and fight the government on this bill.

I think it is possible, by very tough, disciplined, rigid and expert work in the committee, to produce a good bill. I don’t give a damn about the partisan political aspect. I think this bill is not good. I think it is terribly difficult and awkward to deal with.

Mr. Drea: Just lawyers’ fees.

Mr. Renwick: My friend from Scarborough Centre, the parliamentary assistant to the minister, and I basically are talking the same language, I think, about consumer protection.

Mr. Drea: No way!

Mr. Renwick: Well, perhaps I gave him credit where credit wasn’t due.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Right on.

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t give olive branches to the generalissimo.

Mr. Renwick: I’m not speaking to the parliamentary assistant in his personal capacity with the heavy responsibility that has been imposed on him by the government to take on this role. What I’m concerned about is the former person of the member for Scarborough Centre who appeared at Osgoode Hall seminars on consumer protection --

Mr. Drea: That’s right.

Mr. Renwick: -- and at the University of Toronto law school on consumer protection matters. He was asking for a simplistic, readily available, inexpensive and speedy solution to consumer problems where people expend X number of dollars.

Mr. Lawlor: He means simple-minded.

Mr. Drea: We gave it to them.

Mr. Renwick: Okay, all I’m saying is that at that particular point in time the member and I responded that we were talking about the same thing. And this bill doesn’t do it, because this bill is back into a world which is: “What is wrong with the legal system?” -- that we can’t deal with modern problems because we don’t know how to deal with them.

I want to spend just a couple of minutes on this. I’m not an expert on the law of the sale of goods. I’ve advised many people on many problems on which I’m not an expert, and I’m not an expert in the intricacies of the Sale of Goods Act of the Province of Ontario.

First of all, I want to say to the minister that we have had in the Province of Ontario since 1893, if my memory serves me correctly, the Sale of Goods Act. It was modelled upon the United Kingdom’s Sale of Goods Act of 1892, which was a codification at that time of the law relating to the sale of goods as it has grown up in the marketplace. I think that’s a fair statement. It was a codification of the common law, which Lord Mansfield and a number of people had introduced from the concepts of the marketplace into what a buyer and seller could expect in their relations to the law governing their relationship of the buyer and seller, of goods. It has stood the test a long time.

As a lawyer, I want to first say to the minister: I don’t understand; I don’t know what the relationship of this Act is to the law in the Sale of Goods Act in the Province of Ontario. And there is no indication that anybody can solve that problem.

The second thing I want to say is that terms are used in this Act which have relationship to ether statutes. When I looked at the British Columbia Act and the Alberta Act and the Ontario Act, what we are talking about basically are two categories of things. There is a group of things which are deemed to be “false representation.” So that’s one area. The other area is something called “unconscionable transactions.” I’m very seldom critical of the clarity of the legislative draftsmanship of the Province of Ontario, but I think the bill is defective in the clarification of those two areas, because there are fundamental conclusions and problems which are involved in the use of those terms. We have in the Province of Ontario an Unconscionable Transactions Act, and a portion of this bill is related to things which are called “unconscionable.” But the funny thing is that the government doesn’t have the courage to use that term, because that would give the handle to the judges to say that what this Act is about is to enlarge the scope in a modern society of the meaning of the term “unconscionable.”

I want to say that a goodly number of the consumer protection problems are related to what can be, in a legal context, the expansion of the term “unconscionable.” That’s what happens many, many times.

I think the minister will agree that by and large, in a broad, contextual sense, that the items set forth in clause 2, subsection b are the unconscionable transactions. The strange thing is that in the BC bill or the Alberta bill they in fact designate those situations which the minister outlines in his bill as unconscionable transactions.

Mr. Lawlor: He has changed his bill. He is doing that now. He is now doing exactly what they have done.

Mr. Renwick: Well, thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I just saw the light.

Mr. Renwick: I got this bill today. He is now referring to them as unconscionable?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes.

Mr. Renwick: Ah, isn’t that fine?

Mr. Lawlor: They learn from British Columbia.

Mr. Renwick: Was it British Columbia or Alberta?

Mr. Lawlor: British Columbia.

Mr. Renwick: Both, I think, as a matter of fact. Well, I am simply delighted. Now, one would think I would be thrown off stride, but that would be the last thing that would happen.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I wouldn’t.

Mr. Lawlor: Never!

Mr. Renwick: I knew earlier today on the building code that if we accepted this tradition of the minister introducing a substitute bill on us we would have some problems with it. All right, that’s fine. I am delighted, because, it provides the umbrella of “unconscionable” for the various areas he then delineates in the statute, and I thank my colleague, the member for Lakeshore, because that was one of the major problems.

I think, however, that we must have in the committee the clear benefit -- because I just don’t believe that overnight, because of comparison, with other bills or whatever the reasons are -- there must have been representations which said to the ministry: “You must clarify this area of the bill, and the term and the way to do it is unconscionable.”

Mr. Lawlor: Only a lawyer could pick that up that quickly on the uptake and just go on so smoothly.

Mr. Renwick: Only a lawyer.

I again want to say that in committee we have to discuss the area of the unconscionability of the transactions. This is the area of the minister’s bill where those terms appear throughout the subsection. Section 2(b) says that “the supplier knows or ought to know.” Now, that means knowledge; that means the equivalent of something called “the guilty knowledge,” and that is what will lead to the conviction when the matter comes to the court.

I think it is an extremely difficult situation to suggest to a consumer that somehow or other he is going to have a valid recourse under section 2(b) of the Act. I think we’ve got to talk about that in committee and I think we’ve got to understand what it is all about. I don’t think this happens to be the appropriate time, because it is more properly dealt with in committee. I simply say to the minister I am delighted that he has introduced the conception of the unconscionable consumer representation in respect of a particular transaction, including “without limiting the generality of the foregoing,” and so on. I think that’s fine and I’m pleased with that.

When we come to the first part of clause 2, of course, there is no change in the language of the bill. One has only a limited amount of time to spend on the problems of the legislation of the government, but the principal problem in section 2(a) is the question of whether or not you must have something called “knowledge” -- whether you know or ought to know. And the funny thing about clause 2 of the bill, if soy reading is correct, is that only in one of the 14 subheadings is there a suggestion that “knows or ought to know” is an ingredient about whether or not the unfair practice is a false, misleading or deceptive consumer representation.

It seems to me, therefore, that what we are saying to every supplier in the province, as that is defined, is, whether he knows or ought to have known is irrelevant to his liability under clause (a) of subsection 2, except with respect to item 8, where the words “knows or ought to know” are included in the definition of what is the unfair practice; what is the kind of representation that will bring the force of the law down upon him. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I must be somewhat legalistic about this particular matter, but to put it quite clearly, subsection (b) of clause 2 is hinged upon knowing or ought to have known” on the part of the supplier. In subclause (a) of section 2, only in one of the enumerated 14 heads is “knowledge or ought to have known” an ingredient of what is involved in the offence.

What I am saying is that even though one may use terms in a bill which appear to imply a guilty knowledge because of the language of those terms -- such as: “The following shall be deemed to be unfair practices a false misleading or deceptive consumes representation including but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, a “representation” and so on -- I think that any person in the Province of Ontario who was not knowledgeable about the historical background of it would say that what is involved in the itemized heads of item (a) of section, 2 is something wrong, something that the person knows about; he must know that it is false, he must know that it is misleading, or he must know it’s deceptive. And it’s the ingredient of knowing that it was false, knowing that it was misleading, knowing that it was deceptive that brings down the full force of the law upon him.

I am simply saying to the minister that from what I can see, looking at definitions such as appear in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, in the fourth edition -- and in the third edition, to the extent that the fourth edition is not completed -- if the minister will look at the word “representation” and look at the word “warranty” for the purpose of distinguishing warranties from representations, he will realize that a false matter does not involve in it fraudulent or intentional behaviour on the part of the person who makes it. It might be quite an innocent representation; it might be made without knowing that it was false; it might be made without knowing that it was misleading; it might be made without knowing that it was deceptive. In any of those regards, what the minister is doing in this bill is imposing a liability and a responsibility upon the suppliers of goods, whether they do or do not know whether the matter is, in fact, false, misleading or deceptive. But the wording of the Act leads an ordinary person to believe that there is something about the guilty knowledge that, yes, when it was made it was known to be false, when it was made it was known to be deceptive, when, it was made it was known to be misleading. I am simply saying that the law surrounding the word “representation” in the jurisprudence of England and in Canada has immensely complicated relationships with respect to it. I think the minister has a very real problem, but I think that somehow or other, with care and with the advice of a panel of the lawyers in the law schools involved in these areas, we can sort it out and get a good bill out of it.

Mr. Haggerty: Does the member for Scarborough Centre agree with that?

Mr. Renwick: The next matter that I want to deal with is, I am very frightened about what is happening to the consumer with the federal government and the government of the Province of Ontario, without understanding what they are doing, trying in some rough and ready way to carve up the field.

This bill is a peculiarly apt example of that kind of problem. One reads what the Attorney General and the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Welch) had to say in April of this year about what was then, I think, Bill C-7, but which has now been reintroduced into the new Parliament in Ottawa as Bill C-2 in substantially unchanged form.

The colleague of this minister, the Attorney General and the Provincial Secretary for Justice made a number of points. And made them not in jealous protection of illusory jurisdictions of the provincial government, but in the clear and fundamental conception that in a federal system such as ours there are certain things best dealt with by us and certain things best dealt with in Ottawa, and that we in Ontario are not going to stand for the kind of encroachment made by the federal government, disguised as some kind of generalized concern about matters that we have got to deal with.

What I am talking about may be just slightly off the edge of the bill. I happen to disagree, and I wish, really, somehow or other, the constitution wasn’t derided as much as an obstacle to what we are about. The constitution is a very valid document and the federal government is conferring criminal jurisdiction on the federal courts with respect to things they call federal offences, which extends the ambit of those offences far beyond anything which was ever considered before.

The minister knows this. Usually their legislation relates to those industries under their jurisdiction. Their fair employment practices Act, which was long post the Employment Standards Act of this province, is designed to deal with the traditional jurisdiction of the federal government in the industries that come under their control, the railways, the Bell Telephone Co., the airlines, other areas such as that.

That isn’t what they are doing in Bill C-2. They are encroaching upon the constitutional division of powers with respect to the administration of criminal justice. The funny thing is that the minister plays into their hands in this bill. When the bill goes to committee, we will certainly introduce an amendment to provide for it.

When an investigation is to be made by the director under this Act, the motivation for the director to make the investigation relates to whether or not there has been any breach of this Act or of the regulations made under it. I draw that very clearly to the attention of the minister, because the other bill falls directly under his responsibility. The Securities Act doesn’t fool around with that game. The Securities Act doesn’t talk about breaches of this Act or the regulations. It goes on to say: “For a breach of any provisions of the criminal law of Canada relating to securities can initiate investigation under the Securities Act.” In broad terms, securities are goods. I know they are not included in this Act -- I am talking in very broad terms -- but securities are securities. The initiative came from the Province of Ontario with respect to the securities legislation.

The Securities Commission has traditionally taken the view that they have a responsibility, not only with respect to the offences under the Securities Act as it now exists, or under the Securities Act 1974, they have a responsibility with respect to the breach of the federal law in force in the Province of Ontario insofar as it relates to securities. And I need only draw the attention of the minister to one or two of the provisions of the Securities Act, which so provides.

In other words, what the Securities Act states -- and as usual, at crucial moments I can’t find this particular reference -- if the minister, in his consideration of this bill before it goes to committee, will look at section 10 of Bill 75, the Securities Act, 1974, which stands on the order paper, it says:

“Where upon a statement made under oath it appears probable to the commission that any person or company has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations, [Fine.] or committed an offence under the Criminal Code (Canada) in connection with a trade in securities, the commission may, by order, appoint any person to make such investigation [etc.].”

When the draftsmen of this Act were involved, they cut out any reference to the federal law and they limited the responsibility of this ministry. I want the minister to understand that in a very complicated federal system, the Parliament of Canada enacts laws which have force in the Province of Ontario, but which it is the responsibility of the Ontario government to enforce.

They recognize it in the Securities Act. This is not a new provision, this is simply an old provision which has been in the predecessors to the Securities Act for a long time. So that the minister’s Securities Commission has that responsibility for breaches not only of the Ontario law and the regulations made under, but of the federal law as it relates to securities in the Province of Ontario.

In my judgment, one of the keys to the problem was one which was long solved by the Securities Act. I think the minister has got to give serious consideration to saying in this Act, yes, we will designate as unfair practices -- subject to the kind of refined discussion which we’ve got to have to clarify the nature of what we’re talking about in this bill -- but the director and the ministry must have the same responsibility, with respect to the consumers, about the enforcement of the federal law relating to consumer protection as it is applied in the Province of Ontario; because the federal law connotes -- as it does under the securities law -- the criminal law of Canada, which is a matter of federal jurisdiction, and the other aspects of the criminal law of Canada which are not necessarily in the Criminal Code, namely the Combines Investigation Act and a number of other bills which are passed respecting consumer protection.

I just happen to think it is a matter of immense importance to whether or not the Legislature in this province really does care about its responsibility in its laws for the protection of its citizens, not only with respect to our laws, but with respect to the laws of the federal Parliament, which are also our laws applicable in the province.

In that regard, I want to refer the minister to the statement made in April of this year by his colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Justice, on the federal government’s Bill C-7. That bill died on the order paper. As I’ve stated already, Bill C-2, which was read for the first time on Oct. 2, 1974, is a reintroduction of what was then Bill C-7.

I assume the position of the provincial government hasn’t changed one iota from the statement made on April 11, and the commentary on the federal government’s competition legislation. It dealt with a number of areas, but I can’t really believe the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations isn’t aware of what his colleague said when he introduced this kind of a bill.

I want to take a moment to emphasize what I said by quoting from what his colleague said at that time about the government’s position.

Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, I want to try to say again that it was fashionable and continues to be fashionable to pretend that somehow or other the constitution of Canada establishing the federal system of government is either an outmoded way of dealing with the society, or that it is a game for lawyers and has no meaningful part in our life. I want to say to the minister that I am a convinced and profound federalist. I don’t agree with tinkering around with the gut provisions of the constitution as set out in the British North America Act.

I might agree with certain areas which are not covered in that Act, such as an Ontario Bill of Rights to deal with a real vacuum in our constitution. We can talk about that some other time; because my colleague and I are having a look at the Quebec Bill of Rights, which has been introduced in that assembly.

But with respect to the respective powers and functions and jurisdictions of the two levels of government, I don’t really have any serious quarrel about it; I really don’t. I think that it is only in that way that we can survive.

What a government like the government of Ontario has got to understand is that the government in Ottawa -- and I am not talking about it because it happens to be a Liberal government, an extremely aggressive, extremely encroaching, extremely destructive government that will only be kept upon its constitutional responsibility by something called the eternal vigilance of ministers like the minister opposite, and the Province of Ontario generally and the cabinet generally; and we have it in all sorts of fields.

But I want to return, Mr. Speaker, to the comments of the government of Ontario on Bill C-7, which is now Bill C-2, which relates again to trying to protect the consumer -- and this constitutional problem that somehow or other the consumer is going to lose if we allow it to be fooled around with between the two levels of government.

If the parliamentary secretary to the minister wants to address the assembly I will be glad to yield my place for a couple of minutes and drink my coffee.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Riverdale like to proceed with his comments on second reading of Bill 55?

Mr. Renwick: Yes. I’m now quoting:

“Ontario also believes that Bill C-7 includes provisions which represent an unjustified and unconstitutional incursion into areas of provincial concern and responsibility. The extension of the regulatory powers of the restrictive trade practices commission to intraprovincial trade, the creation of civil remedies based on a breach of the Act or a restrictive trade practices order, and the granting of a criminal jurisdiction to federal courts, and the significant and unprecedented attempts to extend federal jurisdiction into areas which have always been considered to be the constitutional prerogatives of the provinces.

“The implications of this extension are enormous, because a major expansion in the federal power to intervene in the smallest local details of the national economic life would create a whole new range of property and civil rights previously thought to be the exclusive domain of the provinces. The regulation of local trade within Canada has always been held by the courts to be a matter of provincial concern or interest as being in relation to property and civil rights in the province, or matters of purely local and private nature in the province. Bill C-7 [now Bill C-2 would create an extensive federal presence in this area.

“The new civil remedies created go beyond the criminal law authority of Parliament and deal with civil rights in the province. They also deal with matters of evidence and procedure in the civil courts. Ontario views these provisions as matters within the provincial jurisdiction.

“The Province of Ontario also objects to conferring criminal jurisdiction, even with consent, upon the federal court. The constitution of criminal courts is expressly excepted from the powers of Parliament by the British North America Act.

“Ontario feels strongly that the creation of two separate criminal court systems is not only contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the constitution, but would create serious problems for the administration of justice in Canada. It is important that the criminal law jurisdiction of the provincial superior courts be protected and that all criminal proceedings under Bill C-7, now Bill C-2, be taken into the provincial superior courts.”

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the member for Riverdale that we are still on Bill 55.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying to the minister is that unless he amends his bill in the same manner as is dealt with in the Securities Act of this province, to provide that his ministry, and this government, will enforce and be responsible for the enforcement of federal consumer protection legislation in this province, then in my judgment his bill should not be passed by this assembly. Because there is no way, there is absolutely no way that I know of, that the jurisdiction of the federal government in whatever is the appropriate field properly exercised, should be passed in such a way that this ministry can divorce itself from responsibility.

We had a funny game played here about consumer protection and misleading advertising. Misleading advertising is apparently something which this government doesn’t want to tamper with. That’s for the federal government. We thought there was a provision about misleading advertisement in the consumer protection law. But when we read it with the microscopic lens -- indeed almost telescopic lens -- to try to understand it, we found that it wasn’t directed against misleading advertising. Even the Attorney General didn’t know that. There are provisions in Bill C-2 dealing with the matters which the parliamentary assistant has raised time and time again.

Mr. Drea: And I’m going to raise them again on the member.

Mr. Renwick: The bait and switch; the referral selling; the misleading advertising --

Mr. Lawlor: Stuffed articles.

Mr. Renwick: Stuffed articles. Any number of matters which are dealt with in this bill, which apparently the federal government is going to pass and this government is not going to accept any responsibility for enforcing; nor is it going to say to them: “We will pass the law. You stay out of the field, because it’s our field.” I don’t care how this government resolves it, but don’t abdicate it.

Mr. Drea: Terrific.

Mr. Lawlor: Which level is going to lay the charges?

Mr. Renwick: Now we get to a couple of questions, such as a representation. I’m quoting from Stroud’s judicial dictionary in the fourth edition at page 2346.

“A representation is not like a warranty. It is not necessary that it should be strictly complied with. It is enough if it is substantially true. It is enough if it is substantially complied with.”

Mr. Drea: I’ve got to talk too.

Mr. Renwick: I’m quoting from Lord Wright, Master of the Rolls, in the case of With vs O’Flanagan, 1936, Chancery reports page 515 at page 581:

“If that is an accurate definition of what the meaning of the term ‘representation’ is, a false, misleading or deceptive representation must be hinged upon that definition of what a representation is which is not false, not misleading and not deceptive.”

So we start from that kind of a definition. I’m not suggesting there aren’t any number of other statements but Stroud happens to be, for those in the ingame of the legal profession, not a bad reference book. Stroud is dead, and therefore we can quote him as being of some authority.

The other point which is clearly made is that that is distinct from a warranty. The minister obviously has warranty legislation which is going to come in and complicate another picture which is involved in the sale of goods.

They make a distinction in all of the legal dictionaries that a false representation -- and I take it to mean a misleading representation or a deceptive representation -- may be innocent as well as fraudulent. I want a clear statement from the ministry as to whether or not they are purporting to impose the kind of results upon a supplier of goods for what may well be a innocent representation. If they are doing that, then my guess is that we’ve got to think about it very clearly in the standing committee so that we know what we are doing. It is extremely difficult when we don’t have criminal jurisdiction in the province to impose upon suppliers, whether they are innocent or fraudulent but particularly on the innocent persons, the responsibility with respect to these various representations which are designated as unfair, practices in clause (a) of section 2 of the bill.

The other point which appears to me to have been overlooked in the Act -- and again I’m not purporting for one moment to suggest that I’m right about the matter -- and which deserves very serious consideration, is that it is my understanding that if the supplier of goods as defined in the Act is, in fact, a particular corporation which has employees and the employees make the representation and they make a false representation -- and for purposes of representation I say to the. minister they make a false representation knowing it to be false which induces the customer to buy the goods -- there is a substantial body of law which says that the supplier, the corporation or the owner of the business, if it is a sole proprietorship, in that case did not authorize his employee to make a false representation and that therefore there is no liability upon the supplier, be he the partnership, the sole proprietor or the corporation, because of a false, representation made knowingly by an employee of that organization.

I simply say to the minister that I think there is a very good body of law which says that is so. If it is so, all of the representations which the minister has set out in subclause (a) of section 2 of the bill affect only the supplier. There is nothing in the bill that I know of that makes the supplier vicariously responsible for the unfair practices of the employees of the supplier. It’s the employees of the supplier, under the pressures of the economic system which the government is wedded to, who cause pressures to be brought to bear which lead to the unfair practices which the minister is trying to protect against and which lead in the other parts of the bill, of course, to the unconscionable transactions part of it.

I am simply saying to the minister that in the standing committee I would like to have a very clear statement from the ministry that they understand the implications of that problem, because if tentatively the body of law to which I refer is correct, then in fact they are never ever going to be able to establish the responsibility of the corporate supplier, the sole proprietor supplier, the partnership proprietor, with respect to the representations which are unfair practice as made by the employees, unless he can establish that the board of directors of the supplier, if it is a corporation, or one of the partners in the partnership, if that is the supplier, or the sole proprietor, instructed the employee or knew that the employee was going to engage in the sale of his goods in the marketplace using unfair practices.

I think it is an immensely serious problem. I again reiterate that in committee I would hope we will be able to get some kind of definitive statement with respect to those kinds of responsibilities. If I may point out to the minister, unless the bill as now before us contains a definition of services -- and I take it that it doesn’t -- in the amended bill the minister has simply got to provide a definition of services. A consumer representation, which is what we are talking about, means something made with respect to supplying goods or services. The minister defines goods and amended the definition of goods in the bill which is before us in order to get to something called tangible goods. If he doesn’t define services, he is in serious trouble.

The strange thing is that Bill C-2 at the federal level -- and I’m not suggesting that is the definition that should be imported into our Act -- defines services in the extension of the Combines Investigation Act to cover services. I want to direct the minister’s attention to the definition of services as it appears in the Alberta bill with respect to this problem.

It seems to me that if people are supposed to understand with clarity what they are about, one can’t lump into “consumer representation” the terms “a representation, statement, offer, request or proposal, made respecting or with a view to the supplying of goods or services, or both, to a consumer,” and define the term “goods” and not define the term “services.” I’m suggesting to the minister that in committee he should seriously consider the various possibilities of that particular kind of definition.

I want to comment very generally again, but only for the purpose of giving the ministry and the minister’s advisers some opportunity to deal with this aspect of the problem. I want to say to them that you can’t drop into a statute something called a material fact without defining it. You simply create untold legal problems for the courts.

Whether they willingly want to create the problems or perpetuate the problems, the fact of the matter is that in one of the provisions with respect to an unfair practice there is an elaborate statement that “a representation using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact or failing to state a material fact if such use or failure deceives or tends to deceive” is an unfair practice.

Again I draw the attention of the ministry to the fact that in the Securities Act it defines what the word “material” means; in this statute, it doesn’t.

I’m not saying for one moment that the definition is transferable from the Securities Act, but as the minister well knows, in security law the question of materiality is fundamental to the obligations of corporations to provide continuous disclosure with respect to their affairs. The definition of “material” is very important to anything which deals with something called a material fact.

The reason I raise the question is because one could say, of course, that a court could go ahead and work out its own theory of material fact. I don’t really think our laws passed in the Legislature are engaged to promote the jurisprudence of the province; we are really engaged to try to avoid litigation. As every good lawyer knows, he tries his best to keep his clients out of the courts, rather than to have to have them resort to the courts.

When one refers to that particular section, I happened to note down that, “Untrue commendation” -- this is a wonderful statement of the law between buyers and sellers -- “untrue commendation or untrue depreciation of an article which is to be sold, as is usual between buyer and seller.” That is the usual give and take of who can do who best as between buyer and seller. “Unless such untrue commendation or depreciation is made by means of a definite false assertion as to some matter of fact capable of being positively determined.”

Strangely enough, out of that ancient statement of what was material and what wasn’t material, we have come in this modern age to the conception of a material fact. We have got to put into this bill a definition of the meaning of the term “material.” I am not going to spend any more time on the other aspects of the bill with respect to the director’s responsibility, the extensive provisions with respect to making investigations, the powers that can be exercised, the provisions with respect to the making of regulations and all of the other multitudinous provisions of the bill. I think those matters can be appropriately and properly dealt with in the standing committee.

I want to urge upon the minister -- and I am sure my colleague, the member for Lakeshore, would be in total and complete agreement with me, although we haven’t discussed this specifically -- that the minister must invite those professors knowledgeable in the law of sale of goods and the meaning of all of these diverse terms and the problems that are involved in these terms, to the standing committee, to let us have their helpful and useful advice, through which I think we can come up with a good bill. It is only on that basis that I could bring myself to vote for the bill. It is my hope that out of this we can in fact solve some of the problems which I have tried to express as the problems which are in my mind tonight about this bill. I don’t quite know how we escape from the lawyers’ paradise into the real world of consumer protection.

Mr. Drea: The member is right.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, I know. That’s why I said earlier that the member for Scarborough Centre was right on.

I think it is an immense problem, and I want to make certain that when we pass this bill, we are making at least a minor step out of the lawyers’ world and into the real world of protecting the consumers of the province, inexpensively and efficiently, against the sale to them of shoddy goods or goods that don’t meet the representations which they are entitled to expect and which would be made in connection with the goods.

I still don’t know how we can deal with this kind of a problem when we have got the warranty thing kicking off to the side and no indication that bill is going to come into the Legislature at the present time. When one considers the Sale of Goods Act, this bill, the warranty legislation, the encroachment of the federal government and the jurisdiction of the federal government -- well, if I really had my way about it, I’d vote against it all, because this government is creating such a mishmash between us and the federal government, and with due respect to the minister’s colleagues in the other provinces a mishmash of consumer protection, that it is likely that the consumer ultimately will be worse off in enforcing his rights than he would have been if we had not got involved at all in the consumer protectionism which is so fashionable at the present time.

The funny thing is that fashions come and go. It is fashionable for governments to do what is fashionable, and this government is doing that, unless in committee we can make some actual sense out of this bill. If I had to designate it from the point of view of the accuracy of the legal conceptions which are involved in it, I would personally say it was atrocious.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Drea: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my friend the member for Riverdale. I don’t necessarily agree with all of his conclusions. I certainly agree with one of them: It is about time we separated the rights of consumers from the dream world of the solicitor or the lawyer. I give him full marks for saying that because I think he has rather expert knowledge on that. I think we would agree on that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about Bill 55 in the light of my own experience and I want to talk about it with full regard to a couple of my friends on the other side. I am going to say some rather harsh things here tonight and I would like them to know that I am disassociating them from the type of thing I want to say, because I really believe they too have the interests of the consumer at heart. I have listened for the last three years upon many occasions to my friend the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who has produced a great many ideas. I certainly hope that in my relatively brief tenure here we get most of them accomplished; also those of my friend the member for Welland South.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about consumer protection, because two years ago I stood up at a meeting of the lawyers in Osgoode Hall -- my friend from Riverdale was there, my friend from Lakeshore was there -- and I said, Mr. Speaker, that for practical purposes there was no realistic consumer protection in this province.

A few hours later, the present minister got me on the phone and said: “Did you really say that?” I told the present minister that I certainly said it and I said it for a number of reasons. First, there was no orderly, stable way for the normal, conventional consumer in this province to get remedies against the things that were being done to her or to him. Second, all of the supposed protections really were a very convoluted, very complex and indeed very time-consuming and very impractical way of trying to remedy a very simple problem.

When I say a very simple problem, Mr. Speaker, I am not talking in terms of the principle. I am talking about a very simple problem in terms of dollars and cents. I recall tonight the member for Sudbury was talking about a matter of 74 cents. I worry about matters of 74 cents and so does my minister.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that Bill is a result of the last two years of not only a minister of this government with the guts to do it, but. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the civil servants who helped produce this Act. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to you tonight on the general principles of this bill because indeed they are a hallmark for the consumer in the Dominion of Canada, and Mr. Speaker, I say this with full knowledge that the federal government has copped out on every single piece of consumer legislation it has tried to introduce.

I think that’s a matter of record. Indeed, if you want to look at the record, you can look at all the ministers of the federal government who have tried to introduce consumer legislation over the years, Mr. Speaker.

For the first time we are talking about declaratory legislation and declaratory legislation is very essential for the consumer. It is all very well for all of the legal experts of this province to tell you that you have common law on your side, Mr. Speaker. It’s all very well to say you have the courts on your side. It is all very well to say the Crown is on your side. It’s all very well to say that the judge is on your side; and it’s all very well to say the jail is on your side. But what good does it do you when its costs you $450 plus costs to try to get somebody for cheating you out of $25? About five per cent of the businessmen of this province have been working that equation very, very successfully over the past 35 or 40 years. I don’t think that consumer legislation really belongs to the lawyers or to legal aid or to whatever type of programme we set up. Without terribly much reference to my past career, Mr. Speaker, I’ve probably handled over 50,000 to 60,000 complaints of individual consumers. It may be of interest to some of the people here that probably about two per cent really should have been handled by lawyers, not in terms of the fees that the lawyers would charge and not in terms of the time that the court would take, but in that these were really very simple, direct things that people could understand. Unfortunately, once they got to the hands of the lawyers and once they got to the hands of the courts, the time, the bills, the costs, the studies and the problems just kept escalating until virtually every time one got clipped in a two-bit dance studio it was a case for the Supreme Court of Canada.

I say that with absolutely no disrespect for the judiciary of this country except, and I will say it, that there are times when the courts really have to take a common sense attitude to what is going on in society and not what is written in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to be a great dream for me. It means that middle-aged men and women, whose only fault is that they grew up in a small town, moved into a big city and are lonely, are not going to be clipped for $1,000, 2,000, $3,000 or $10,000 in some two-bit dance studio and then told, there really isn’t any effective remedy in law.

Mr. Renwick: Come on! The rhetoric doesn’t match the bill.

Mr. Drea: Oh nonsense!

Mr. Renwick: That’s exactly the problem.

Mr. Drea: The member talked for an hour and I’m only going to talk for about another six minutes. Now be quiet.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Stokes: Don’t confuse him with facts.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I will stake my reputation on the fact that anybody who goes into a dance studio the day after this thing is proclaimed and comes out with an accusation that he has been clipped for a contract, will not only get his money back but we will put the type of cretin that operates that particular type of an establishment behind bars and everybody in this House will applaud. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that is the work of the present minister.

Mr. Renwick: If the member is going to put that person behind bars, it is a matter of criminal law and he should have been, put behind bars before now. Now let’s not fool around. The theory that --

Mr. Drea: For a guy who comes to me and says, get them out of it, be quiet.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: Name me so I can go home, will you, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Drea: Name him, Mr. Speaker? I would suggest you tell the hon. member for Riverdale that as a graduate of some of the law academies of this province he really should know that the criminal law is not exactly the jurisdiction of this province. Really if he’s going to perform as a solicitor in this province, he should know where the jurisdiction belongs.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member should return to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I want to continue on and I don’t want to be interrupted.

Mr. Renwick: As usual, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre missed the point.

Mr. Lawlor: How is the member going to get the guy’s money back? Under what section?

Mr. Drea: Because of the obstruction by the like of the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member continue with the debate on principle?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, that is going to be a very great day for me. It is also going to be a very great day when these people who go into --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: Will the hon. member please be quiet?

Mr. Lawlor: He is misrepresenting what the bill says.

Mr. Drea: I couldn’t misrepresent what the bill says to the hon. member because he has never read it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: I can’t even reply to that, it is so doltish.

Mr. Drea: It happens to be true.

Mr. Lawlor: How is the member going to get the guy’s $25 back again? Show me where in this bill. It is silly; it will cost him $450.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre will continue.

Mr. Lawlor: Talk about living in a dream world.

Mr. Martel: It is over his head.

Mr. Lawlor: He generates them for himself.

Mr. Stokes: He is hallucinating.

Mr. Lawlor: Parliamentary assistant -- my God!

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate going on without the interruptions from rude rubes.

Mr. Lawlor: The hon. member may appreciate it but in vain.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to say to me to continue, but what am I going to do with that kind of thing?

Mr. Lawlor: What can he possibly do?

Mr. Drea: Oh --

Mr. Lawlor: He can sit down and keep quiet, and stop misrepresenting his own legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will continue debating the principle of the bill.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to go through the principle of the bill, and I am not going to be dissuaded from it. I was talking about the dance studios. It’s going to be a very great day for me --

Mr. Martel: He’s taking dancing lessons.

Mr. Lawlor: Is he going to do the tango or the waltz?

Mr. Martel: The member is going to do the soft shoe, is he?

Mr. Germa: The whole world is waiting for the dance studios to be closed.

Mr. Renwick: Are the dance studios providing goods or services?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I think this will be a very admirable Hansard to send out to the people of this province who have been clipped. It will show that those who come in here with their tongue in their feet every day, talking about the poor masses of Ontario, only have in mind making a wisecrack in this House --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Drea: -- and I think perhaps that kind of Hansard should go out across the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: Why doesn’t the member order a million copies?

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. members allow the member for Scarborough Centre to continue?

Mr. Lawlor: We’ll think about it.

Mr. Germa: Can he change a $3 bill?

Mr. Drea: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For a moment, with the last remark and based upon the intelligence it was based upon, I thought you weren’t here. But I shall continue.

Mr. Lawlor: Go ahead. Kiss the blarney stone.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it is about time in this country that the service industry really was recognized as one of the culprits in the area where consumers, attracted by advertising and all the glamour of advertising, were brought into a situation where they expected something; and perhaps the expectation was fulfilled psychologically, but when they came down to dollars and cents and the real world, the product wasn’t delivered. I am talking in terms -- and I have said about the dance hail, that I realize it is a figure of amusement among some people in this Legislature. I really realize that --

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t be provocative. The member is going to finish in six minutes. I am counting on that.

Mr. Drea: Of course, they are the kind of people who show up in court to defend the kind of people who do this. But that is not my problem. Mr. Speaker, I realize that they think this is quite funny.

Mr. Martel: No, it is just the speaker.

Mr. Drea: I realize they think it is quite funny that people get clipped in phony health studios --

Mr. Lawlor: It is not funny.

Mr. Drea: I realize that they think it is very funny that people get clipped at the door --

Mr. Lawlor: No, listening to the member is a tragic experience.

Mr. Drea: Be quiet!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: Because they cannot understand the English language, they get clipped with magazines. I understand how difficult it is for some of the hot-shots around here who are --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lawlor: All the splenetics don’t mean a thing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will return to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the principle of the bill, and I sincerely wish that the people who interrupt me would interrupt me on the principle of the bill.

Mr. Lawlor: Five minutes and three seconds left.

Mr. Drea: We have a bill here where we are not asking the consumer to go to court. We are not asking the consumer to prove the case.

Mr. Lawlor: Is the government going to court for them?

Mr. Drea: We are not asking the consumer to bring in expert evidence. We are laying down a set of principles in this province. We are saying you cannot produce or offer for sale something you know that you cannot deliver.

Mr. Lawlor: The member is hoodwinked by his own legislation.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Good stuff.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s what happens to good men; they get caught in the tangle of their own nets.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if you are going to reprimand me about going off the bill, I would ask you to name the very rude people who are interrupting me.

Mr. Lawlor: No one will reprimand the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Name them.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I’m suggesting to you in this bill that we have done not only what the consumers have asked us to do over the years, but indeed what the consumer lawyers have asked us to do -- not the consumer lawyers who get legal aid to defend those who are victimizing the consumers, but indeed the people who are very interested in the plight of the consumer.

Mr. Lawlor: Listen, the bill’s great. It’s the member’s defence of the bill that is terrible, that’s all. The bill is correct, He doesn’t have to make it any worse.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Lakeshore says the bill is great then I will just underline that. We obviously have reached the penultimate in this House.

Mr. Lawlor: The member is spoiling it. He is trying to defend it. It is indefensible.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I’m not trying to defend this bill; I am trying to extol the virtues of the minister who produced it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Try that on for size.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that in the past two years under the present Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in this province, tonight we are starting to achieve something.

Mr. Lawlor: Now we are getting down to brass tacks.

Mr. Drea: We have the finest piece of consumer legislation in this country.

Mr. Lawlor: As I said earlier today, the whole universe. Almighty God blushes when he sees the minister’s bill!

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, since the member for Lakeshore is the self-styled expert, and says in the whole world or the whole universe, I bow to him. But on a more serious and a more practical note, because we cannot always accept his judgments --

Mr. Lawlor: Let’s not get serious.

Mr. Drea: -- we have a piece of legislation that has real meaning in the household. We have a piece of legislation under which, indeed, when somebody is victimized he has a very orderly, a very calm, a very stringent procedure which can be followed. Mr. Speaker, we have weighed the scales against the crooks. Mr. Speaker, the consumer who is victimized now has all the powers of government, all the powers of police, all the powers of everything on their side.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it might be n very good occasion tonight to look back over all the private bills of the last 15 or 20 years. I’m not going to take the time, but it might be very interesting for a researcher in the future to take a look at those private bills. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that every one of those private bills dealt with a very specific instance where the public was being victimized by somebody masquerading under the general operation of a businessman or a particular service industry; and it might be very significant to find out that with the introduction and the passage of Bill 55 in this Legislature those day are over.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I have spoken about three minutes longer than I intended -- other than the unfortunate interruptions by those who really don’t understand the concept of the bill -- is that I want to pay tribute to the particular minister.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Which one is it?

Mr. Lawlor: He doesn’t have to, really.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member will return to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Singer: Very well said, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lawlor: No red roses for him.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): He’s had no red roses since I knew him in law school.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Give it to them, Frank.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Martel: The minister just turned him loose -- does he realize that?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect --

Mr. Singer: Which bill is the member talking about?

Mr. Drea: -- I really would suggest that the attitude and the intent of a minister is very particular to the principle of a bill.

Mr. Singer: Yes. Oh, yes.

Mr. Drea: It may not be for third reacting, but it certainly is for second reading, and I say that with the deepest of respect. I suggest to you that up until this minister took this portfolio in this government in Canada, there hasn’t been a single approach to controlling all of the vicissitudes of the service industry, particularly those that were offering a service that was paid for now but was to be fulfilled at a future date.

Mr. Bullbrook: It sounds like the Holy Roman Empire.

Mr. Drea: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that tonight we are making history in this country.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s blatant nonsense. The Competition Act has been around for years -- too many years. The American model code has been around.

Mr. Drea: Well, well, well. I’ve had enough of that member.

Mr. Lawlor: What kind of nonsense is this?

Mr. Drea: He could have made one phone call in the last session and got that bill passed and he wouldn’t even spend a dime. So he should be quiet.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lawlor: I spoke to Herbert Gray.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It would have taken two phone calls.

Mr. Drea: The member used to stand up here and say, “We can get anything done.” Yes, he really is something. The great real estate lawyer, yes sir. He really is something, and everyone had a look at him --

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the hon. member will return to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Singer: Well said, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): Dead on, Frank; right on.

Mr. Lawlor: Get on with the bill.

Mr. Drea: And don’t let him ever try to carve me; just don’t.

Mr. Martel: The 11 o’clock show is at the Victory.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to remain --

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, he has not, that’s the biggest lie of them all. He never tries to stay calm. That is out of character, one of the nicest things about him.

An hon. member: He’s right, you know, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, despite a number of great sacrifices tonight --

Mr. Singer: Mr. Stanfield spoke well of the member last night.

Mr. Drea: No, a great many sacrifices tonight.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Martel: His elbow is sore from those sacrifices.

Mr. Singer: Did he think this was the greatest thing that ever happened in the world, too?

Mr. Drea: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre has the floor.

Mr. Martel: We would have never known.

Mr. Bullbrook: Return to the principle of the minister.

Mr. Singer: Yes, great fellow, the minister.

Mr. Stokes: He is very fortunate to have the member for Scarborough Centre as a parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, maybe when you can restore order I will be willing to finish the lesson.

Mr. Lawlor: We like the member when he is on his feet. We never want him to sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Singer: It’s pretty hard, Mr. Speaker, with all this nonsense going on.

Mr. Bullbrook: It is the best bill since Attila the Hun.

Mr. Singer: They haven’t got one like that in Bangladesh.

Mr. Lawlor: The member has never been bothered with heckling before in his life. Let him get on with it.

Mr. Singer: Come on, speak up. Don’t be bashful.

An hon. member: Don’t be nervous.

An hon. member: A little order over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, order.

Mr. Drea: No, Mr. Speaker, I’m looking at the clock. I’ve made a great many sacrifices to speak tonight. Now unfortunately, the sacrifices are over, so I might as well continue.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to wind up --

Mr. Stokes: What kind of sacrifices were they?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Careful, Frank, that’s not parliamentary thinking.

Hon. Mr. Clement: She has gone home.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, just to conclude on the principle of this bill, because I want to give the minister a little bit of time --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Martel: How generous, how generous of the member. Pat him on the back for that.

Mr. Drea: You know, I could have been having a good time about 40 minutes ago. I waited here.

Mr. Martel: We could have been through the bill if the member hadn’t.

Mr. Drea: I really wish that the members would give me about a minute and a half.

Mr. Singer: Why?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I think that Bill 55 marks the introduction of a very important phase, not only of law enforcement but consumer protection in the Dominion of Canada and in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Martel: In the world.

Mr. Singer: Bangladesh too.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I can truthfully say that when I first ran for office I said I was going to get a number of things done in the consumer protection field. It may be of great comfort to the opposition that as of tonight, on the basis of what I said originally, I have no reason to continue in office.

Mr. Lawlor: Is that the height of his ambition? Can he do nothing better?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a great accomplishment for a Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in this province, hindered as he is by the absolute intransigence of the people in Ottawa --

Mr. Martel: Now the member can quit.

Mr. Drea: -- to produce the kind of bill that for 5½ years, in one of the largest newspapers of Canada, I was advocating, the people who read it were advocating, and quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, a bill that will indeed not only --

Mr. Singer: Oh, great stuff!

Mr. Drea: -- affect the economic future of very many hundreds of thousands of people in Ontario, but will set the example across this continent.

Mr. Singer: If not in the whole world.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that two years ago I said that for practical considerations there was no real consumer protection in Ontario. Mr. Speaker, at 11 minutes after 10 this evening I suggest that with the passage of this bill we have absolute consumer protection in this province and it is due to the present minister. Thank you.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Absolute?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister wish to reply?

Mr. Martel: After that?

Mr. Stokes: That’s a pretty hard act to follow.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, it is so long since we started this bill I forget which one we are on.

Mr. Singer: Withdraw it.

Mr. Martel: He will have to speak up.

Hon. Mr. Clement: But who else, Mr. Speaker, can say it more accurately and with more emotion than the member for Scarborough Centre, my parliamentary assistant?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Only 116 other people, that’s who.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m only disappointed that many of my friends from across the floor, in the New Democratic Party, were not here to listen to the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Martel: They were getting indigestion. There’s a limit even to our absorptive capacity.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, I image they are pretty touchy. I have no reason to wonder why they should be, but I really think that he was very succinct and short in his remarks and observations on this bill.

Mr. Martel: Then the minister might as well sit down.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Now, we started off, it seemed, earlier this week or perhaps it was even today, with the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) who I see has been home to see his family since he started the discussions and has been back here this evening.

Mr. Singer: He couldn’t stand the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why does the minister do that? That wasn’t necessary.

Hon. Mr. Clement: His initial observation was that he supports the intention of the legislation, and that, of course, was not unanticipated by me. I know the member for Perth and I know that he is particularly astute and profound in his consumer observations, and I felt great strength in knowing that he supported the bill.

Mr. Martel: Does the minister want a shovel now or later?

Hon. Mr. Clement: He dwelt on my opening statement where I used the word “hopefully,” saying that hopefully this would correct many consumer abuses. I just want to point out to him that that was not really an anticipation on my part, but an indication of the modesty that exists in the consumer ministry in this province. But I am glad that he picked it up and that he did draw it to the attention of the House in his own way.

He also queried whether the bill and the legislation would be expensive to the government. The only complement we will require is the director and a secretary. As the member perhaps knows, we are reorganizing the business practices division and we utilize the inspection services already available in terms of motor vehicle, real estate and collection agency inspectors and so on. So I can assure the House that it will not require a substantial additional complement in order to implement the legislation. We anticipate that the cost to the government of the implementation of the legislation will be approximately a gross $40,000 per annum.

Mr. Martel: To hire one inspector.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t intend at this time to deal with specific sections raised by the member for Perth, and I don’t avoid those on the basis that I wish to avoid them, but I think we will deal with them specifically in committee. In view of the fact that the time is running against us at this particular hour, I think that if the member for Perth will agree with me, I’ll pass over the specific sections.

I want to point out, however, just one matter: He gave a description of a situation which existed and he read certain matters into the record dealing with one businessman buying some hockey bags or something of this nature. May I point out that the definition of “consumer” excludes that type of situation? It noes not fit within the legislation, because if a person buys for the purposes of business it is not a consumer transaction within the definition of the legislation, and I want to make that clear to the business people of this province.

Secondly, the instances referred to by the member for Perth are all preambled by either section 2(a) or 2(b). There must be a misleading, false or deceptive consumer representation, and add to that the (i), (ii), (iii) and so on. The second portion, under section 2(b), deals with the unconscionable transactions and there has to be the second preamble leading into the practice. I can visualize someone innocently doing something through an agent or an employee which might give rise to one of these matters set out under one of the subsections under paragraph 2. But as long as there is nothing false about it --

Mr. Singer: The minister was talking about this earlier.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- or as long as there is nothing misleading or deceptive then no prosecution will arise.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Clement: In those jurisdictions that have this type of legislation, namely in the United States, the director or his counterpart in those jurisdictions will draw to the attention of the company that complaints have been received, that technically the Act has been breached, and, while there may be no mens rea or knowledge on the part of the company per se, they want them to cease and desist. And the company will quite readily give the undertaking, the certificate of voluntary assurance, that it will not continue, and no prosecution through the courts then arises.

I am also grateful for the observations offered by the member for Lakeshore. He was concerned about the constitutional position and the position that we are now in in view of the processing through the federal system of the new Competition Act.

As I recollect from my notes he also drew to our attention, or queried, the difference between the three- and six-month period. Where an unfair practice comes to the attention of the consumer within three months certain things can happen, that is, namely, the rescission of the contract. I am dealing now specifically with section 4, subsections 5(a) and (b). In clause (b) it’s six months after the agreement is entered into, and there was some question in the hon. member’s mind as to why the time period perhaps should not be the same.

Mr. Lawlor: Or longer.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I needn’t point out to the House, and in particular to the member, that in the first instance it could be many, many months after the transaction was entered into, and the three-month period then runs, of course, from the time it came to the consumer’s knowledge.

Mr. Singer: Look at the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow), Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The other period in subsection (b) is specific. It is six months after the time that the agreement is entered into if it is a practice under subsection (b) or an unconscionable transaction.

Mr. Singer: Look at him, sound asleep. He is sound asleep.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Bring back Drea.

Mr. Singer: Drea can wake him up.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Who’s asleep?

Mr. Singer: The Minister of Government Services. Sound asleep.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, no. I tell you, the Minister of Government Services is one of my colleagues who ponders and meditates late into the night.

Mr. Singer: Yes, ask him what he is thinking.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Ask him what he is thinking.

Hon. Mr. Clement: And he may well wish to speak to this bill on another occasion.

Mr. Singer: If the House adjourned, he would still be here until the morning.

An hon. member: And he may even wake up.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member for Lakeshore also drew to the attention of the members of the House --

Mr. Singer: It might wake up the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- I can’t say it was an aversion on his part, but he certainly, questioned why the consumer could not compel the director to proceed with a cease-and-desist type of order.

May I point out to the House that I don’t think the consumer should have control of the legislation, if in the opinion of the director no further processing of the matter should be undertaken. The director is a professional dealing in consumer matters; the consumer is not always such a professional, and the Criminal Code contemplates and understands this type of situation.

Mr. Lawlor: Why can’t he take it to the tribunal?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That is why in many instances a Crown attorney in any jurisdiction declines to undertake the prosecution on behalf of the Crown and private complaints are then undertaken by the complainant himself.

I read with interest within the last 24 hours where someone is undertaking a private complaint against the alleged murderer of his daughter.

Mr. Lawlor: But this is a cease-and-desist order. Why can’t he appeal it? Why can’t he appeal the director’s refusal to do it in the tribunal?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I suppose he could appeal the director’s order and that could be reviewable by someone else in the meantime. Why doesn’t he undertake the prosecution on his own through the civil courts?

So, I am not suggesting that we have all the answers --

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- but I think that if you are going to have a programme under a statute carried out by responsible people, Mr. Speaker, then those people are the ones who have to account for the decisions made under the statute and not as a result of pressure or lobbying by an individual member of the public.

The member for Thunder Bay drew to the attention of the House and myself the fact that solicitors’ accounts can be taxed and this wasn’t generally known.

Mr. Singer: He is very tired, he has had a hard day.

Mr. Lawlor: How about the class action?

Hon. Mr. Clement: He dealt with shortcomings in fair dealing. I should point out that the Act specifically deals with those matters that don’t quite meet the Criminal Code test of fraud or deception, but fall short of that and are so frustrating to the members of the public. This is a code of ethics in essence, in reverse, as to those practices winch will not be tolerated by the public. If they are so gross insofar as the public is concerned and amount to a fraudulent transaction, then obviously the matter should be prosecuted by the police authorities in that particular jurisdiction.

He dealt with unleaded gasoline and kerosene. I can offer no observations at this particular time. This is not a trade practices Act in the sense of compelling availability of a product in a certain area. It really is a code of ethics or a 10 commandments in reverse as to business practices which are not tolerated by the public of this province.

There was some reference made to section 17(2) of the Act as to why certain offences can be added by regulation and that this is an embarkation for the first time into this area. Sometimes we have practices drawn to our attention that occur while the House is not in session. To add offences when the House is in session means a delay of several months. We want the flexibility to be able to add by regulation a description of a practice that is not in the public interest, to be able to move against that type of person who is exploiting the public under that regulation, and come back to the House the next regular session, in effect -- and I am paraphrasing -- for approval of the regulation, so that it can be debated here where it should be debated. I will stand up and endorse that kind of proposition, but I don’t want to come into this House after it has been adjourned for three or four months and be chided by the opposition for not moving in on something that we haven’t got the legislation to deal with.

May I point out, Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time in the history of this province that type of legislation has been brought into existence. I refer the hon. members to section 102 of the Corporations Tax Act. Subsection (d) says that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations:

“ -- prescribing amendments to the provisions of Part III and to the provisions of Part II that relate to the allocation of taxable income and taxable paid-up capital between Ontario and any other jurisdictions, such amendments to remain effective only if enacted by the Legislature at the first regular session after such amendments have been prescribed.”

I just point that out for the edification of the members of the House, because it was brought to my attention tonight. I am not trying to appear erudite. I wasn’t aware of its existence until it was drawn to my attention an hour or two ago.

The member for Sudbury drew to our attention what he described as the big ham caper which was a pretty exciting recitation of things that happened to him in Sudbury this past summer, I would also point out to members of the House, in the event that it escapes them, that I immediately drew to his attention that it appeared to be an offence under the Food and Drug Act and that he should deal with the people in Ottawa. The rest of the recitation dealt with his dealings in Ottawa. I am sympathetic to him. I think he served his people well in drawing it to their attention, but I don’t wish to accept responsibility for something that comes under legislation belonging to another jurisdiction.

The member for Yorkview dealt with packaging. I understand the federal government is legislating on packaging and will be moving into unit pricing within the next two years. I commend this to the people of Ontario. I think it’s a great thing. They have moved into that area of weights and measures which is a federal jurisdiction. I concur that it’s a move in the right direction. But this Act has nothing to do with packaging or unit pricing. It has to do with fraudulent or misleading representations to the public or unconscionable transactions practised upon the public.

The member for York Centre made some comment about undercoating. I have to take umbrage with him. I received his file this week in this matter, although I had some correspondence in the past. He commented that the constituent whose situation he described didn’t have the resources to initiate a legal action arising from an alleged undercoating of his new car. I found that somewhat contradictory. I just found that a little unusual that he was able to buy a new car but didn’t have the resources to compel it.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): The lawyer is a pretty high priced man.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville drew to my attention the question of foreign autos and dating of serial numbers or years of manufacture on the car. I point out to him if he finds this an offensive practice, it will be covered in this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member for Riverdale drew certain things to our attention. He dealt at some length with the Securities Act. May I point out that the Securities Act deals only with a particular form of investment in this business community? This Act deals, Mr. Speaker, with literally thousands of transactions and types of transactions.

In summary I’m going to say that this is umbrella-type legislation. I’ll tell you what the alternatives are, Mr. Speaker. If we don’t have this type of legislation, the alternatives are that for each industry we wish to monitor we will have to pass specific legislation dealing with that industry. We will have to set up an investigation staff, a director, secretary and resource people to monitor that particular industry. We can stay here, Mr. Speaker, till the end of the evening and deal with all the different industries that now are specifically covered -- the television repair industry, the dance industry, the computer dating industry and all these kinds of things.

This is a code of ethics. In effect, in reverse it says here are practices that are not in the best interests of the people of Ontario. Instead of having to monitor 100 per cent of any industry, of which probably 95 per cent to 97 per cent are honest, this will take the bad ones out of Ontario. The best thing that will happen to this province is, when we drive people out of this province, they will be that small three or four per cent that are either inept or dishonest.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is that the “big blue machine” the minister is talking about?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, from a practical point of view in terms of dollars and cents this is the way we have to move with this type of legislation. Why monitor 100 people to catch really only three or four in any particular industry?

I have other things to say, Mr. Speaker, but I will reserve them until we get before the standing committee of the House. I think this should go before standing committee. We had some discussion earlier this evening about it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Good.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Certain other members have said that words like services and material facts -- the hon. member for Riverdale made very specific reference -- should be defined. Maybe they should; I don’t know. That’s why I would opt to go before the standing committee of this House so that those various people in industries can make a contribution at that particular time. Those are the only comments I have to offer at this particular time, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this will be referred to the appropriate standing committee.

Agreed.

Clerk of the House: The 34th order --

Mr. Singer: No, sir!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No.

Mr. Singer: It’s 10:30.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, that is quite in order as far as I am concerned. I think it should be noted that the hon. member for Downsview refused permission to conclude concurrences.

Mr. Singer: Exactly right. I only abide by the rules of the House. Let that be noted too.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will proceed with the resumption of the budget debate as had been announced.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member for Downsview may address the House tomorrow, I think the minister should know.

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Singer, QC.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s fine. I think that’s as far as I need go this evening.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): That’s as far as he knows.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, not at all. I would give notice tonight that the first order for Monday will be item 33, Bill 155, the Algonquin Forestry Authority Act.

Mr. Singer: What happened to that concurrence?

Mr. Martel: What happened to the Ministry of Community and Social Services’ bills?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I will announce the balance of next week’s business tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:35 o’clock, p.m.